There’s only so much grist one can get from pointing out over and over again that Tulsi Gabbard has systematically flouted the deeply-held convictions she once claimed to hold.
I consumed your long, rambling discourse concerning Gabbard. Despite her current position as the head of all the "intelligence" services of the United States as the nation's DNI. I haven't seen any of her influences manifest themselves in the current Trump administration. As a matter of fact, in every recent cabal of foreign policy wonks and officials publically standing with Trump and his world wide power displays, she has been conspicuously absent. As you rightly observed, John Ratcliffe appears to be the official intelligence source Trump is listening to. So I share your consternation about politicos who change their positions on world political matters about as often as they change underwear. She is certainly no different than many others. However, until it can be discerned that she is more involved in the decision making of Trump and company, I personally am not concerned about her changing opinions about anything.
If you're like me (and many others) who spotted Gabbard's fraudulence from the get-go, then none of her moves are surprising. My God, just watch one of her creepy "Aloha" videos, where she's tricked out in her beautifully fitting military fatigue costumes, blathering on about her "fellow soldiers" and her sacred duties. . . . I think perhaps Michael Tracey got bowled over by Gabbard, which might explain why he seems not to be able to fathom her cynicism, her narcissistic ambitions, which require an endless lying performance.
And a performance it is. Gabbard is a con artist, an ambitious politician with utterly no principles or morals. She's always been right-wing and pro-war, and is racist to boot. One of the things that helps her to forward her rancid freight is her beauty. She's quite an attractive woman, and she's got a voice that is sultry and convincing. These physical attributes are no small reason why a lot of her admirers still think that "Tulsi" (even her critics are on first-name basis with her) will suddenly find the morals and principles she manifestly does not have and do the right thing. She will not.
Fraudulence? Seriously? She stood her ground on the Democrat primary stage .. and popped Kamala's empty balloon with one retort. Her appointment on Trump's cabinet, as with all of his appointments, was not a goal anyone could have plotted or planned for .. and if she had, she would not have been.
BFD. What on earth are you even talking about? She's a fraud to anybody at this point with their eyes even half-open, but if you want to continue on as a fanboy of that charlatan, by all means do so, if that gets you through the day.
Do you know her? You are judging an employee on what they DON'T say about their boss? Where are your public statements about your own, past or present? Kamala Harris was competing with Tulsi for a job, she was not her boss, so that is not an example of Tulsi ever doing this. And as a Reservist, like me, it would be ingrained in her to NOT do so.
What are you talking about? My "public statements" about my past? I'm not a public servant, or running for public office. Do you not get the difference? And, "Tulsi?" Both Harris and Gabbard were running for public office. I'm judging "Tulsi"* by her behavior and her statements. And, you're a "reservist?" BFD. Does that mean I shouldn't be suspect of either your or Gabbard's motives? Perhaps you're like her, and have no principles or scruples either.
*What's with the first-name basis? That tells me you're just a fan of Gabbard's, upset with the criticism leveled at her. Why didn't you refer to Harris as "Kamala?"
You speak for yourself, Mr. Reservist. A little bit of valid criticism directed at your dear friend "Tulsi" and you immediately overload and start feeling sorry for yourself and that fraud Gabbard.
You argue persuasively that “hypocrisy” is an insufficient category to describe Tulsi Gabbard’s transformation — and I agree with you on that point.
But precisely because hypocrisy is set aside, the text creates a strong expectation that another causal explanation will be offered. That expectation is never quite fulfilled.
You demonstrate convincingly that the facts did not change, that Trump’s foreign policy record did not evolve in a way that would justify a reversal, and that Gabbard’s pivot was total and narratively unmediated. Yet the analysis stops just short of the only remaining question: what happened on the side of the subject?
Several interpretations remain open, and the text does not really test them. For instance, the October 31's Manama speech you cite could be read not as post-hoc rationalization, but as a last genuine attempt to influence events from within — an attempt that ultimately failed. Failure does not automatically imply bad faith.
Another possibility is simple loss of agency. Integration into a highly centralized political apparatus does not always preserve one’s capacity to act or dissent. Alignment can be the visible outcome of asymmetrical power rather than ideological conversion.
Finally, the absence of justification may signal neither cynicism nor coherence, but dissonance without a viable public language. Silence and conformity are not always proofs of inner certainty.
You are right that this case feels unprecedented. But if hypocrisy is only a symptom, then the analysis needs to interrogate alternative causes rather than leaving the vacuum to be filled, by default, with cynicism. Otherwise, the reader is led back to the very conclusion the text initially set out to resist.
I'm not going to declare a sweeping "causal explanation" that I can't substantiate with facts and evidence. It's not necessary that everything I say or write contain a comprehensive "answer" to every outstanding question. If she has "attempted to influence events from within," and failed, that theory would require evidence, and you haven't presented any, other than your own speculative surmise. No speculation is required to observe that her October 31, 2025 speech was gobsmackingly deceptive. And to constantly search for the most charitable possible explanation for the conduct of the Director of National Intelligence, especially without any tangible evidence, is bizarre -- and no longer defensible, in my view. (If it ever was.) It's an arbitrary easing of critical standards that, I would guess, you'd apply to no other Director of National Intelligence, or similarly-situated high-level government officials.
In your article, the October 31 Manama statement is referenced via a December 1 tweet and a one-minute clip — i.e. through a retrospective framing, after subsequent events had already reshaped the sequence.
I published an analysis on November 3, within days of the Manama speech, based on the full transcript and its immediate context — notably the Seoul economic armistice announced the day before.
That sequence did not ultimately hold as articulated at Manama. However, the later collapse or reversal of a diplomatic moment does not, by itself, establish that the original statement was knowingly deceptive at the time it was made — particularly when key outcomes (such as a formal regime change in Venezuela) did not in fact occur.
Analytically, it matters whether October 31 is treated as an event evaluated in its own temporal context, or only judged through later developments and retroactive reinterpretation.
The deceptiveness of that speech was already more than apparent on the day she delivered it. She stated, on October 31, 2025, that Trump was ending the "endless cycle of regime change and nation-building" in which the US had for too long been mired. Yet on October 13, Trump had explicitly declared that he would embark on an open-ended mission of "nation-building" in Gaza, after having appointed himself sovereign ruler of that territory. You can view the clip here: https://x.com/mtracey/status/1977815878021628292
Moreover, the regime change operation against Venezuela was already well underway. Trump had already deployed massive military assets in the region, was conducting the pretextual "boat strikes," and had announced, on October 15, that he'd ordered the CIA to infiltrate Venezuela. He was also threatening ground strikes.
That only scratches the surface. Of course this speech also took place several months after Tulsi Gabbard had furnished manipulated intelligence to provide justification for Trump bombing Iran. And the speech was over a month after the official re-imposition of UN "snapback" sanctions on Iran, at the behest of the US.
In short, anyone listening to the speech in real-time on October 31 should have known, if they were moderately well-informed about the relevant issues, that it was being delivered from some propagandistic alternate-reality.
One key element is still missing from your reconstruction: the October 30 Trump–Xi agreement in Seoul, announced the day before Manama.
That agreement materially altered the strategic context — not by erasing prior actions, but by opening a potential de-escalatory sequence linking trade, sanctions, and peripheral theaters (Venezuela, Iran).
Read without Seoul, the Manama speech can only appear propagandistic. Read with Seoul, it can also be understood as a signaling attempt tied to a broader, fragile realignment — one that ultimately failed.
My point is not that the speech “held,” but that failure after the fact does not retroactively settle the question of intent at the moment it was delivered.
Maybe the question being posed by this examination is to ask why are we being led around by the nose. Did you vote for either Trump or Harris; how about Bush, or Bush, or Obama? If so that is your answer. The answer you don't want to think about. Don't blame Michael for rubbing you nose in it.
She's a committed grifter for power, will obviously take any position if it means she gets a seat at The Table. A changeling must be shameless in pursuit of its goals. She'll gladly champion regime change and piracy on the high seas, as Trump is now fully embracing, if it gets her on center stage.
There has been absolutely no transformation. She has always been like this, and your “reporting” on Gabbard has always been a complete joke. You were her #1 fan boy Michael. You kept propping her up long after it was clear who she was, and you joined her team in attacking those who were speaking the truth. Shame. On. You. YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY HER PROPAGANDIST.
What made Tulsi Gabbard so appealing was that she was what I thought of as a "real" Democrat, along with Bernie, really the best of the Democrats, someone along the decency lines of McGovern.
But the Democrat insiders hated her because of her style. Yup, that's what it was -- her style. She was (and I quote a relative of mine) "like a Republican". This is flabbergasting to me, but apparently to many people that's what matters most. She was viciously spurned by the Democrat insiders, to whom a person's cultural inclinations are apparently more important than their policy inclinations.
I think Tulsi just became bitter. She's only human, and people are ultimately going to run to where they are accepted. It must have been so hard, it must have seemed so thankless, to try to maintain the idealism associated with a certain group when the other members of that same group are incessantly demonstrating that they detest you.
So Tulsi became full on Republican. She's now even part of a conservative women's group along with the blondies and Miller's wife, etc. She's giving the finger to the Democrats in a big way.
And, yes, she probably is nakedly ambitious. But it still wouldn't have happened, not at all, if she'd found even a small measure of acceptance within the group that she'd spent such a long time trying to idealistically champion.
"Tulsi" didn't become bitter. She's not "giving the finger" to the Dems. She's giving the finger to the citizenry of the US, and the world for that matter. Gabbard is advancing her brand so she can run for President. You underestimate Gabbard's cynicism, her naked ambition. She'll do and say what she needs to to further her political career. That's it. There's something wrong with her on a basic moral level. This can be said about almost the entire Trump administration, as well as the administration that preceded it, as well as Obama and his administration.
You’re being too charitable to Grifting Gabbard. Plenty of people who’ve spoken Gabbard’s language on foreign policy and have gone further than her have stood their ground on their positions. Today she hardly comments publicly on Trump’s foreign policy transgressions. And the few times she does it’s the softest, most tepid criticism I’ve ever heard from her.
The mainstream Clintonite Dems never forgave her for supporting Bernie. And they generally don't brook any departures from party orthodoxy on foreign policy.
The foreign policy of the Dems and the Republicans is virtually identical. "Bernie?" The Dems of course despise that old Zionist fraud Sanders, despite his bending over backwards for them at every opportunity. The Dems might hate Gabbard, but it certainly isn't over foreign policy.
You’re being too charitable to Grifting Gabbard. Plenty of people who’ve spoken Gabbard’s language on foreign policy and have gone further than her have stood their ground on their positions. Today she hardly comments publicly on Trump’s foreign policy transgressions. And the few times she does it’s the softest, most tepid criticism I’ve ever heard from her.
You’re being too charitable to Grifting Gabbard. Plenty of people who’ve spoken Gabbard’s language on foreign policy and have gone further than her have stood their ground on their positions. Today she hardly comments publicly on Trump’s foreign policy transgressions. And the few times she does it’s the softest, most tepid criticism I’ve ever heard from her.
It's fascinating but seems to me ultimately explicable as simple self-interest. It reminds me somewhat of Richard Hanania's well-judged pivot in recent times.
When something appears too good to be true- e.g a drop-dead gorgeous Gen X politician opposed to imperialist war & general hegemon meddling in other nations' affairs - it usually is.
I hate to be consistently correct about everything, but the warning signs were there all along: Tulsi is one of the 'WEF Global Leaders'
No, pro Russia, pro Iran, pro China left wing nuts like you and Glenn Greenwald confuse your position with American hawkish patriotism. They were never the same. You were just confused.
Nope. She's playing it smart. I, for one, desperately hopes she does not take herself out of the game by NOW openly dissenting against her increasingly lame-duck boss. The more interesting case is that of JD Vance .. I have very high, but not as certain, hopes for his authentic emergence post-Trump. I am still very Vance/Gabbard 2028!
(Okay, my real motive is do not see ANY other female visage in the entire political landscape to be sculpted on mountains and currency for a thousand years due to simply being the first. The second woman US President will be forgotten within a century. )
"Spellbinding" may be giving Gabbard more credit than she deserves. Her being sidlined as DNI ostensibly by Trump's first-term DNI (Ratcliffe) just shows how inept she is at her job.
If anything, Gabbard can be shown to be a Russian shill. Her anti-war cries of the past were aimed at Syria and Iran, both Russian allies. Insisting on the ending of US sanctions, you say? Funny, most countries sanctioned are Russian allies.
The Hawaii Free Press has documented her suspicious ties to both Russia and an alleged religious cult leader (Chris Butler) over the years. For instance,
I consumed your long, rambling discourse concerning Gabbard. Despite her current position as the head of all the "intelligence" services of the United States as the nation's DNI. I haven't seen any of her influences manifest themselves in the current Trump administration. As a matter of fact, in every recent cabal of foreign policy wonks and officials publically standing with Trump and his world wide power displays, she has been conspicuously absent. As you rightly observed, John Ratcliffe appears to be the official intelligence source Trump is listening to. So I share your consternation about politicos who change their positions on world political matters about as often as they change underwear. She is certainly no different than many others. However, until it can be discerned that she is more involved in the decision making of Trump and company, I personally am not concerned about her changing opinions about anything.
If you're like me (and many others) who spotted Gabbard's fraudulence from the get-go, then none of her moves are surprising. My God, just watch one of her creepy "Aloha" videos, where she's tricked out in her beautifully fitting military fatigue costumes, blathering on about her "fellow soldiers" and her sacred duties. . . . I think perhaps Michael Tracey got bowled over by Gabbard, which might explain why he seems not to be able to fathom her cynicism, her narcissistic ambitions, which require an endless lying performance.
And a performance it is. Gabbard is a con artist, an ambitious politician with utterly no principles or morals. She's always been right-wing and pro-war, and is racist to boot. One of the things that helps her to forward her rancid freight is her beauty. She's quite an attractive woman, and she's got a voice that is sultry and convincing. These physical attributes are no small reason why a lot of her admirers still think that "Tulsi" (even her critics are on first-name basis with her) will suddenly find the morals and principles she manifestly does not have and do the right thing. She will not.
Fraudulence? Seriously? She stood her ground on the Democrat primary stage .. and popped Kamala's empty balloon with one retort. Her appointment on Trump's cabinet, as with all of his appointments, was not a goal anyone could have plotted or planned for .. and if she had, she would not have been.
BFD. What on earth are you even talking about? She's a fraud to anybody at this point with their eyes even half-open, but if you want to continue on as a fanboy of that charlatan, by all means do so, if that gets you through the day.
Do you know her? You are judging an employee on what they DON'T say about their boss? Where are your public statements about your own, past or present? Kamala Harris was competing with Tulsi for a job, she was not her boss, so that is not an example of Tulsi ever doing this. And as a Reservist, like me, it would be ingrained in her to NOT do so.
What are you talking about? My "public statements" about my past? I'm not a public servant, or running for public office. Do you not get the difference? And, "Tulsi?" Both Harris and Gabbard were running for public office. I'm judging "Tulsi"* by her behavior and her statements. And, you're a "reservist?" BFD. Does that mean I shouldn't be suspect of either your or Gabbard's motives? Perhaps you're like her, and have no principles or scruples either.
*What's with the first-name basis? That tells me you're just a fan of Gabbard's, upset with the criticism leveled at her. Why didn't you refer to Harris as "Kamala?"
Troll alert. Rude and absurd.
You speak for yourself, Mr. Reservist. A little bit of valid criticism directed at your dear friend "Tulsi" and you immediately overload and start feeling sorry for yourself and that fraud Gabbard.
Dear Michael,
You argue persuasively that “hypocrisy” is an insufficient category to describe Tulsi Gabbard’s transformation — and I agree with you on that point.
But precisely because hypocrisy is set aside, the text creates a strong expectation that another causal explanation will be offered. That expectation is never quite fulfilled.
You demonstrate convincingly that the facts did not change, that Trump’s foreign policy record did not evolve in a way that would justify a reversal, and that Gabbard’s pivot was total and narratively unmediated. Yet the analysis stops just short of the only remaining question: what happened on the side of the subject?
Several interpretations remain open, and the text does not really test them. For instance, the October 31's Manama speech you cite could be read not as post-hoc rationalization, but as a last genuine attempt to influence events from within — an attempt that ultimately failed. Failure does not automatically imply bad faith.
Another possibility is simple loss of agency. Integration into a highly centralized political apparatus does not always preserve one’s capacity to act or dissent. Alignment can be the visible outcome of asymmetrical power rather than ideological conversion.
Finally, the absence of justification may signal neither cynicism nor coherence, but dissonance without a viable public language. Silence and conformity are not always proofs of inner certainty.
You are right that this case feels unprecedented. But if hypocrisy is only a symptom, then the analysis needs to interrogate alternative causes rather than leaving the vacuum to be filled, by default, with cynicism. Otherwise, the reader is led back to the very conclusion the text initially set out to resist.
I'm not going to declare a sweeping "causal explanation" that I can't substantiate with facts and evidence. It's not necessary that everything I say or write contain a comprehensive "answer" to every outstanding question. If she has "attempted to influence events from within," and failed, that theory would require evidence, and you haven't presented any, other than your own speculative surmise. No speculation is required to observe that her October 31, 2025 speech was gobsmackingly deceptive. And to constantly search for the most charitable possible explanation for the conduct of the Director of National Intelligence, especially without any tangible evidence, is bizarre -- and no longer defensible, in my view. (If it ever was.) It's an arbitrary easing of critical standards that, I would guess, you'd apply to no other Director of National Intelligence, or similarly-situated high-level government officials.
Maybe you could stfu until you actually have something useful to say? And throw away your thesaurus. It makes you look like a needy cunt.
One factual point worth adding.
In your article, the October 31 Manama statement is referenced via a December 1 tweet and a one-minute clip — i.e. through a retrospective framing, after subsequent events had already reshaped the sequence.
I published an analysis on November 3, within days of the Manama speech, based on the full transcript and its immediate context — notably the Seoul economic armistice announced the day before.
That sequence did not ultimately hold as articulated at Manama. However, the later collapse or reversal of a diplomatic moment does not, by itself, establish that the original statement was knowingly deceptive at the time it was made — particularly when key outcomes (such as a formal regime change in Venezuela) did not in fact occur.
Analytically, it matters whether October 31 is treated as an event evaluated in its own temporal context, or only judged through later developments and retroactive reinterpretation.
For reference:
https://francoisvadrot.substack.com/p/after-the-seoul-economic-armistice
The deceptiveness of that speech was already more than apparent on the day she delivered it. She stated, on October 31, 2025, that Trump was ending the "endless cycle of regime change and nation-building" in which the US had for too long been mired. Yet on October 13, Trump had explicitly declared that he would embark on an open-ended mission of "nation-building" in Gaza, after having appointed himself sovereign ruler of that territory. You can view the clip here: https://x.com/mtracey/status/1977815878021628292
Moreover, the regime change operation against Venezuela was already well underway. Trump had already deployed massive military assets in the region, was conducting the pretextual "boat strikes," and had announced, on October 15, that he'd ordered the CIA to infiltrate Venezuela. He was also threatening ground strikes.
That only scratches the surface. Of course this speech also took place several months after Tulsi Gabbard had furnished manipulated intelligence to provide justification for Trump bombing Iran. And the speech was over a month after the official re-imposition of UN "snapback" sanctions on Iran, at the behest of the US.
In short, anyone listening to the speech in real-time on October 31 should have known, if they were moderately well-informed about the relevant issues, that it was being delivered from some propagandistic alternate-reality.
One key element is still missing from your reconstruction: the October 30 Trump–Xi agreement in Seoul, announced the day before Manama.
That agreement materially altered the strategic context — not by erasing prior actions, but by opening a potential de-escalatory sequence linking trade, sanctions, and peripheral theaters (Venezuela, Iran).
Read without Seoul, the Manama speech can only appear propagandistic. Read with Seoul, it can also be understood as a signaling attempt tied to a broader, fragile realignment — one that ultimately failed.
My point is not that the speech “held,” but that failure after the fact does not retroactively settle the question of intent at the moment it was delivered.
This is one long reiteration of rhetorical questions with no answers. What a waste of my time, and everyone else's.
What are the "answers" you're upset you haven't been spoonfed?
Some people exist just to talk shit. It is their raisin de etre.
Maybe the question being posed by this examination is to ask why are we being led around by the nose. Did you vote for either Trump or Harris; how about Bush, or Bush, or Obama? If so that is your answer. The answer you don't want to think about. Don't blame Michael for rubbing you nose in it.
"It’s impossible to know what Tulsi Gabbard’s “theory of US politics and foreign policy” even is anymore."
Her theory is to remain part of the administration. She's burned pretty much every other bridge she has.
She's a committed grifter for power, will obviously take any position if it means she gets a seat at The Table. A changeling must be shameless in pursuit of its goals. She'll gladly champion regime change and piracy on the high seas, as Trump is now fully embracing, if it gets her on center stage.
"You're not alone, she fooled us all" seems apt.
But I'm still not certain she was an opportunist. It's possible she was compromised at some point.
But, who is knows? Maybe there will forever be only one Ron Paul, and a few Thomas Massies.
There has been absolutely no transformation. She has always been like this, and your “reporting” on Gabbard has always been a complete joke. You were her #1 fan boy Michael. You kept propping her up long after it was clear who she was, and you joined her team in attacking those who were speaking the truth. Shame. On. You. YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY HER PROPAGANDIST.
What made Tulsi Gabbard so appealing was that she was what I thought of as a "real" Democrat, along with Bernie, really the best of the Democrats, someone along the decency lines of McGovern.
But the Democrat insiders hated her because of her style. Yup, that's what it was -- her style. She was (and I quote a relative of mine) "like a Republican". This is flabbergasting to me, but apparently to many people that's what matters most. She was viciously spurned by the Democrat insiders, to whom a person's cultural inclinations are apparently more important than their policy inclinations.
I think Tulsi just became bitter. She's only human, and people are ultimately going to run to where they are accepted. It must have been so hard, it must have seemed so thankless, to try to maintain the idealism associated with a certain group when the other members of that same group are incessantly demonstrating that they detest you.
So Tulsi became full on Republican. She's now even part of a conservative women's group along with the blondies and Miller's wife, etc. She's giving the finger to the Democrats in a big way.
And, yes, she probably is nakedly ambitious. But it still wouldn't have happened, not at all, if she'd found even a small measure of acceptance within the group that she'd spent such a long time trying to idealistically champion.
"Tulsi" didn't become bitter. She's not "giving the finger" to the Dems. She's giving the finger to the citizenry of the US, and the world for that matter. Gabbard is advancing her brand so she can run for President. You underestimate Gabbard's cynicism, her naked ambition. She'll do and say what she needs to to further her political career. That's it. There's something wrong with her on a basic moral level. This can be said about almost the entire Trump administration, as well as the administration that preceded it, as well as Obama and his administration.
You’re being too charitable to Grifting Gabbard. Plenty of people who’ve spoken Gabbard’s language on foreign policy and have gone further than her have stood their ground on their positions. Today she hardly comments publicly on Trump’s foreign policy transgressions. And the few times she does it’s the softest, most tepid criticism I’ve ever heard from her.
The mainstream Clintonite Dems never forgave her for supporting Bernie. And they generally don't brook any departures from party orthodoxy on foreign policy.
The foreign policy of the Dems and the Republicans is virtually identical. "Bernie?" The Dems of course despise that old Zionist fraud Sanders, despite his bending over backwards for them at every opportunity. The Dems might hate Gabbard, but it certainly isn't over foreign policy.
You’re being too charitable to Grifting Gabbard. Plenty of people who’ve spoken Gabbard’s language on foreign policy and have gone further than her have stood their ground on their positions. Today she hardly comments publicly on Trump’s foreign policy transgressions. And the few times she does it’s the softest, most tepid criticism I’ve ever heard from her.
You’re being too charitable to Grifting Gabbard. Plenty of people who’ve spoken Gabbard’s language on foreign policy and have gone further than her have stood their ground on their positions. Today she hardly comments publicly on Trump’s foreign policy transgressions. And the few times she does it’s the softest, most tepid criticism I’ve ever heard from her.
It's fascinating but seems to me ultimately explicable as simple self-interest. It reminds me somewhat of Richard Hanania's well-judged pivot in recent times.
Like Chomsky said the 2 most important qualifications for gaining power in this country, obedience and submission
When something appears too good to be true- e.g a drop-dead gorgeous Gen X politician opposed to imperialist war & general hegemon meddling in other nations' affairs - it usually is.
I hate to be consistently correct about everything, but the warning signs were there all along: Tulsi is one of the 'WEF Global Leaders'
No, pro Russia, pro Iran, pro China left wing nuts like you and Glenn Greenwald confuse your position with American hawkish patriotism. They were never the same. You were just confused.
Nope. She's playing it smart. I, for one, desperately hopes she does not take herself out of the game by NOW openly dissenting against her increasingly lame-duck boss. The more interesting case is that of JD Vance .. I have very high, but not as certain, hopes for his authentic emergence post-Trump. I am still very Vance/Gabbard 2028!
(Okay, my real motive is do not see ANY other female visage in the entire political landscape to be sculpted on mountains and currency for a thousand years due to simply being the first. The second woman US President will be forgotten within a century. )
"Spellbinding" may be giving Gabbard more credit than she deserves. Her being sidlined as DNI ostensibly by Trump's first-term DNI (Ratcliffe) just shows how inept she is at her job.
If anything, Gabbard can be shown to be a Russian shill. Her anti-war cries of the past were aimed at Syria and Iran, both Russian allies. Insisting on the ending of US sanctions, you say? Funny, most countries sanctioned are Russian allies.
The Hawaii Free Press has documented her suspicious ties to both Russia and an alleged religious cult leader (Chris Butler) over the years. For instance,
- Tulsi Gabbard Hires Russian Agent to Keep Hawaii Media in Check https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/20879/categoryId/132/Tulsi-Gabbard-Hires-Russian-Agent-to-Keep-Hawaii-Media-in-Check
- Tulsi Gabbard Office Manager tied to Chris Butler Cult https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/12083/categoryId/132/Tulsi-Gabbard-Office-Manager-tied-to-Chris-Butler-Cult
- After Syria Chemical Attack Tulsi Gabbard Still Flacking for Russia and Assad https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/21492/categoryId/132/After-Syria-Chemical-Attack-Tulsi-Gabbard-Still-Flacking-for-Russia-and-Assad
- Gabbard Attended Pro-Russia Conference in Rome--then invented story about Terror Watchlist https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/41397/categoryId/132/Gabbard-Attended-Pro-Russia-Conference-in-Rome-then-invented-story-about-Terror-Watchlist
The change in Tulsi has been hard to watch.
We really cannot trust anyone in politics.