Tulsi Gabbard

[mccoy]

Thanks mccoy you have posted Tulsi Gabbards opinion. Do you have opinions of your own? Anyone can list long opinions others have, it takes more thought and contemplation to express your own on each detail of those of others. If you like her as much as I have let us hear your opinions on her views. She is not here at this time for me to respond to her. But you are...

Steve, my opinion is that Mrs. Gabbard is surely qualified to raise some objections and criticism toward politicians since she has been part of that group for years and knows details we don't know. She was also part of the military complex, which she criticizes sometimes harshly, sure the monetary interests there are vast.

Of course, we must assume that she's not considerably biased. Also, some of her reasonings may have inherent flaws or better may stress one specific aspect more than others.

The opinions of my own, you already know them I think. I was very disappointed by Professor Obama, especially so since I believed everything he wrote on his book (The Audacity of hope). And the same Mrs. Gabbard says she and many other people have been deeply disappointed with Obama, even though for reasons I didn't know.

She harshly criticizes Mr. Biden for a series of reasons. And I criticize Mr. Biden for all the reasons his political adversaries criticized his government, most of which are common sense reasons. By common sense, I mean logical and pragmatic reasons. Our Guru was the quintessential pragmatic man and he would have flinched horrendously for some of the concepts Biden's government supported. Wokism. Defund the police. Compliance and facilitation of transgender proclivities even in young boys and girls. Open borders to everyone. Showing extremely weak in some military theaters, like Afghanistan, whereas showing a strong desire to escalate in other theaters, like Russia vs. Ukraine. Deliberate strategies to suppress freedom of speech. These are my opinions, which reflect in part the opinions of Mrs. Gabbard.

In the end, and I'm happy we agree on this, Mrs. Gabbard seems to be a balanced voice, moved by Karma Yoga and not (apparently) personal gain or greed for power and this is a fundamental aspect, whatever her political outlook may be.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

https://apple.news/AXLvuCh4mQOa0He6WHIB5xQ

[Jitendra Hydonus]

https://youtube.com/shorts/CYBIi01P1a8?si=EzuCebA7ALNWl2VL

What happened???

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Trump says intel chief Tulsi Gabbard 'softer' than him on Iran nuclear issue
By Steve Holland and Trevor Hunnicutt
Mon, March 30, 2026 at 8:21 AM GMT+5:30
2 min read

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testifies before a U.S. House Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 19, 2026. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
More
By Steve Holland and Trevor Hunnicutt

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE, March 29 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday hinted at differences among his top aides on ‌their approach to Iran, saying that his intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard was "softer" than him ‌on curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Trump, who also suggested that a deal could be near to contain Tehran's nuclear ambitions, ​said "yeah, sure," when asked by a reporter whether he retained confidence in Gabbard, the U.S. director of national intelligence.

ADVERTISEMENT

"She's a little bit different in her thought process than me," Trump said aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington after a weekend at his Mar-a-Lago residence in ‌Florida. "But that doesn't make somebody ⁠not available to serve. I would say that I'm very strong on the fact that I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon ⁠because if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it immediately. I think she's probably a little bit softer on that issue, but that's okay."

Trump seldom acknowledges debate among top officials over the ​joint U.S.-Israeli ​campaign against Iran, which is entering its second ​month.

Vice President JD Vance has staked ‌out a cautious approach on conflict and some other top Republicans have privately worried about the conflict's domestic economic and political costs.

The Republican president's administration has given conflicting messages about the state of Iran's nuclear program.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the run-up to the war, some top administration officials said Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon, although others — including the president — claimed that ‌another U.S.-Israeli campaign last summer had destroyed its weapons ​program.

Iran has maintained that its nuclear program was for ​peaceful purposes.

Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, told ​lawmakers earlier this month that the U.S. intelligence community had "high confidence" that ‌it knows where Iran keeps its stockpile ​of highly enriched uranium. ​At the time, she declined to discuss in a public session whether the U.S. has the means to destroy it.

An official with close ties to Gabbard, Joe Kent, who ​headed the National Counterterrorism Center, ‌earlier this month resigned over the war, saying Iran posed no imminent threat to ​the U.S.

(Reporting by Steve Holland aboard Air Force One and Trevor Hunnicutt in ​Washington; Editing by Sergio Non and Stephen Coates)

Rueters

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Tulsi Gabbard is OUT. The "brave antiwar truth-teller" just resigned as Trump's intelligence chief, but not before she torched every principle she ever claimed to have.

The official story is that Gabbard is stepping down, effective June 30, to care for her husband, who has been diagnosed with a rare bone cancer. That is a real and serious thing, and no one wishes illness on anyone's family.

But let's not pretend that's the whole picture.

Reports emerged back in April that the White House had been pushing Gabbard to step down before the midterms. Trump wanted her gone. The cancer announcement is the soft landing for a woman who was already being shown the door.

So let's actually look at the tenure she's leaving behind.

Gabbard came up as a Democrat from Hawaii. She was a vice chair of the DNC who resigned in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders. She built an entire political identity around opposing "regime-change wars" and the lies that start them.

Then she switched parties, endorsed Trump, and got confirmed as Director of National Intelligence in early 2025.

And what did the great antiwar crusader do with the top intelligence job in the country?

She helped justify Trump's decision to bomb Iran alongside Israel, claiming the regime posed an "imminent threat," a conclusion that conveniently reversed her own earlier intelligence assessments the moment her boss wanted a war.

Her own counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, resigned in protest over the Iran conflict. The antiwar icon greenlit the exact kind of war she spent ten years claiming to despise.

Then there's the propaganda.

In July 2025, the entire executive board of the Congressional Black Caucus called for her resignation after she released documents accusing President Obama of "manufacturing" evidence against Trump.

They accused her of abusing her position to spread "a partisan narrative rooted in conspiracy and discredited claims" to shield Trump. The person sworn to safeguard the truth was caught laundering conspiracy theories instead.

This is the throughline of her entire career. Antiwar until war was useful. Anti-establishment until the establishment paid better. A truth-teller until the truth became inconvenient.

She didn't fall on principle. She refused to rule out a 2028 presidential run as recently as this year and got pushed out anyway, then wrapped her exit in a family tragedy.

Turns out the "brave truth-teller" was a brand, and the brand just got discontinued.