Staff Reports
With Matt Gaetz out of the political fray, the establishment left and their GOP collaborators have set their sights on a new target: Tulsi Gabbard. Enter President Donald Trump, who has chosen Gabbard to take the reins of the Director of National Intelligence. One might question her qualifications for such a pivotal role leading the national intelligence apparatus, but the ensuing attacks from the left are not only misguided but also deeply unprincipled.
While the Biden-Harris administration once saw fit to place Gabbard on its “Quiet Skies” list—strictly for enhanced scrutiny due to her travels and international ties—this reveals more about bureaucratic overreach than about Gabbard herself. The “Quiet Skies” program isn’t a terrorism watch list, yet it subjects Americans, including those who have served in the military, to invasive screening based solely on vague criteria. This situation parallels the Obama administration’s notorious FISA abuses, especially in the case of Carter Page, where illegal surveillance was manipulated to advance a political agenda. The use of watch lists to discredit political opponents raises alarms about the abuse of power within the federal government.
President-elect Donald Trump's intel pick Tulsi Gabbard was briefly placed on a government watch list for overseas travel and foreign connections earlier this year https://t.co/SD2k9gYXd6
— CNN (@CNN) November 22, 2024
The second line of attack against Gabbard hinges on dubious claims of her being “compromised.” Senator Tammy Duckworth, among others, has suggested that Gabbard’s foreign policy nuances make her some sort of foreign agent. However, this assertion appears less substantive and more decidedly political theater aimed at undermining Gabbard’s credibility. Duckworth’s accusations stem from Gabbard’s travel to Syria and her outspoken views against U.S. military interventions, ultimately dubbing her a “Russian asset” without any concrete evidence.
Critics like Duckworth focus on Gabbard’s military background, which included serving as a medical records clerk in Iraq, to argue that she lacks the intelligence experience necessary for leading the U.S. Intelligence Community. This smear campaign only serves to distract from more pressing questions about the competence of current intelligence leaders and their alignment with American interests. Rather than engage in a genuine debate over qualifications, the left seems more interested in suppressing voices that challenge their narrative.
Adding another layer to the controversy is the blatant and unconstitutional religious test being levied against Gabbard due to her Hindu faith. Historical instances of religious discrimination against conservative nominees abound, as when Catholics or other orthodox believers face undue scrutiny during confirmation processes. It’s a troubling pattern where candidates are judged not by their qualifications but by their faith, a direct violation of the constitutional prohibition against religious tests for public office.
Gabbard’s confirmation hearings should focus on her capabilities, intellect, and integrity as they relate to overseeing the complex dynamics of national intelligence. Personal attacks regarding her character or beliefs are distractions from the real issues at hand. Moreover, being placed on a government watch list by a partisan administration speaks volumes about the failings of that same administration rather than reflecting poorly on Gabbard. Yes, she may need to clarify some of her controversial stances, but it is vital that the discourse remains rooted in substance rather than the mudslinging characteristic of a desperate political climate.
