Staff Reports
In the latest episode of political appointments that seem to have everyone scratching their heads, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence is raising some eyebrows—particularly from those within the GOP. The cherry on this politically bizarre sundae is the selection of former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a figure whose past positions are giving even the most seasoned Senate members a case of the jitters.
It’s no secret that Gabbard’s political history is littered with controversial stances, most notably her 2017 trip to Syria where she had a tête-à-tête with none other than the infamous Bashar al-Assad. This meet-up was not just a casual coffee chat; it involved her advocating to end U.S. support for anti-Assad forces, much to the chagrin of anyone who remembers the Obama administration’s straightforward disdain for the dictator. For those who like their world leaders to play nice, this should raise an eyebrow or two.
NEW: GOP Senator James Lankford says that the Senate Intelligence Committee will have “lots of questions” to ask Tulsi Gabbard during the confirmation process:
“We’ll have lots of questions. She met with Bashar Assad. We’ll want to know what the purpose was,” pic.twitter.com/pFGQJzGC4B
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) November 24, 2024
Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is among those questioning Gabbard’s suitability for such a pivotal role. Lankford’s hesitation stems not just from political rhetoric but rather from specific actions in Gabbard’s past. When pressed on whether Gabbard’s history might impact her ability to oversee America’s intelligence community, he sighed deeply. That sigh could probably be heard from coast to coast as it encapsulated the skepticism felt among conservatives when someone’s foreign policy bonafides come under scrutiny.
Adding fuel to the fire, Gabbard has also been dubiously skeptical of the U.S. Defense Department and UN assessments claiming that Assad gasped away his own people with chemical weapons. She has the spine to question narratives that have historically rallied the troops behind military interventions, which, while noble in spirit, often end up looking like a game of geopolitical whack-a-mole. For a supposed national security leader, such skepticism rubs against the grain of what many would consider sound judgment.
As polls reveal a split opinion on her nomination—36% of respondents think it’s a “good choice” while a competitive 27% beg to differ—it becomes apparent that Gabbard is neither a household name among conservatives nor the apple of their eye. With a firm foundation built on questioning long-accepted government narratives, her history might not just provide the basis for some tough Senate hearings but could lead America into yet another rabbit hole of confusion and division. Whether she can navigate a domestic political minefield that’s already obnoxiously explosive is yet to be seen.
