Tulsi Gabbard faces conservative backlash for abandoning her anti-war stance, silently endorsing the U.S.-Israel strike on Iran despite past opposition to regime change and calling Hillary Clinton "the queen of warmongers." Critics highlight her FISA reversal—from opposition to confirmation—and Trump’s dismissal of her authority, while comparing her to William Jennings Bryan’s principled resignation. Accused of opportunism, she shifted from pro-life to pro-choice, leaving conservatives questioning her integrity as Trump betrays his "no more endless wars" pledge. [Automatically generated summary]
This is an op-ed piece from the American conservatives saying she should resign.
And the person who writes this says, well, we all know that politics is, as the adage goes, the art of compromise, but it shouldn't involve sacrificing first principles.
That's the key thing, right?
If you're going to sacrifice, why would you even put that adjective there as first principles?
You got to have some principles that matter, some things that are foundational, and you don't compromise on those things.
And so he says, it's difficult for ideologues to try to wield substantial power.
Everyone in politics has to determine just how far they're willing to compromise to be productive before violating their own principles or even losing their soul to the process.
Well, I would say that you'd maybe call me an ideologue, but I would say you don't violate your principles.
Now, you can compromise on a lot of different things that are there, but not your principles.
It's clear that after this weekend and the joint unprovoked American-Israeli attack on Iran, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard must choose to resign or forfeit any respectability in the American First Movement.
Not just the American First Movement, any respectability at all.
And the sad thing is, is that if you look at this, if she is doing this for political advantage, for career advantage, she would be better off to take a principled stand.
Now, she has stood over and over again.
He goes through this article talking about how many times during her presidential campaign and when she was elected to Congress, all the different times that she has taken a stand against endless wars, against regime change.
And now she's going to be silent.
And we have seen this already.
She truthfully labeled Clinton, quote, the queen of warmongers, the embodiment of corruption, and the personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, she said.
Well, that's absolutely right.
In front of the National Guard Association, Tulsi said, this is one of the main reasons why I'm committed to doing all that I can to send Trump back to the White House.
I played this clip for you before.
Let's see, we don't have it on the board anymore.
Can once again serve us as our commander-in-chief because I'm confident that his first task will be to do the work to walk us back from the brink of war.
We cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace.
So she says the right thing.
But then when it comes time to do it, she backs off.
She said, we are uniting forces to end foreign wars.
During her confirmation hearing, she had to reverse her longtime opposition to key provisions of the FISA Act.
Remember that?
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I said right then, no, it's over, right?
You've seen RFK Jr. do the same thing, violate his principles over and over again.
Again, the latest one of those is what he's done with glyphosate, praising Trump's executive order to not only compel greater production of glyphosate, but also to give them legal immunity from lawsuits as they have paid out tens of billions of dollars.
And there have been hundreds of thousands of cases.
And the juries have looked at these and you've had scientific studies.
We know how harmful this is.
And juries have awarded tens of billions of dollars to victims of Monsanto.
Trump is going to give them legal immunity from that.
And he's going to push for production, greater production of this poison.
Again, and then RFK Jr. joins along with them.
RFK Jr. knows it's the wrong thing.
Tulsi Gabbard knows this is the wrong thing as well.
As a matter of fact, even though she caved on FISA, she refused to label Ed Snowden a traitor or to condemn his exposure of mass illegal surveillance by the NSA.
So some people held out a little bit of hope for her.
Gabbard confirmed in congressional testimony that Iran is, quote, not building a nuclear weapon.
And Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
And that's the same conclusion that her predecessors had reached 20 years earlier.
But when Trump undermined her influence, including telling reporters flatly, well, I don't care what she says.
You know, she's the director of national intelligence.
He doesn't care what she has to say.
He's going to do whatever he wants.
He's going to listen to Israel.
Anyway, Gabbard tried to straddle the fence, and she said, Iran can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks or months if they decide to finalize the assembly.
A restatement of her initial conclusion, reworded to follow the president.
Well, the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear facilities last year.
There was a public discussion over whether Gabbard was on her way out and disappointment from her former supporters that she was not making a more forthright stand on the facts.
But she caved on that as well.
During a security summit in Bahrain, she gave a full-throated condemnation of neoconservative arrogance in foreign policy.
She said, for decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive, endless cycle of regime change or nation building.
It was a one-size-fits-all approach of toppling regimes.
And we have Ayatollah's in charge of Iran today precisely because of the boneheaded, stupid foreign policy of regime change that we did in 1953 in Iran.
That is a failure of some of our first stuff.
And it's been failing for 73 years.
We've been failing at regime change longer than we've been failing at the drug war.
Imagine that.
And so what is she to do now?
Well, this writer says, talks about how Marjorie Taylor Greene has taken a stand and resigned.
And there's also a precedent of Woodrow Wilson and his, let's see, Secretary of State was William Jennings Bryan, right?
And the two of them worked together and effectively until the outbreak of World War I in Europe.
William Jennings Bryan insisted on true neutrality and he favored warning American citizens against traveling on belligerent ships through war zones and prohibiting American passenger ships from carrying ammunition.
In the aftermath of the sinking of the Lusitania, where 128 Americans were killed, Woodrow Wilson's provocative response to the German government to that, Bryan submitted his resignation rather than carry out the policy that got us involved into World War I.
He wrote, I cannot join without violating what I deemed to be an obligation to my country.
And the issue involved is of such moment that to remain a member of the cabinet would be unfair to you as it would be to the cause which is nearest to my heart, namely the prevention of war.
Tulsi Gabbard should follow the same example, writes this author of the American Conservative.
She should resign her post in opposition to the Iran war and publicly condemn Trump's betrayal of the American people and the betrayal of his promise of no more endless wars.
They Know Everything We Hide00:02:11
She could have a long career of advocacy and public service ahead of her if she has principles.
I really don't know what happens if she continues to go down the same course that she has of compromising on fundamental principles.
Again, she could be even a formidable candidate for president because many people, I wouldn't vote for her.
It's too much baggage.
As a matter of fact, part of the baggage that Tulsi Gabbard has is that she was pro-life before she desired to have a seat in Congress.
She had to run as a Democrat, so she changed her positions on that.
She's not pro-life when it comes to war either now, is she?
And so she doesn't have abortion flip-flop.
She does a war and regime change flip-flop.
She's just another opportunist.
And we should understand that.
The common man.
They created common core to dumb down our children.
They created common past to track and control us.
Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
And the communist future.
They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidnightshow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.