Will Tulsi Remain as DNI? Is Bombing Hospitals Permitted Only When Israel Does It?
The rift between the hawkish voices in the Trump administration and DNI Tulsi Gabbard becomes more apparent after Tulsi's exclusion from Trump's Camp David meeting on Iran. What does her future look like within MAGA? Plus: outrage erupts after Iran strikes a hospital in Israel, yet there is little concern over the several hospitals in Gaza that have been destroyed by Israel. ----------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update: Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook
Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose.
Well, the brand new pocket hose copperhead with pocket pivot is here, and it's a total game-changer.
Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home.
When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage.
Plus, your super light and ultra-durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty.
What could be better than that?
I'll tell you what.
An exciting, exclusive offer just for you.
For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose.
Just text WATER to 64000.
That's WATER.
W-A-T-E-R to 64,000.
By texting 64,000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Host.
Message and data rates may apply.
No purchase required.
Terms supply available at pockethost.com slash terms.
Transcription by CastingWords Good evening.
It's Thursday, June 19th.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday, every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight, what will we come of Tulsi Gabbard?
That was the question we posed last night.
didn't have time to get to, but we will tonight.
She spent years Her statement to the Senate in March of this year, when she was already confirmed as his director of national intelligence, where she said the consensus of the intelligence community is that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, was not only ignored by Donald Trump when he affirmed the opposite, but he mocked by him.
When asked about it by a reporter, he said he, quote, didn't care what she thought.
Tulsi Gabbard, that is.
Tulsi has also been excluded from key war planning meetings.
Is there any way for her to cling to this position?
And should she?
We're going to take a look at that.
Then, Western media outlets today are awash in outrage.
That one of the ballistic missiles launched by Iran against Israel fell in a hospital that was used, among other things, to treat IDF soldiers injured in Gaza in order to send them back to the battlefield.
Israeli officials used every single media outlet and social media platform available to demand that the world stop doing what it's doing to honor their unique victimhood and condemn the unique Persian evil.
Of bombing hospitals.
I mean, what kind of evil, wretched, immoral country would bomb a hospital?
In this case, there were no reported deaths at the hospital that was bombed in Israel.
It should go without saying that this is the same country, Israel, and the same people, its supporters, who have spent the last 20 months not lobbing ballistic missiles from thousands of miles away, but using precision weapons to shell and destroy The vast majority of functioning hospitals in Gaza, one after the next.
So how should we react to Israeli cries of victimhood over this singular landing of a missile on one of their hospitals, given that they have invented endless justifications for almost two years now for why it is not just morally permissible but imperative for them to bomb not one or two hospitals in Gaza, but basically all of them?
To say nothing about their far worse atrocities still, is it justified to bomb a hospital or not?
Or have brand new rules of war and morality been invented over the last two years to justify what Israel and Israel alone is permitted to do?
We'll take a look at that question as well as the most recent updates and news about this still unfolding.
Before we get to that, a quick programming note.
As you know, we as independent journalists do rely on the support of our viewers and readers.
One way to do that, the main way is to join our Locals community where you get a whole variety of unique and we think valuable benefits.
And one of those is that tonight we will Take questions from our Locals members.
We already have the ones that you've been posting throughout the week.
You can still post them now.
And we're going to do a Q&A session soon as we're done with this show to stream exclusively on Locals, maybe two or three minutes right after this show airs.
So if you're a Locals member, you can look for that.
That's something we usually do on Friday night.
We may show it tomorrow night on the Rumbles.
But given how much news is happening, it's something we decided we should put on our Locals platform at least for our members.
If you're a member, you can watch that.
If you want to become a member, you just simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Most of you know the Political history of Tulsi Gabbard.
She was elected to Congress back in 2016 as a Democratic member of the House of Representatives representing the state of Hawaii.
And at the time, I remember all the cable networks who aligned with the Democratic Party, people like Rachel Maddow, were incredibly excited about her election.
In the political future, they believe she represented because she was a young, charismatic, telegenic, And this is the kind of thing Democrats salivate over.
Former soldiers or CIA officials, they've been recruiting people like those for a long time.
And so when Tulsi Gabbard got elected to The Congress, representing Hawaii as a new member of Congress, again, someone very young, a woman of color, all the things that Democrats get giddy over, they really thought she was going to be the future of the party, so much so that they made her, very quickly, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
And she held that position, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, into the 2016 primary that, although nobody expected it, Ended up being this very protracted and contentious war between the Hillary Clinton campaign on the one hand and the Bernie Sanders campaign on the other.
And Tulsi Gabbard was one of the first to perceive and then to publicly note that the DNC seemed to be cheating in order to ensure that Hillary Clinton won, even though the DNC's role is to be neutral among the candidates.
She was offended by that.
She thought it was an act of corruption.
And so she resigned to her position as DNC chair, and she went and endorsed Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.
And her contempt for Hillary Clinton's foreign policy and her entire political record was very visceral, very visible, very obvious.
So as recently as 2016, Tulsi Gafford was a DNC official and a major surrogate for Bernie Sanders, going around the country with him, speaking at his rallies, urging people to vote for him.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, and then in 2020, Tulsi Gabbard decided that she wanted to run for president herself as a member of the Democratic Party.
She had a lot of contempt for Kamala Harris, very similar to what she harbored for Hillary Clinton, I think for similar reasons.
She felt that Kamala Harris was just this kind of fake, frightened, craven, I think I know Tulsi some.
I don't want to speak for her, but I've always gotten the sense from what she said publicly and in those interactions with her that there are a few things that she hates more than that kind of what she perceives as cowardice.
I know she's talked before about people who go on TV and criticize people or talk all sorts of smack about them.
And then when they're face to face, they suddenly get very meek.
And I think she sees that.
Lack of belief in Kamala Harris and the one shining moment that Tulsi had in that campaign was she really harmed Kamala Harris in that first debate when Kamala was trying to depict herself as the kind of left-wing but not as left-wing alternative to Bernie Sanders.
So more moderate than Bernie but more left-wing than Joe Biden.
It was Tulsi who pointed out that Kamala was trying to act as though she was this great civil rights leader when as prosecutor she put huge numbers of black people in jail for all kinds of nonviolent offenses.
And it was a devastating moment for Kamala Harris.
She really never recovered from that first debate.
Tulsa's campaign didn't really go very far, but, you know, she got three or four percent, I think, of the vote.
But she definitely made an impact in a lot of these debates.
And she was, during these debates in her campaign, highly critical of Donald Trump, particularly his closeness and proximity to Saudi Arabia, but also What she perceived as his desire to seek conflict with Iran.
She thought a war with Iran would be very dangerous, was very unnecessary.
And when Tulsi dropped out of the race, even though it was still Bernie versus Joe Biden, then she endorsed Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders.
But then over time, she became extremely disenchanted with Joe Biden and his presidency, started to become a very outspoken critic of the Biden presidency, of his foreign policy, started appearing a lot more on Fox News, where Trump...
And then by 2023, she was clearly on the side of the Republicans, and particularly Donald Trump, particularly attracted to his campaign, became a major surrogate of Donald Trump in his campaign, somebody who crossed the country, speaking at all his rallies, heaping praise on him.
And then, of course, that was the trajectory that led to Trump choosing her to be occupying not just any cabinet position, but one of the most important.
Director of National Intelligence, whose job it is to oversee all the different intelligence agencies, the CIA and the NSA, various aspects of Homeland Security, various parts of the FBI, even though that's under the Justice Department, but to coordinate all the intelligence that's gathered so that it's not just running around in different directions with different people speaking in different voices,
but one voice assessing the overall consensus of these agencies, 17 different intelligence agencies, So that she can then present to the president the best assessment of the intelligence on the basis of which the president will then make decisions about foreign policy and wars.
That's what he picked Tulsi Gabbard to do.
He wanted her to clean out the intel agencies, which Trump had perceived correctly, had become rife with corruption and incompetence and ineptitude and especially politicization, and believed she was the best choice to run those agencies for him because he trusted her.
To give him the real story, not to be manipulated by the intelligence community.
And it was very difficult to get her appointed.
There's a lot of opposition, not just from Democrats, but from Republicans as well.
We covered those hearings a lot.
They were opposed to her for all the reasons that we were excited about her appointment, her advocacy for privacy protections when it comes to spying powers, her previous defense of Edward Snowden.
Her belief that we should try and avoid Middle East wars, her meeting with Bashar al-Assad in order to try and tamp down tensions between the two countries to understand better what was happening in Syria, and the perception just in general that she was going to be a kind of outsider.
To me, those were all good things.
To Trump, those were all good things.
That made her toxic to the Democratic Party.
I think every one of them voted no on Tulsi Gabbard.
And they needed all the Republicans, and she had to make all these concessions about spying powers and the like to get their vote, and she just squeaked through.
Trump fought very hard for her, spent a lot of political capital to get her into this position.
Now there's clearly a rift between Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump, and it's not just kind of back stage intrigue, palace intrigue with gossip, you know, appearing in Politico and Axios.
Come forth into the public, and it's a rift that is very substantive in nature.
It's not just a personality conflict.
By all accounts, Trump really likes Tulsi Gabbard personally, always has and still does.
Instead, it's about this perception that she's not on board with his policy regarding Iran, namely that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon and war is necessary to prevent them from getting one.
Here from CNN, this is today, this morning.
Trump's intel chief, Tulsi Gabbard, is, quote, off-message and out of favor, sources tell CNN.
Quote, though she's been among the most visible voices for the president's national security policy, behind the scenes, Tulsi Gabbard has struggled to carve out her own place in the Trump White House.
Recently, Trump has come to see her as, quote, off message when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East.
According to one senior White House advisor, Trump's terse rebuke of his top intelligence official, was that nothing had changed.
They were not seeking nuclear weapons.
And Trump very snidey said, I don't care what she says.
I don't care what Tulsi says.
They were seeking nuclear weapons.
A very public humiliation.
I don't care what she says.
Not like, oh, I think she might be misinformed, or maybe things changed since then.
Who cares what Tulsi Gabbard says?
That's his director of national intelligence, and he's saying that publicly.
Who cares what she says?
Trump's terse rebuke of his top intelligence officials set off a firestorm among the MAGA faithful on right-wing media, long divided over the issue of Iran.
It also raised serious questions about Gabbard's standing in the administration.
Just a month ago, White House officials insisted that the president not only liked Gabbard, but enjoyed her company.
Even as some of the administration believed that she was out of her depth, officials insisted that Trump and his team were giving Gabbard leeway to learn the ropes of her new job.
But that tone has shifted as multiple people inside the West Wing have grown disillusioned with Gabbard's performance, sources say.
Trump's annoyance with Gabbard peaked earlier this month, this person said, when she posted a three-minute video warning that the world is, quote, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before and blaming, quote, political elites and warmongers for stoking, quote, fear and tensions between nuclear powers.
Trump viewed the video as a thinly veiled criticism of his consideration to allow Israel to strike Iran, and many inside the White House agreed Gabbard was speaking out of turn, the person added.
Now we're going to show you that video in a second, but let me just say that I actually, when I watched that video, To me, that meant Ukraine and Russia.
And obviously Ukraine's on nuclear power, but Russia on one side and the United States and the UK and France on the other are.
Maybe she's talking about Iran.
And some people interpreted it as actually supportive of the Trump view, meaning she went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and made a video about the evils of nuclear war, nuclear weapons, saying, I can see the negative effects, the destructive effects.
To this very day, we have to ensure that we don't ever have one of these again.
And you could make the case that that's an argument in support of Donald Trump's view that it's too dangerous to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
But I think what's really going on here is the Trump administration was constructed and I actually was hearing this all the time prior to the election and especially in the transition.
We have people on my show who are very close to Trump who said this publicly.
I've heard this privately.
That their view of the world, the Trump circles view of the world, was that in the first term they really didn't know much of what they were doing.
They allowed too many people into the government, into the administration, into the White House, who pretended to be loyal to Trump, but in fact were actively sabotaging what he was trying to do, sometimes to create favor with the media, sometimes because they were just operating according to their own ideological preferences.
And they were determined to build an administration this time based solely on loyalty to Trump, meaning a recognition that the only decision-maker is Donald Trump.
And once he decides, everybody else's job is to carry that message forward, defend it as convincingly as possible, and to carry out his orders.
And I'm not necessarily even opposed to that kind of an approach, given what I do think happened in the first term, where there was a subversion of the law.
They kept things from him.
They lied to him.
They manipulated him.
They leaked things.
Sometimes they just did what they wanted.
But I never quite understood how Tulsi Gabbard was going to fit into an administration like that because, obviously, she's an ambitious person.
You know, had a lot of success early on, catapulted herself very quickly through the political ranks to become director of national intelligence, overseeing the entire intelligence community, one of the most important jobs in the administration and the cabinet.
So she is politically ambitious, but I also know she's a person of principle and integrity.
I'm not saying she's perfect.
I'm not saying she doesn't make compromises to gain power.
Pretty much anybody who gains power makes those kind of compromises.
And you can find plenty of evidence that she has.
But I know that she has an internal corps.
And I never really could see her being somebody who is willing to go forward and defend views that she didn't really agree with.
She might do it out of a sense of duty.
Remember, she is a soldier.
She's been a soldier for 25 years.
She still is in the Army Reserves.
So she does have that idea of the chain of command, the commander in chief.
But she's also So I'm not surprised by any of this at all.
Here from Axios, this is yesterday, scoop.
I love when they call their own dumb gossipy palace intrigue articles scoops, as though the Pulitzer Committee ought to get ready to Recognize it with the big award.
Gabbard's Senate intel briefing is postponed among Iran tensions.
This, I do think, is notable.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's scheduled briefing with the Senate intelligence community was postponed on Wednesday amid ongoing tension in the Middle East, multiple sources told Axios.
Democrats are demanding more information from the White House as President Trump considers joining the Israeli offensive against Iran.
Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told Axios on Wednesday that despite being able to spend two hours with intel community officials this week, key questions remain unanswered.
Quote, the cost, the duration, the risk to our troops, the strategy, the basics before we make a decision of this consequence, Coons said.
Babbard's team told Axios that the briefing is being rescheduled and there was bipartisan agreement to do so, given schedules on the Senate side as well.
Now, maybe that's true.
Maybe they just all had really busy schedules, but it seems to me like there aren't things more pressing either for the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, or the administration and its leading intelligence official.
Then to go to the Senate and have briefings on what exactly Trump is planning.
The idea that that just couldn't happen because they had scheduled conflicts?
What's more important to that?
Maybe, but it seems like another clue that Tulsi is being excluded.
Probably the most disturbing clue was one that happened before all this happened, which was before the Israeli attack on Iran, before President Trump made clear that he was advised of it, approved of it, supported it, wanted to make the war his own.
There was a big meeting at Camp David to talk about the Iran issue, and notably, Tulsi Gabbard was not there.
How could you have a meeting like that without having your intelligence chief there?
I mean, the whole question is, is Iran getting nuclear weapons?
What's going on in Iran?
What are they planning?
What's Israel planning?
To purposely exclude the director of national intelligence, knowing that she's someone who argues strenuously that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons?
And instead fill it with all the war hawks, which is basically what happened, was a very alarming sign.
At first they tried claiming that that too was a schedule conflict, that Tulsi wasn't there, not because she wasn't invited, but because she was just too busy.
I mean, what would a DNI have more important than going to Camp David to have a meeting on the brink of war?
Obviously nothing.
Her absence was very telling.
Peter Ducey on Fox News last week reported Jennifer Griffin as saying this.
My colleague Peter Ducey is reporting that the president's top intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, was not invited to Camp David on June 8th, where the intelligence and plans were being discussed.
She was on National Guard duty at the time, but U.S. officials tell Peter she was never invited in the first place.
She is in the Situation Room today, however.
I mean...
Probably would have given her permission to be excused from her Army Reserve duty to attend the Camp David meeting, but as Fox reported, she was not invited.
I guess nobody wanted to hear her view, despite it being the consensus of the intelligence community.
Here's a political article just kind of adding some flavor and color to the tension between Trump and Tulsi.
As President Donald Trump privately mauled joining Israel's campaign against Iran this month, one member of his cabinet sent what he viewed as an audience as an audacious attempt to steer him in the opposite direction.
At 5:30 a.m. on June 10th, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard tweeted a cryptic three-minute video Warning that, quote, political elites and warmongers are, quote, carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers and that the world is on, quote, the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Trump saw the unauthorized video and became incensed, complaining to associates to the White House that she had spoken out of turn, according to three people familiar with the episode.
two of them inside the administration and all granted anonymity to describe sensitive dynamics.
Her post came a few days after Israel Hawks met with Trump at the White House to lobby him to support Israel's attack on Iran.
In the eyes of Trump and some close to him, Gabbard was warning him not to greenlight Israel attacking Iran.
Trump even expressed his disapproval of her personally, the three people said.
In recent months, Trump has increasingly mused about Nixon Gabbard's office completely.
STREET ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR MAY HAVE SPURRED THOSE CONVERSATIONS ALONG.
I don't think these people make that up.
I'm not saying they never do, but I don't think in cases like this kind of gossip they do.
But oftentimes these anonymous sources are very, very politically motivated to disempower or detach people who they perceive as contrary to the agenda they want to pursue.
It's clearly an attempt to kind of disempower Tulsi, to leak that Trump's angry at her and raged by her.
I will note that her absence from this discourse, combined with her lack of invitation to the Camp David Accords and any sort of public expression, has been extremely notable.
Her absence has been very conspicuous and very loud.
The canceling of her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, it's all by itself, maybe.
Not enough to be conclusive, but taken together, I think the signs are pretty clear that she's on the outs and is so because she has been a longtime opponent of having the U.S. go to war in Iran for Israel and because she has been,
I guess, quote, "off message" and that she's trying to get Trump to see But the intelligence community doesn't agree with what Netanyahu and Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are trying to convince him to believe.
That they're on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.
They're milliseconds away.
They would have had it at like 11 p.m., 11:01 p.m., had Israel not started bombing at 10:12 p.m.
You know, this kind of idiocy.
That has begun so many wars over the last 60 years in the United States, going back to the lies about the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam and everything forward.
Here's a part of that, what I agree, is a cryptic video that Tulsi posted.
It was on June 10th, just a day or two before the Israeli attacks began.
And it was a very produced video.
She put a lot of thought into it.
It obviously had a purpose.
She posted it on her Tulsi Gabbard X account and I think on a couple of other YouTube, like her YouTube account, a couple of other social media accounts, This isn't some made-up science fiction story.
This is the reality of what's at stake.
What we are facing now.
Because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.
Political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.
Perhaps it's because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won't have access to.
So it's up to us, the people, to speak up and demand an end to this madness.
We must reject this path to nuclear war and work toward a world where no one has to live in fear of a nuclear holocaust.
Now, as I said, you could interpret that as being an on-message video.
That you could interpret as, look, this is all the more reason we have to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon.
It's too dangerous.
Nuclear annihilation is too dangerous for the world.
But there's a lot of odd aspects to this video.
She doesn't actually talk about that specific conflict, which everybody else was obviously thinking of and speaking of.
But also, the way she spoke, she's basically making a disclosure, what seemed like a disclosure, a kind of classified disclosure, like, look, the reason a lot of people in decision-making powers in major capitals, like the United States or elsewhere, don't really...
so they'll be safe, whereas you won't be.
And she said it's kind of up to us, the people, to make sure that doesn't happen.
Now, obviously, she's one of the very top officials in the U.S. government if such shelters exist, and I know they do.
I don't know how effective they are, but I'm sure they put a lot of thought into making them as effective as they can be.
She's somebody who would be one of the first ones in there.
But she made this kind of narrative like she's not one of the national security elites who would get into the shelter.
She's part of us, the people, urging us to rise up against these unnamed warmongers and elites who are trying to foment tension between nuclear armed powers.
It definitely wasn't an on-message video, that's for sure.
I don't know that it was as off-message as people thought that this was a specific attempt to sabotage Trump's position on Iran, though it certainly could have been.
It kind of came out of nowhere.
There was no context to it.
She wasn't speaking in her capacity as DNI.
She just made this trip to Japan to nuclear weapons sites.
I mean, she did it for a reason.
But she didn't want to be very explicit about what her warnings were, but I guess she left it to everybody else to try and decipher them, and at least from Trump's view, that was done not to forward or advance his war designs, but potentially to undercut them.
AND IF THAT WERE TRUE, THAT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL, FOR REASONS WE'RE ABOUT TO SHOW YOU.
JUST BEFORE WE SHOW YOU SOME OF THAT, HERE IS THE TESTIMONY THAT TULSI GABBARD GAVE that there's an order from the Ayatollah to start acquiring nuclear weapons, developing nuclear weapons.
Here's what Tulsi said about that.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Now, one of the things I thought was going to happen is once Trump publicly insisted that Iran was about to get nukes, that Netanyahu is right.
And if you listen to Trump supporters who want this war, to them, they don't have any evidence, but it's just a given that Iran is just on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.
They're trying to get them.
They're about to get them.
And the only relevant question is, do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons or do you want to go to war to stop them?
They don't recognize a third alternative, which is that Iran wasn't seeking nuclear weapons, isn't seeking nuclear weapons, has an active nuclear energy program like they always have.
And it was very amenable to a negotiation that would have preserved the right to have nuclear energy but not to get nuclear weapons.
I mean, at least when George Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to go invade Iraq, they had to, like, engage in a major, six-month, complex, multifaceted campaign of government media propaganda to convince the public to support it, to convince them that they had weapons of mass destruction.
It was hard to convince the public of that.
They sent Colin Powell with all those little They used the New York Times.
They had a whole wide range of a complicated PR campaign that took six months.
This time it's just, it's instant.
You have people who weren't saying any of this a week ago who now just walk around like zombies saying, if you question whether or not we should go to war, they'll say, do you want Iran to get nukes?
It's like the assumption, the unquestioned assumption is that they are, even though Tulsi went before the Senate and said they weren't.
Now, I expected at some point she was going to come out and say, look, that was three months ago, the intelligence has changed.
Maybe they'll get her to say that, but so far she hasn't.
And that is very striking.
And I have to say, I might be misjudging Tulsi.
I haven't.
I don't want to overstate how well I know her, especially I've spoken a lot more to her maybe in the past few years than I have in the last couple of years, but I still don't believe she's a person who would come out and lie and say the intelligence now shows that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon just to cling to her job.
I do not believe she would do that.
Maybe I'm being naive.
Maybe I'm giving her too much credit, but that is my view of Tulsi.
Here is some of what Tulsi was saying when she was running for president as a Democrat back in 2019 and 2020 when Donald Trump was president.
Here's one of her tweets from June of 2019.
"Donald Trump's short-sighted foreign policy is bringing us to the brink of war with Iran and allowing Iran to accelerate its nuclear program just to please the Saudis and Netanyahu.
This is not America first." I mean, that's pretty emphatic, pretty definitive.
Here is a separate tweet she wrote on June 20th, 2019, along with a video where she says, Real Donald Trump, your Iran strategy has been ill-advised and short-sighted.
Change course now.
Return to the Iran nuclear agreement before it's too late.
Put aside your pride and political calculations for the good of our country.
Do the right thing.
And there's a video with this.
Do we have that video?
Here's the video that she posted on that day.
President Trump, your Iran strategy has been ill-advised and very short-sighted.
You need to change course now and get back into the Iran nuclear agreement before it's too late.
Set aside your pride.
Set aside your political calculations for the good of our country.
Just do the right thing.
All right, so I'm thinking fast.
I kept saying, like, we don't want this tweet.
We want the video.
And I kept hearing the people I work with know the video is not necessarily just pick the video or the tweet.
And I said, no, it's good to have both.
And they were right.
I was wrong because it's basically the video is a verbatim replica of what she tweeted that I just read to you.
But anyway, it's good to see her saying it in her own voice.
Here is Tulsi Gabbard in January of 2020, so into the next year.
So she was, you know, way out there in terms of Be one of the leading voices criticizing Trump for moving too closely to war.
Remember, that's when he ordered the assassination of General Soleimani, was engaged in all kinds of rhetoric about Iran.
Tucker Carlson was speaking up in the same way at the time when he was still on Fox News, condemning that assassination of General Soleimani, saying it seemed like Trump was being pushed to a war with Iran.
He did come close to one at the time.
And Tucker's argument was, well, why are we going to have a war with Iran?
How is that in our nation's interest?
It might be in Israel's, but not ours.
Here's what a video that Tulsi posted on January 31st, 2020, about the same topic.
Hey, everybody.
Good afternoon.
I am here in Washington, D.C., and just left some votes on the House floor, two important votes that I wanted to share with you.
There was a bill having to do with U.S. merchant marines with two amendments, actually, to the bill that were very critical given many of the foreign policy challenges that we're facing now.
The first one had to do with a bill that I co-sponsored called the No War with Iran Act.
This legislation basically prohibits the use of any taxpayer dollars to go to war with Iran coming from the administration without congressional authorization, which to date has still not taken place.
The second amendment and bill that we voted on It is more commonly known as the 2002 AUMF authorization to use military force.
This is different from the one that was passed after 9 /11.
In 2001 that authorized our military to go after Al Qaeda and other affiliated terrorist groups.
This 2002 AUMF is what authorized the war against Iraq.
And unfortunately, it is an authorization that should have been repealed long ago.
Obviously, it should not have passed in the first place, but it should have been repealed long ago.
And because it still exists, it is being abused.
To authorize the use of military action where Congress has not authorized it.
This is specifically one of the authorizations that Secretary Mike Pompeo is citing publicly as the legal authority for this administration to go to war with Iran and specifically to take out Soleimani in that attack.
So this action taken today in Congress, which I supported, very essentially simply gets rid of that authorization to use military force.
Once again, if the president wants to go to war with Iran, the Constitution says he's got to come to Congress to get that declaration of war.
He has not come to Congress for that declaration, and therefore the American people, through their representatives, have not had the opportunity to debate and to cast their votes on this issue.
So these are two important things that happened here today.
I'll be headed back to Manchester.
I'm headed to the airport now.
And we have a town hall this evening in Portsmouth, where I'll be talking a little bit more about what we did here today.
All right, so we showed you all that to show you not just that back then she had that position, but how central it was to her worldview, how emphatically she was defending it.
Not just the foolhardiness of going to war with Iran or the necessity of reinstituting something like the Iran deal to avert war, but also the need.
For Donald Trump to have to go to Congress to get authorization if he does decide he wants to go to war with Iran over this.
All of which are completely contrary to what the administration's current views are about its own war powers, about the virtue of going to war with Iran.
And, you know, if Michael Tracy were here, he's somebody who really supported Tulsi Gabbard, who was a big fan of hers, who reported on her, who interviewed her, who covered her.
And he really was a big believer in her and watched as she became a Republican, and then a Trump supporter, and then a leading Trump surrogate.
And he became very disillusioned, claiming that she has a long list of views that she jettisoned and took the opposite position of in order to fit better into Trump world and ultimately get that position.
And like I said, she's not perfect.
Nobody in Washington who ascends to power is perfect.
No one is perfect.
People do make compromise for power, even those with the greatest integrity, or else they don't succeed in Washington.
I just don't believe, I do not believe that Tulsi is a person whose bedrock views of that kind are one she's just willing to radically change, arbitrarily reverse, just to fit in with the Trump administration or be told that she's supposed to do that as part of her service or duty.
I think that's why we're not hearing from Tulsi, and I think that's why she went to the Senate and told the truth, that there's no intelligence that is Supporting the claim from Netanyahu and Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham and all the other warmongers that Iran is actively developing a nuclear weapons program.
And if Trump is in the position where he's claiming that it is, and he's certainly in that position, he said, I don't care what Tulsi said, they were very close to getting a nuclear weapon, supporting Israel's war based on this pretext, then he's going to look at her as somebody unreliable.
And that is the worst thing you can be in the Trump administration.
Maybe she'll just kind of cling to the job and just be completely defanged and disempowered and excluded from anything that's important.
Maybe she will realize the power that she has to speak out at this critical moment, as she did as the DNC chair when she resigned on principle and blow the whistle on all of this.
Maybe that's what that video was for.
And if she did that, my respect for her would skyrocket even more.
And I think that would be a very crucial and important role she will have played in history for President Trump's top intelligence chief who coordinates all the intel from all these agencies to come out and say these claims are false that are leading us to war.
Or the intelligence shows that if we take out the central Iran government, there's going to be chaos and civil war and fracturing of Iran and major migrant problems.
Of a nation of 90 million people, which is one reason why Ted Cruz should know the population size.
If he's going to advocate regime change, it kind of helps to understand what the consequences would be.
If she were able to come forward and do something like that, that would obviously have a big impact.
Maybe Trump's going to fire her.
I really don't know.
But I do know that there's clearly a rift.
There has to be.
every sign points to it.
And I think how...
this ends up unfolding will tell us a lot about the trump administration about its case for war about public opinion and especially about tulsi gabbard Most people don't need to hear this.
They already know this, but debt, once you get into it, adds up very fast.
I'm talking about things like credit cards, personal loans, medical bills.
And suddenly many people find themselves buried under interest with no clear way out.
That's not a coincidence.
Creditors want you stuck that way.
They profit when you're overwhelmed, drowning in interest payments, making it harder for you to move forward.
But you don't have to stay trapped in that system.
That's where PDS debt comes in.
They don't treat you like a number.
They take the time to understand your specific situation and create a customized plan to help you pay off debt faster and save money without needing a minimum credit score.
Whether it's credit card debt, collections, personal loans, medical bills, PDS debt has tailored options to help you take back control.
They've helped tens of thousands of people already.
Which is why they have an A + rating from the Better Business Bureau and hundreds of five-star reviews on Google and Trustpilot.
You're only 30 seconds away from learning how you can become debt-free.
Get your free assessment and find the best option for you right now at pdsdebt.com /Glenn.
That's pdsdebt.com /Glenn.
That's debt.com slash Glenn.
Thank you.
Unless you're living under a rock, and honestly, if you are, I kind of want to congratulate you.
It's not really a bad choice.
But unless you are, and very few people are, you certainly have heard that a hospital, one of the most sacred things that a society has, is filled with the most noble people, doctors and nurses, and other health care professionals, people who provide support, who work at these hospitals, and they're there to treat.
Sick and injured people, wounded people, to try and save their lives, try and get them back to health.
It's one of the most vulnerable targets because it's filled with wounded and sick people, connected to machines and the like.
And that's why watching it bombed, a hospital be bombed, generally produces repulsion and moral repugnance among most decent people.
And Israel tried to capitalize on that by highly publicizing and screaming about and going on every media channel to point to and self victimize about the fact that one of the many ballistic missiles lobbed from far away by Iran, they don't have the ability to have fighter jets go over Israel because they're not funded and armed by the United States.
So they rely on ballistic missiles, which can be somewhat precise, but fall sometimes a little bit short of their target or overshoot their target.
It's not exactly precise as a science.
One of those ballistic missiles landed on a hospital in Israel.
It's a real hospital.
It's used to treat sick people.
It's filled with doctors and nurses.
Nobody died in it.
Israel says more than 70 were wounded.
Here from Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, Israeli hospital suffers direct hit in Iranian missile strike.
More than 70 wounded, quote, "67 people were, 76 people were wounded in three sites in central Israel after Iran launched a missile barrage on Thursday morning, which also significantly damaged the hospital in southern Israel.
Meanwhile, Soroka Medical Center in Beersheva said the hospital was hit in several locations and is currently treating several lightly wounded individuals In the emergency room.
So not only did nobody die in the hospital strike, nobody was severely injured, seemed as though the patients who were there were not severely harmed, nobody in surgery, nobody on respirators.
Sounds like people who worked there were lightly wounded and treated in the ER of that hospital.
It also reported that the old surgical building sustained significant damage and requested that the public not seek treatment there.
Soroko Medical Center Director Shlami Khadzesh stated that due to the damage sustained by the building, patients will soon be transferred to other medical centers across Israel.
Quote, "The building was severely damaged and there is extensive damage from the blast," Khodesh told reporters.
"All patients and staff were in protected areas and all of the injuries were treated and minor." Video was released showing some of the Damage done, taken from the inside.
HERE IS ONE VIDEO OF THE MEDICAL CENTER THAT CIRCULATED ONLINE AND HAS BEEN AUTHENTICATED.
You see, like, the structure standing, but lots of debris from the walls, lots of windows blown out.
I'm sure it's alarming.
I have no doubt that that caused a lot of All right, here's another one, kind of showing some more things.
People running around, obviously distressed.
But the building's not collapsing, but there's certainly windows being blown out.
The structure has been clearly damaged.
And then here is Effie Dufferin, the IDF spokesman, one of them, talking about this earlier today, and this is what he had to say.
An Iranian ballistic missile directly hit the Soroka hospital in Be 'er Sheva.
This hospital serves over one million Israelis, including Bedouins, Jews, Christians and Arabs alike.
Iran targeting civilian centers with ballistic missiles is no surprise for us.
They have been openly declaring their desire to destroy the state of Israel for decades now.
These aren't just words.
Over the past six days, Iran has launched over 450 ballistic missiles and hundreds of UAVs.
This is exactly why we cannot and we will not allow this regime to obtain nuclear weapons or expand its missile arsenal.
And so we continue our operations, striking Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, missile launches and military sites.
All right, so what they're saying is like, look, a country that is willing to As though the minute Iran has a nuclear weapon, they would just drop those same ones on hospitals in Israel, but this time with nuclear warheads.
Needless to say, Israel is a country that has destroyed 20 or so hospitals over the last 19 months alone in Gaza.
They've shot at and blown up and destroyed more civilian infrastructure in Iran in the last week than Iran has in Israel.
They've killed far, far more number of civilians in Iran over the last week than Iran has killed Israeli civilians.
Again, this hospital strike.
Unlike the 19 or 20 they carried out in Gaza over the last 20 months, killed nobody, didn't even apparently wound anybody seriously.
I'm not trying to minimize it again.
It did hit the hospital.
It shouldn't.
But if the idea is like, oh, the minute you hit a hospital, that's proof that you can't have nuclear weapons, Israel should immediately open up their nuclear arsenal, their vast nuclear arsenal, to IAE inspectors, which they've never been willing to do, unlike Iran, and give those weapons up.
Because by their own standards, they've just proven...
A country that hits a hospital or civilian infrastructure has no right to have a nuclear weapon, can't be trusted with one.
They've certainly done that many, many times.
As, by the way, has every nuclear power.
But Israel, with particular indiscriminate recklessness over the last two years, has shocked the world in how relentlessly and limitlessly they're willing to do that.
The Tehran Times, which is an obviously newspaper in Iran, Today had this article, quote, Tehran says Israeli Army Intelligence Hub was the main target of that missile strike.
Quote, the missiles that hit the hospital were aimed at the IDF Forces Command and Intelligence IDF C41 headquarters, as well as a military intelligence facility located in the Gavyam Technology Park in Beersheba.
Now, what they're saying essentially is like, wait, we didn't mean to hit the hospital.
There were IDF command centers very close by that hospital that we were intended to hit.
Like I said, ballistic missiles don't have this perfect precision.
It landed very close to the IDF target, but it landed on this hospital, which was right by it.
I don't know if that's true.
I don't know if that isn't.
My guess is Iran would not want to give Israel a propaganda victory by shooting a hospital.
They'd far prefer to shoot IDF bases.
But there's no question.
And we've shown you this before.
Israel is not like Gaza.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth.
It's a tiny little strip with two million people.
There's no, when people say, oh, Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields because they keep their weapons near civilians, there's no choice.
It's not like there's vast open space in Gaza and you can build a big fence around it and say, here's a Hamas military base.
The whole thing is all integrated.
Hamas is the government.
They live among the civilians.
And obviously, if you look at the United States, they have valid military bases, legitimate military targets in major cities like Washington, D.C. I went to college in Washington, D.C. Right there in Foggy Bottom, you have a major university.
You have a hospital.
I forget the name of it, but it's one of the best hospitals in Washington, D.C., where Ronald Reagan was taken when he was shot at the Washington Hilton.
But right down the street, you have the White House.
Right down that other street, you have the State Department.
All over the place, you have U.S. government facilities.
You have military facilities.
Then you have the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
Legitimate military targets interspersed in civilian centers all the time in the United States, even though, again, you don't necessarily have to.
You have enough space in the United States where you can build those all far away from civilian sites.
But Israel has built all kinds of key IDF command and control centers right in the heart of Tel Aviv, often underground, underneath civilian residential buildings, museums, tourist attractions.
We've shown you all that before.
And there's no question that This hospital is in extremely close proximity to the IDF command and control centers and bases that Iran claims it was trying to hit.
Here from the Jerusalem Post, this is March 30th, 2025, so just two months ago, just a little bit over two months ago, the IDF is moving south and Beersheba prepares with a variety of housing options.
Quote, "For years, the relocation of IDF bases To the Negev has been discussed as part of the effort to strengthen Israel's southern metropolis.
Today, that vision is becoming reality.
In the Gav Yam Negev High Tech Park, the new Technological Center of the IDF's C41 Directorate has been established serving thousands of soldiers, NCOs, and officers.
The Southern Command Base, currently located in the Old City, will also be relocated to the High Tech Park and built on an area of approximately 18 hectares with over 200,000 square meters of built-up space.
About 6,300 soldiers are expected to serve on the new base.
Simultaneously, construction of the Intelligence Campus near the Schauket Junction is well underway.
Having accelerated following the events of October 7th, the campus is being built on 250 hectares with over 400,000 square meters of construction.
It will house 14,000 personnel from various technological and operational intelligence units in a single shared base.
Pisgat Ramat v.
10,000 high-tech jobs within walking distance.
Pisgat Ramat, located in the northern Beersheba, is part of Israel's first innovation district, which includes the city's high-tech park, the C-401 base, Ben Gurion University, and Soroko Medical Center.
That's the hospital that was struck by a ballistic missile yesterday.
So it doesn't take any kind of speculation.
You don't have to listen to anything Iran says.
Israel openly announced, they discussed the fact, the Jerusalem Post, a very mainstream pro-government paper, conservative paper, discussed the fact that all sorts of new IDF bases were being moved to or built in the same park, the same high-tech park, meaning the set of buildings right connected to each other, right next to each other.
Where this hospital is located.
This hospital is absolutely next to or in the close proximity of, certainly within walking distance of, all kinds of valid, legitimate military bases, which Iran claims is what they were aiming at.
Here's Lori Goldberg, who's a Israeli political analyst, speaking on Al Jazeera this morning and describing the location of this hospital and its proximity to All sorts of IDF installations.
As your correspondent mentioned, the authorities are focusing on the hospital that sends a message that the Iranians target hospitals.
Of course, Israelis target hospitals as well.
It's important to mention that there really are various sensitive installations and headquarters very near to the hospital because Israel places its military headquarters in the midst of civilian neighborhoods and towns.
Israel places its key sensitive military installations in the middle of civilian towns.
That's what he said, speaking from Tel Aviv.
And that's exactly what they do.
They absolutely do do that.
Even though, again, unlike Hamas, which they claim does it in a way because it shows Hamas is evil of using civilians as human shields, meaning you can't strike Hamas without striking civilians, Israel doesn't have to do that.
They have plenty of space not to, and they choose to put all these key IDF bases.
Right next to a hospital, in the middle of Tel Aviv and surrounded by residential buildings, actually using their citizens and civilians as human shields.
Mohammed Shehada, who is a writer and fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said this today, "Sorauka, the hospital, is Israel's main hospital to evacuate IDF troops.
It proudly displays this military helicopter poster with the caption, And there's an image,
I don't know if you have that, there it is, showing that this is a hospital that overwhelmingly treats, I'm not saying it doesn't treat civilians.
Although it has been evacuated for civilians, but it treats overwhelmingly.
There you see it.
Soldiers, it's a military hospital.
They call it Israel's Medical Iron Dome.
When soldiers are injured in Gaza, they get taken to this hospital where they get repaired and sent back to the battlefield.
Obviously, obviously, obviously, if there were some hospital where Hamas terrorists were going to after they were wounded to get treated, Israel would feel no compunction.
About bombing that hospital and saying that Hamas was inside.
It was a legitimate target.
They were treating Hamas.
It was a hospital for Hamas.
And certainly if a hospital in Gaza were right next to a Hamas military base, and Israel was like, yeah, we meant to hit the military base, but we hit the hospital.
That's understandable.
Israel is the most mortal army in the world.
The IDF is.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE OUTRAGED TODAY, OUTRAGED THAT A BALLISTIC MISSILE LANDED ON THIS HOSPITAL THAT KILLED NOBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF A WHOLE VARIETY OF IDF INSTALLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT AROUND IT.
NOT ONLY HAD NO OUTRAGE FOR THE 20 MONTHS OF MULTIPLE ISRAELI BOMBINGS WITH PRECISION WEAPONS, TARGETING DESTRUCTION OF ONE GASMAN HOSPITAL AFTER THE NEXT, BUT WERE JUSTIFYING ALL OF THOSE AND NOW TURNS AROUND IN DEMAND THAT THE
Here is Ynet News in October of 2024.
The headline is, Israel's Elite Rescue Unit 669, quote, We have no fear.
We're ready to return to the field if needed.
The daring rescues under heavy fire, soldiers arriving at the helicopter with no pulse.
Let me go back.
The daring rescuers under heavy fire, soldiers arriving with no pulse and surviving in the nightmare moment when they lost best friends in the Gaza chopper crash.
Six elite unit 669 soldiers who juggle between reserve duty And working as doctors at Soroka Medical Hospital explain why, even now with some grandparents, leaving the unit is unimaginable.
So they have IDF doctors, they have soldiers in this hospital.
And again, any hospital in Gaza that had doctors that were claimed to be affiliated with Hamas, those doctors were arrested, those hospitals were bombed continuously by Israel based on the invented, brand new Rule of engagement that if a hospital has Hamas people inside of it,
if they're treating Hamas people, let alone that it's a location where Hamas military bases are, then Israel has every right to just destroy the hospital, no matter who is inside, patients on an ICU, babies in incubators, all of whom have died in many of these assaults.
The very same country that has been doing this, and we've all watched for 20 months, now turns around and says, we demand that you look at us.
And cry tears for us.
Look at the monsters we're facing.
They're willing to bomb a hospital.
Here's the World Health Organization on May 22nd, just last month.
Health system at breaking point as hostilities further intensify in Gaza.
The World Health Organization warns, quote, the WHO has recorded 28 attacks.
Why don't you repeat that?
The World Health Organization has recorded 28 attacks on healthcare in Gaza during this period and 697 attacks since October 2023.
697 attacks on healthcare facilities in Gaza.
Only 19 of Gaza's 36 hospitals remain operational at all, including one hospital providing basic care for the remaining patients still inside the hospital.
And are struggling under severe supply shortages, lack of health workers, persistent insecurity, and a surge of casualties, all while staff work in impossible conditions.
Of the 19 hospitals, 12 provide a variety of health services while the rest are only able to provide basic emergency care.
At least 94% of all hospitals in the Gaza Strip are damaged or destroyed.
Let me just underline that.
I'll highlight it in all the different colors I can.
At least 94% of all hospitals in the Gaza Strip are damaged or destroyed.
Almost all of them.
To a far greater extent than what this single ballistic missile did to the hospital right in the vicinity of IDF bases.
The same country that has spent 20 months destroying or severely damaging 94% of hospitals in Gaza Then have the audacity to turn around and say, "Do you see the unique evil of Iran?
Bail out a missile to land on one of our secret hospitals where sick people are." Currently across the Gaza Strip, only 2,000 hospital beds remain available for a population of over 2 million people, grossly insufficient to meet the current needs.
My view is that it ought to be always condemned when a country bombs a hospital.
Certainly if they do so deliberately, and even if it's by mistake, you cannot accept that.
Hospitals are not legitimate targets to be bombed, and the fact that there's an IDF face right next to it on purpose, or that they take Hamas soldiers, or that supposedly Hamas soldiers are working.
In a basement somewhere.
Doesn't entitle you to bomb the hospital, destroy it, kill the doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, and patients inside.
But that has been the standard Israel and its U.S. loyalists have insisted upon and demanded and imposed, which is why there's been absolutely no outrage from any of these people.
Today, demanding that we all weep for Israel's hospital.
While Israel has bombed and destroyed or severely damaged 94% of the hospitals in Gaza, leaving them with 2,000 hospital beds for a population of 2 million people.
And not just 2 million people, but 2 million people under constant bombing and assault.
And shooting and massacres.
And infection and starvation.
With no anesthesia, no antibiotics, no basic medicines.
Under any circumstances, 2,000 beds would be...
When the people of Gaza have been subjected to the deliberate suffering and massacres and disease and starvation that they have for soon to be two years, obviously 2,000 beds for two million people is unspeakable.
All courtesy of the country today, demanding that the entire world pay attention to this one hospital that got damaged.
And of course, the Western media did.
We know every little aspect of where that hospital was.
We heard from all the doctors.
We heard from all the outraged government officials.
A hundred times more coverage than is given to all the hospitals in Gaza that Israel deliberately destroyed, in part because the international media is barred from entering Gaza by Israel precisely so that they can't cover it.
And the journalists inside Gaza, who are Gazan, who have covered it, have often been targeted with death and have been killed.
But there's plenty of documentation, of video, of everything, and all kinds of reports that enable us to know exactly what Israel has been doing to these hospitals.
Just to remind you of how quickly this happened, on October 17th, just 10 days after the war began, from Al Jazeera, an Israeli air raid on the Al-Ahil Arab Hospital kills 500 people.
Gaza officials say the hospital attack has sparked international condemnation as patients and displaced Palestinians number among the dead.
Here from November 3, 2023, CNN, Israel has claimed responsibility for an attack on an ambulance outside Gaza City's Al-Shifa Hospital, the largest medical facility in the enclave, which witnesses say killed and wounded dozens of people.
At least 15 people were killed and 50 others wounded, the Hamas-run health authorities said.
From Doctors Without Borders.
November 21st, 2023, it's the French unit of Doctors Without Borders, one of the most noble organizations in the world that sends doctors to war zones to treat people when there's not enough doctors.
They said this, quote, Doctors Without Borders is horrified by the killing of two Doctors Without Borders doctors, Dr. Mahmoud Abu Nujali and Dr. Ahmed Al-Sahar, and a third doctor, Dr. Zaid Al-Tarri, following a strike earlier today on Al-Ada Hospital in Gaza, Palestine.
Here from the Times of Israel, March 20, 2024, Israeli raid on Al-Shifa Hospital deepened suffering in Gaza's north.
Quote, the Israeli military has cast the operation as advancing their goal of destroying Hamas, reporting that more than 150 people they said were terrorists have been killed and hundreds of suspected detained since the operation began.
BBC News, March 31st, 2024.
Israel and Gaza, journalists injured in Al-Asqa Hospital airstrike.
BBC News, April 1st, 2024.
Israel's military has pulled out of Al-Sifa's hospital in Gaza City after a two-week raid that has left most of the major medical complex in ruins.
What did they do, by the way, back then?
Oh, they attacked a hospital with a two-week raid.
That left most of the medical, the major medical complex in ruins.
That's the country that did that, is the one that today is demanding that we all express outrage that one of their hospitals was injured and no people meaningfully hurt.
The IDF said it killed 200, quote, terrorists and detained over 500 more and found weapons and intelligence, quote, throughout the hospital.
October 14th of last year from Politico.
Dear Albala Gaza Strip, an Israeli airstrike on a hospital courtyard in the Gaza Strip early Monday killed at least four people and triggered a fire that swept through a tent camp for people displaced by the war, leaving more than two dozen with severe burns, according to Palestinian medics.
That's when we watch video of someone attached to an IV and another young girl burning to death inside of a refugee tent.
We all watched that happen.
Al Jazeera, December 28, 2024, Israeli soldiers burned Gaza's Kamil Adwan Hospital, forced hundreds to leave.
Quote, health officials say that they have lost contact with staff as a northern Gazan hospital after Israel forced 350 people out.
AP News, April 3, 2024, Israeli probe into the killings of 15 Palestinian medics in Gaza finds, quote, professional failures.
That was when they took 15 medics who were trying to save.
Others who were shot by the IDF, they took them, they shot them at close range.
Some of them were bound.
They buried them in a mass grave to prevent anyone from learning what happened.
They lied about it.
As it turned out, one of the corpses that was found from the Palestinian medic had the video on his phone still showing the actual reality that none of what Israel claimed was true.
But they were just shot at without having done any of the things that Israeli claimed that they were approaching aggressively or without their lights on.
The whole thing was a lie, so Israel launched an investigation, admitted professional failures that resulted in the cold-blooded execution of 15 medics.
Let me know when Iran does that.
Here from Reuters, April 13th of this year, an Israeli airstrike has destroyed part of the Al-Ahib Arab Hospital, the last fully functional hospital in Gaza City.
So, there was one fully functional hospital in Gaza City as of December of last year.
One fully functional hospital.
One left was the Ahil Arab Hospital and an Israeli airstrike destroyed part of it.
Witnesses said the strike destroyed the intensive care and surgery departments of the last remaining functional hospital in Gaza City.
In March of this year, from Al Jazeera, Israel blows up Gaza's only specialized cancer hospital in a massive blast.
Quote, Israel has blown up Gaza's only specialized cancer treatment hospital as well as an adjacent medical school, drawn condemnation for again targeting a medical facility which is banned under international humanitarian law.
Friday's explosion flattered central Gaza's Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, which had already been severely damaged by Israeli airstrikes since October 2023.
Israel later confirmed it destroyed the cancer hospital, claiming it was used by Hamas without providing any evidence.
Here's the Turkish-Palestinian friendship hospital.
You can see a video of it.
It was verified by the Times of Israel, and it shows the Israeli demolition.
They just blew up the entire hospital.
Watch them do it.
Here it goes, controlled explosives.
No more hospital.
No more cancer hospital in Gaza.
Is a country that does this, one that you can trust with nuclear weapons?
Are we all supposed to believe Israeli outrage?
Oh my God, can you believe the monsters and demons and devils in Tehran that they would actually have a missile drop near a hospital and hit a hospital?
Surrounded by IDF bases.
When we've blown up or severely damaged, 94% of the hospitals in Gaza.
Here from, go back to that, here from El Pais, June 17th.
This was two days ago.
Gaza's last hospitals faced closure due to Israeli evacuation orders.
Quote, he's on a ventilator.
If they force us to leave, it's a death sentence.
Nasser Hospital, located in Khan Yunis, has become the last hospital in the southern part of Gaza with an operational intensive care unit following the collapse of medical services in RAFA and repeated attacks on medical facilities across the territory.
But this medical center is now surrounded by so-called, quote, red zones, areas where Israel has ordered all residents to leave due to the imminent launch of major military operations.
Medical staff, humanitarian organizations, and patients' families warn that these increasingly frequent evacuation orders and road closures are isolating the hospital from the population it is meant to serve.
In February, Israeli soldiers stormed Nasser Hospital.
During the military operation, several patients died.
After their oxygen and electricity supplies were cut off and medical staff were arrested in recent weeks, sometimes it's very hard to focus on what's been happening in Gaza, just the series of inhumane atrocities, one after the next, just gruesome human evil.
Unlike what most wars entail, you don't see this sort of thing happening every day to civilians in...
far greater military power that Russia has over Ukraine, the fact that they could kill a lot more civilians, and the much higher numbers of civilians who live in Ukraine.
Far more.
Not even close.
And so then you just read something like this.
During the Israeli military operation, and by Israel, or Israeli, that means the same country that today is saying that it's the greatest evil they've ever seen, that a ballistic missile fell in one of their hospitals.
During the military operation performed by Israel in Asherah Hospital, several patients just died after the oxygen and electricity supplies were cut off and medical staff were arrested.
Just let the patients die.
We're going to arrest the doctors and the nurses.
We're going to cut off the electricity, no more respirators, no more oxygen.
Sorry, just those patients have to die.
We don't know who they are, but they're in the hospital that we want to destroy, so it's time for them to go.
In recent weeks, the Israeli military has also issued new evacuation orders for the area surrounding Nasser Hospital and has reduced the so-called safe zone to an area barely larger than the perimeter of the medical center.
So, no.
No, Israel does not have the right to apply one set of rules of war engagement for itself and then adopt the radically different set that permits it to do all the things on purpose that it screens and whines and complains about when done to it, not even necessarily on purpose.
And the rationale or justification they use, oh, there was like a Hamas guy near there.
We think that some of these doctors were treating Hamas patients.
We think they're part of Hamas, which is the government in Gaza.
So therefore, we're allowed to shut down the hospital, blow it up, etc.
That all justifies what Iran did as well.
Given the deliberate placement of IDF command and control bases right next to this hospital, the fact that it was a military hospital treating all kinds of soldiers who are obviously targets, legitimate targets, in order to send them back to the battlefield in Gaza.
But if you're outraged by what Iran did to that Israeli hospital, you should be filled with rage.
Uncontrollable, unprecedented, and incomparable rage over what Israel has been doing with American weapons, with American money, with American diplomatic support.
It's always important to add.
Not just to one hospital, but to the entire system of hospitals and healthcare facilities in Gaza, leaving this population not only murdered and slaughtered and massacred, starved, Denied basic medicine, filled with all kinds of dirty water and infection, but purposely destroying the health care system that might actually be able to treat them when they get sick or when they get wounded.
So yeah, I am in the view that it's a bad thing always when a military bombs or strikes a hospital.
But because that's my view, I have infinitely more outrage for Israel.
Over what they've done for 19 months, doing this over and over in the most gruesome ways imaginable, and then trying to turn around and, as always, demand that everyone recognize them, the perpetrators of the worst war crimes of the century, as the victims for whom we're all supposed to stop what we're doing and shed tears.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As I mentioned, we will be moving to Locals right now, our Locals platform for our members.
We're going to have a Q&A.
We're going to take the questions that have been submitted throughout the week, including today, by our local members, answer as many of them as we can.
If you're interested in joining us and you're not already a member, you can...
It goes to greenwald.locals.com, where you can simply scan the QR code that's on the screen right now behind me that will enable you to become a local member.
Right away, you'll be able to watch a lot of the original video content that we do, including this Q&A that we're going to do for our local members answering their questions.
We put a lot of other benefits that we've described many times before, but also it is really the community on which we most rely.
To support and enable the independent journalism that we do here every night, by definition, the independent journalists require the support of their viewers and members in order to sustain the independent journalism.
We don't have the corporation behind us paying for it.
That is how independent journalists and independent media survives and sustains itself, until that lets it grow.
So if you want to join and watch our Q&A live stream on the Rumble's, on the Locals platform, you can do so to join, but it also will strengthen and enable the ongoing journalism that we do here every night.
And for those who have been watching this show, we are, of course, very appreciative.
We hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern live exclusively here on Rumble.
