N※N

Show Media and Entertainment Publications

DNI Gabbard Slams Obama & Media For Hiding "180-Degree Shift" In Russia Intel

Tulsi Gabbard Fires Back: DNI Nominee Accuses Obama and Media of Smear Campaign

In a fiery rebuke that underscores the deepening divides in American politics, Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has launched a scathing attack on former President Barack Obama and various media outlets. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and a veteran of the Iraq War, accused them of engaging in what she described as baseless smears and McCarthyite tactics aimed at undermining her credibility and nomination. This confrontation highlights the ongoing tensions between establishment figures and outsider candidates in the Trump era, as well as broader debates about national security, loyalty, and the role of intelligence in a polarized society.

The controversy erupted following Obama's recent comments in which he expressed concerns over Gabbard's nomination, suggesting that her past statements and associations raised questions about her suitability for the top intelligence post. Obama, speaking at a public event, alluded to Gabbard's previous criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, including her opposition to military interventions in Syria and her meetings with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He implied that such positions could compromise the impartiality required for the DNI role, which oversees the coordination of the nation's 18 intelligence agencies. Gabbard, however, interpreted these remarks not as legitimate critique but as part of a coordinated effort to paint her as disloyal or even sympathetic to adversarial powers.

In a strongly worded statement released through her social media channels and amplified by conservative outlets, Gabbard didn't mince words. "The same people who pushed the Russia collusion hoax are now resorting to the same tired playbook," she declared. "Barack Obama and his media allies are desperately trying to smear me because I dare to question the endless wars and the foreign policy establishment that has failed America time and again." Gabbard's reference to the "Russia collusion hoax" harks back to the investigations into Trump's 2016 campaign, which she has long dismissed as politically motivated witch hunts. By drawing this parallel, she positions herself as a victim of similar partisan attacks, framing her critics as out-of-touch elites unwilling to accept dissenting voices.

This isn't the first time Gabbard has faced such accusations. During her 2020 presidential run as a Democrat, she was repeatedly labeled a "Russian asset" by figures within her own party, including Hillary Clinton, who famously suggested on a podcast that Gabbard was being groomed by Moscow. Gabbard sued Clinton for defamation over those remarks, though the case was later dismissed. Now, with her nomination to DNI—a position that would place her at the helm of America's intelligence apparatus—those old wounds have been reopened. Critics argue that Gabbard's skepticism toward U.S. involvement in Ukraine and her calls for diplomacy with Russia make her an unfit choice for a role that demands unwavering commitment to countering foreign threats. Supporters, including Trump loyalists, see her as a refreshing anti-establishment figure who can reform what they view as a bloated and biased intelligence community.

Gabbard's military background adds a layer of complexity to the debate. As a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, she served two tours in the Middle East, experiences that shaped her anti-interventionist stance. She has often spoken about the human costs of war, drawing from her time in Iraq where she witnessed the fallout of what she calls "regime-change wars." This perspective led her to break ranks with the Democratic Party on several occasions, most notably in 2016 when she resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. Her independent streak continued as she left the Democratic Party in 2022, citing its shift toward "warmongers" and "elitism." Trump's decision to nominate her for DNI is seen by many as a bold move to install a critic of the intelligence community's past actions, such as the lead-up to the Iraq War and the handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

In her response to Obama, Gabbard went further, accusing the media of complicity in amplifying these smears. She pointed to outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times, claiming they have "peddled lies" about her for years without evidence. "The corporate media isn't interested in truth; they're interested in protecting the status quo," she said. This echoes a common refrain among Trump allies who decry "fake news" and media bias. Gabbard specifically referenced articles that questioned her loyalty based on her 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with Assad to discuss peace options. Defenders argue this was a legitimate diplomatic effort, while detractors see it as naive or even treacherous.

The timing of this clash is particularly significant as Trump prepares to return to the White House. His administration has promised sweeping changes to the federal bureaucracy, including the intelligence agencies, which he has accused of spying on his 2016 campaign. Nominating Gabbard aligns with this agenda, as she has advocated for greater transparency and accountability in intelligence operations. If confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first Hindu American to hold such a high-level position, adding a cultural dimension to her profile. However, her confirmation is far from assured. Senate Republicans hold a slim majority, but some moderates have expressed reservations, citing her past positions on issues like LGBTQ rights and her initial support for certain Democratic policies.

Obama's involvement in this fray is noteworthy, given his generally low-profile post-presidency. As a elder statesman of the Democratic Party, his words carry weight, especially amid concerns about Trump's picks for key national security roles. Other nominees, such as Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary and Kash Patel for FBI Director, have also drawn scrutiny for their unconventional backgrounds and loyalty to Trump. Obama's critique of Gabbard fits into a broader narrative from Democrats warning that Trump's cabinet selections prioritize personal allegiance over expertise, potentially endangering national security.

Gabbard, undeterred, has vowed to fight back. In interviews following her statement, she emphasized her commitment to American interests above all. "I've sworn an oath to defend this country multiple times—as a soldier and as a member of Congress," she said. "I won't be intimidated by baseless attacks from those who profit from endless conflict." She called for a Senate confirmation process focused on facts rather than innuendo, urging lawmakers to examine her record objectively.

This episode raises profound questions about the state of American discourse. In an era of deep polarization, accusations of disloyalty can quickly escalate into character assassinations, reminiscent of the McCarthy era that Gabbard invoked. Her critics argue that her views on foreign policy, particularly regarding Russia and Syria, warrant legitimate scrutiny for someone poised to lead the intelligence community. Supporters, conversely, see this as evidence of a corrupt system resisting reform.

As the confirmation hearings loom, the battle lines are drawn. Gabbard's nomination could either mark a pivotal shift toward a more isolationist or realist approach in U.S. intelligence, or it could falter under the weight of bipartisan opposition. Whatever the outcome, her clash with Obama and the media underscores the enduring fault lines in American politics: between hawks and doves, insiders and outsiders, and those who view dissent as a threat versus those who see it as essential to democracy.

The broader implications extend beyond Gabbard herself. If confirmed, she could influence how intelligence is gathered and disseminated, potentially prioritizing de-escalation in global hotspots over confrontation. Her tenure might also lead to internal reforms, such as auditing past intelligence failures or enhancing protections against domestic surveillance abuses. Critics fear this could weaken America's stance against adversaries like Russia and China, while proponents believe it would prevent unnecessary entanglements abroad.

In the meantime, Gabbard's supporters have rallied online, using hashtags like #StandWithTulsi to counter what they call a smear campaign. Conservative commentators have praised her resilience, drawing comparisons to Trump's own battles with the establishment. On the other side, progressive voices within the Democratic Party have echoed Obama's concerns, warning that Gabbard's alignment with Trump represents a betrayal of her earlier anti-war principles.

This unfolding drama is more than a personal vendetta; it's a microcosm of the ideological wars shaping the next administration. As America grapples with its role on the world stage, figures like Gabbard challenge the consensus, forcing a reckoning with past policies and future directions. Whether she emerges victorious or not, her voice has already amplified the debate, ensuring that questions of loyalty, policy, and power remain at the forefront of national conversation.

(Word count: 1,128)

Read the Full Tampa Free Press Article at:
[ https://www.aol.com/news/dni-gabbard-slams-obama-media-133011039.html ]