Thank you, and I agree that the ethical thing for Tulsi Gabbard to do now would be to resign along with Joe Kent. Some say she's walking a thin line to hold on to her job and that eventually Trump will fire her anyway. One way of parsing her answers to Senator Ossoff's questions is that she was being very cagey to make sure all future blame on this debacle of a war goes to Trump and not her. She said "we gave the President all the inputs, ....." and the decision on whether there was an imminent threat was his alone. So without contradicting him or disagreeing with his decision, which would have been the honest and honorable thing to do, she cleverly distanced herself from future culpability. Sad to see, as I used to be a fan of hers, too.
That's a good point. However it is unfortunate that she must play these games to deflect responsibility. I think that the DNI's raison d'etre is to identify imminent threats to the country, no matter what she says in a hearing.
Why is everyone in the Anti-War movement picking on Tulsi now, like a total focus on Tulsi? The simple truth is if she stood up for the truth she would be fired and replaced with one of the neocon toadies who would be just lovin' the prospect of starting WW3 because in their version of the Bible that will usher in The Savior, and then we'll have Paradise.
Same may be true of JD Vance, he has to play along if he has any chance of ever changing things.
I would rather keep those two in the background, hoping that deep down they're one of us but are waiting for the best opportunity to cause a drastic change. Such secret revolutionaries are more often than not the ones that facilitate revolution, not the very loud and vocal ones on the outside.
If you want to pick on someone pick on one of the many Neocon Minions of the Central Bank cult who are really calling the shots on this Iran misadventure.
We are being set up for another Covid style economic debacle. Disaster Capitalism at its finest.
I am not picking on her. I pointed out her commitment to our country and not party just six years ago, cited her military service and participation in National Intelligence while she served on House Subcommittees. I then agreed that she was worthy of the DNI post. I even offered personal observations of her, her sincerity and warmth. My criticism of her was around the opportunity she is wasting at this moment, both for her country and for her political aspirations.
I also think that focus on her is justified. As the DNI she is playing a crucial role in the decision making process around taking this country into another war.
That still doesn't change the fact that if she does more than she has been doing in that direction, she will be fired. And guaranteed the new guy is going to be worse, much worse. It's like the US hating and killing the Ayatollah, thinking the next guy will be better. He wasn't.
It doesn't matter if the "new guy" does what she is doing with more enthusiasm. Her resignation will be more than symbolic. Once free of the chain of command she can start saying what she really thinks. If aligns with Joe Kent it will have a tremendous impact on public opinion.
'Picking on Tulsi?" Huh? Gabbard is an avowed Islamophobe and a known supporter of the state of Israel. Her friendships with Miriam Adel$on and Shmuley Boteach are legendary. THAT is why the criticisms/observations of her recent statements in CON gress deserve further scrutiny.
You can say that about 90% of the Congress & Senate. I don't like it, most Americans don't like it, but there is whole lot worse than Tulsi, which is also 90% of Congress & Senate. So why aren't you focused on any of them?
Why? Because we aren't talking about them. The subject is DNI Tulsi Gabbard who I have followed (even admired) for many years. This 'whole lot worse' thing that many Americans land on is really why we are in the shape we are. Always with the 'better than...' or 'worse than...'. We really need to be way more particular than accepting who we have. Currently there are only two or three sitting elected officials in CON gress who really represent the people: Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, John Kennedy and...do you know a few? I just chose a random few that have been outspoken of late on a variety of issues. And that's out of nearly 500 people on the taxpayer's payroll.
But why aren't you talking about them, instead of holding Tulsi's feet to the fire? Obviously all of them, including RFKjr, have to suck up to Trump, as he is a narcissist and egomaniac. Even Kent had to suck up until he decided to resign. But within certain constraints they have the ability to do a lot of good, that is not what the establishment wants. And would just love to get rid of them or get them to quit so they can put one of their manikins in their place.
I agree that they have the ability to do a lot of good. My point is that Tulsi could do more good by resigning than going along. We are talking about her right now because she is in charge of the IC, a wing of our government whose mission is to inform the POTUS around matters of national security.
To repeat, in this context, in this conversation we are not talking about anyone but Gabbard and, maybe by extension- Joe Kent. I think there are other people being 'sucked up' to besides Trump. Trump too is operating at their bidding. That phrase: holding feet to the fire. Ha! I hear that EVERY election season...'we'll hold their feet to the fire once they are in'. What a farce! That never, ever works. Once they are 'in' they are in- now that's about elected officials. Appointed officials are another matter and all of them at the Cabinet level (RFKjr and Gabbard) work at the pleasure of the President. Anyway- you are straying from the main argument here which is WHY Tulsi Gabbard pretended to be in synch with Kent and the Administration when mere months ago she testified that Iran was not an existential threat to the US.
Yes, and I was also talking about Gabbard. How I've been seeing this sudden bashing of Gabbard, kind of a swarming, all over the internet. This article is just one of many. It reminds me of all the concerted attacks on Tucker after they assassinated Charlie Kirk. So it is totally legit to question that laser focus on Gabbard, while ignoring the vastly more significant numbers of politicians who are in fact collaborators and treasonous traitors for foreign powers.
Why Tulsi modified her Iran threat assessment is pretty obvious. Because Trump, out of the blue, went to war with Iran, an entirely wacko thing to do. And if you know Trump, and the minions controlling him, dissent on that issue will not be tolerated. Play ball or be fired. That's her choice. And on topic, I'm saying that her best choice was to play ball while thinking some day, at the right time, she will undermine the traitors.
The seminal clear and poignant voice rises again. Your presence in the American and Global conversation is so appreciated and needed. Props to you my very good fellow. Hello .....? Anybody (and everybody should) out there listening to Madhava??? This is a timely challenge, respectfully (and I believe lovingly) beckoning Tulsi, one of us I think, who I still believe can stand up for honest, constitutionally, and humanely aligned values, not to cave in here. Stand tall Girl. Settle for nothing less than the principles we know you truly represent - for the integrity of Constitutional values and the love and respect for our American brothers and sisters, and all people throughout the world. Peace is really so easy and a truly natural phenomenon. We've been tricked into believing otherwise.
The Star Trek episode is a great parallel. The values of Picard are something Tulsi can rise to. Stand up Tulsi. Ps Joe Kent’s from Washington, the state that is.
It can only be scripted and Trump has the role of Zionist, totalitarian bogeyman. Objectively, anyone he lavishly praises ends up being exposed in an unflattering spotlight (Bibi, Bourla, NATO) whilst anyone he aggressively denigrates (Massie, Gubbard, Paul) and/or who appear dangerously anti-narrative (RFK) are left free rein to expose the rot and appear positively in the public eye. The deep state enemies are so entrenched that the exposure has to be outsourced to apparently "disloyal" mavericks but awakening public opinion is a long, thankless task with victory uncertain.
I wander if this energy crisis was all planned out at the last Bilderberg meeting. Like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. It was leaked that in the previous Bilderberg meeting the Bankster Club were planning a major jump in the price of oil.
Of course this is the country of « free speech » and you have the right to express your opinion here. So do I.
But still. One might find your call for resignation (or rebellion) to DNI Tulsi Gabbard look like incitement to sedition. You say :
« She, of all people, knows that her boss decided to start a war on a whim. (…) If she joined ranks with Joe Kent it might be the push needed to finally swing public opinion far enough away from the Trump agenda that the military would refuse to follow his orders. (…) what good would that do if whoever is Commander-in-Chief cannot compel this country’s fighting force (the army) to comply with specific orders? (…) your boss is holding on to his job by a thread (…) perhaps the most obviously compromised administration in modern times (…) if you still have political ambitions now would be the time to jump ship (…) Resign before you are frivolously dismissed for not showing enough conviction. »
You claim that this war sits on the false pretense of destruction of nuclear menace from Iran.
Many beleive that the stakes are much higher.
The aim is to attack the globalist’s ventures in which Iran and Venezuela have been important allies for years. To drain the swamp, as your ugly president has put it.
But you fail to see or refuse to consider this possibility.
You « of all people » should grasp the seriousness of the present situation.
If Trump doesn’t do it, if the US don’t act now, our world might very well be at lost.
What we are living now is not just « another conflict ». We are in a war with evil forces. A decisive one. We have to chose a side.
Jo, I think it would be helpful to recognize that our fundamental beliefs differ before using the term "sedition".
Sedition: "Sedition is conduct, speech, or writing aimed at inciting rebellion, insurrection, or resistance against lawful authority and the government in power".
Can you see the problem here? I don't believe the administration in power in this country is lawful. I believe, like Joe Kent, that our President has been compromised by Israel.
Though Tulsi refuses to directly acknowledge that the intelligence community has concluded that there was no imminent threat from Iran, Joe Kent does. Tulsi also confirms that nine months ago the nuclear threat from Iran was obliterated and no effort has been made to rebuild it. She is basically saying it doesn't matter what the intelligence community thinks, it's all up to the President's judgement. If his decision is not based in fact, it must be based on a whim or something else.
I don't believe that Iran and Venezuela are part of a globalist agenda. In fact I think they oppose it. Both countries are willing to sell their oil for other currencies. If there is a globalist agenda, it must be facilitated through the banking system and reserve currency which is the US dollar.
That is my rationale and it is unfair to state that I "fail to see or refuse to consider this possibility." I have considered it and have discarded it for this reason.
I agree that we are in a war with evil forces, and I have chosen a side.
But I am not condoning a violent overthrow of our government. I noting that if our fighting force refuses to execute orders to attack Iran, the executive branch has lost all sway over us. DNI Gabbard could make that happen. It would be a non-violent means of beginning the process of replacing our President, whom I think is compromised, with someone else who reflects sensibility. That is my opinion.
Thank you for the comment. I write this newsletter to create a space where differing opinions can be expressed safely. No one has to pay to express their view here.
I think we can agree that we disagree. And it’s ok. Two points I wish to make:
a majority of people elected this governement. It is therefore totally « lawful », as they represent the voice of the majority, wether one agree with it or not. We are still in a democracy. For many, the last US administrations made many questionable decisions to say the least. They were « out-voted », not outlawed. Why would the present one be treated differently? As you well know, if we lived in today’s Iran we could not express any dissenting opinion. I know this for a fact.
Secondly, we must remember that we don’t know everything that goes on behind the scene. For example, what are Israel’s true plans? I do not trust them and suspect some nefarious goals (like the creation of Greater Israel?).
Jo, your Postings have pumped my Hope Factor by several Orders of Magnitude. I do not need the CIA, FBI, QRZ, PST, LGB, or some "disinterested" third party to tell me if the oppressive regime in Iran is an imminent threat. I know they are a permanent imminent threat because I read a Book once.
Well, after re-reading Jo's entry, I sense that he/she is serious. However, I believe that 'reading a book', dooprosses, about a nation that has existed for 3,000 years (Iran) and arriving at the position that it has 'done much harm over the years to its people and abroad' really begs exploration. When/where has Iran done ANY harm overseas? To whom? When? Much of the info we westerners receive vis a vis any 'harm' done to its citizens is filtered through the prism of a bought media. Then, not unlike Cuba, you have significant numbers of ex-patriots who wish for their nation to return to whichever entity it was when they left their country as refugees or asylees. Usually, those folks are well-off and inveigh their desires via political means- I'm thinking of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as examples. On the Iran side we have the pro-Shah (Reza Pahlavi) side whose lavish lifestyle is well-known. So, so much to this and we have to resist oversimplifying this so-called 'imminent threat'. Gabbard said there wasn't one 9 months ago, 'suddenly' she has dramatically shifted her position. Which is it?
The name of the country 'Persia' was changed in 1935 to Iran by Shah Reza Pahlavi for the purpose of restoring the historical, native name and removing the colonialist name. It has been officially called Iran since then. There is plenty of info online that expands on this change.
After watching the brutalization and destruction of the Persian People for many decades at the hands of their oppressors, and now, hearing the cries for help from the Persian People, it is nonsense to say that President Trump and Tulsi are acting on a whim.
Are you suggesting that Joe Kent was wrong in his assessment? Is it possible that there is oppression of the Persian people and that the decision to bomb their country was unjustified with respect to our national security?
In my opinion Joe Kent is not wrong nor right. He is a young man trying to endure unspeakable loss and grief which an empath would perceive as insurmountable burdens of Cognitive Dissonance. My Consciousness is weeping for him as for myself. The heat of the Burden is heavy in my shoulders, as I have walked similar paths as he has. The USA is not bombing Persia. The USA is eradicating merciless perpetrators of sub-human perversions that have been killing and threatening the American People for at least the last forty-seven years. At the beleaguered request of the indomitable, beautiful, and Free People of Persia, the USA is finally reaching out to the desperate arms of those who needed us half a century ago. Our greatest Task is protecting vulnerable Persians until they are Restored and Free from Arrogant Abusive Artificers of Avarice that seem to permeate the Human Experience.
Some interesting news today about the not-dangerous-totally-peace-loving Iran. Today from the Business Standard and Wall Street Journal:
“Iran fires two missiles at Diego Garcia, signalling extended strike range.” (...) "Iran has long publicly claimed to voluntarily cap its ballistic missiles at around 2,000 km."
Oups, they lied: the Diego Garcia, where British and US military bases sit, "is 4,000 kilometers from the nearest launch point in Iran" (...) : the IRGC launched two intermediate-range ballistic missiles —missiles it supposedly didn’t have— at Diego Garcia".
"A ballistic missile with an actual range of 4,500 km, if launched from western Iran, could theoretically strike most of Western Europe, reaching as far as southern England."
"Here’s the question: if Iran successfully concealed its lies about its “voluntary cap” on long-range missiles— what else has it lied about? What about its “voluntary restraint” from developing nuclear weapons?"
The US Administration "might’ve had a key reason (for attacking Iran) apart from Trump having a bad day or being somebody’s puppet?"
Just looking at the photo of her with her lips pressed tight together, body language reads she will not allow herself to speak. Holding back. She is lying and she knows it. May her conscience eat her alive compelling her to speak the truth she knows in her heart.
I do not know how long you have known Tulsi. I have known Tulsi for a long time. She is not a liar. Judging from your presumptuous perfunctory analysis above an educated eye of genuine intellect would remind you that Curses are like young chickens, they always come home to roost. Your impertinence could not survive a moment in her presence.
Lots of assumptions on your part Mr Kent claims the Iranian Fawta against nuclear weapons as a major part of his argument against the imminent threat determination but beyond a generic statement at a conference by a leader of a religious organization that embraces lying as a part of its culture there is no direct evidence of any such commitment against Nuclear weapons by Iran. I don’t know nor do you what Tulsi knows. The only thing we can be assured of is that all of the principles are lying to us in some manner. I am in the camp that Tulsi is a true patriot who wants what’s best for America and in a situation where there is only two shitty choices she is making the less shitter choice in staying because she can have no effect from the outside vs being inside and making positive changes even if we are unable to see them now. Pray it’s all we can do now.
You don't think the DNI is able to identify imminent threats to the United States? What or who informs the President to make that determination if it is not his own Intelligence Community?
I am not making any assumptions. I am merely demonstrating the conflicting perspective from the two highest ranking intelligence officers in our country. And, in reality, they aren't actually in conflict. One says there is no imminent threat. The other says that Iran's nuclear capability was obliterated 9 months ago but refuses to admit that there is no imminent threat now.
Quit the pre-crime punishments. They're guilty because they look and sound guilty even if they haven't committed the crime. Maybe the authorities will apply that Gold Standard that you advocate, against you.
There is zero evidence that Iran is or intends to build a nuclear weapon. And they are a signatory of the NNPT. Unlike Israel, and that also has many nuclear weapons and illegally developed them and lied repeatedly about it. They attacked the USS Liberty and killed 34 soldiers once. Whose to say they won't fly as a friendly to Washington and drop one of their nukes there?
No I didn't. I said by your logic we could just as easily worry Israel could attack the US with a nuclear weapon. They have them, zero doubt of that. And they have directly attacked a US ship, proven from past behavior. So why aren't you spreading Fear Porn over that more likely scenario?
I listened at length to Kent discuss his resignation and explain the features of the run up to war and much more. I got a very good sense of his position on the issues, and his knowledge, experience and character.
He didn’t mention the fatwa at all and didn’t need to. Calling it a major part of his argument just doesn’t land at all for me
As for the lying it’s said truth is the first casualty of war
Helpful to look where the loudest say we shouldn’t and listen to the people they want to shut down.
Don’t Trump supporters remember all the censorship and cancel culture when anything, not on narrative was misogynistic, racist, trans phobic??
Now the shriekers are calling to disavow many prominent Trump supporters and the best questions to the pro war on Iran mob reliably bring immediate cries of antisemitism
Well. “We see you and We’re not listening anymore!!”
As for Tulsi, I’m with you. I believe she’s a true patriot. And the essay here doesn’t make a dent in that for me, not at all.
Our author first lost me at
“it is only uncomfortable because you believe your job is to do the President’s bidding.”
This is a reactive and low resolution take and passes unwarranted judgement.
She’s moving to keep moving, where and how she can.
Near closing he decries Tulsi’s honesty with the claim:
“your compunction is written all over your face”. Another ad hominem attack AND fail. I did not see compunction at all. More like conscious intentional determination. Not even grim determination. She knows what she’s up against, she’s dealt with this a lot, and she’s quite admirable into her capability to stand against it without losing her cool and more importantly her connectedness.
I won’t go into it here, but I have a pretty good idea of what she is up to. You touched on it in your post about her working from the inside. She has already gotten some very significant things done on other fronts. But her title DNI has come to mean do not invite when it comes to the machinations of military planning, etc., in the administration.
I don’t know for sure but it seems entirely plausible that after the IC fulfills its duty to submit all the reports that legally the “buck
stops here” with the president
So yes, I pray for Tulsi and I pray for the president. Kent had some very good and illuminating things to say about President Trump and I think he has it right…
The president, however, really displeased me again with his remarks about Kent‘s resignation.
Further, it’s not likeTulsi‘s resignation would move the needle for Trump
I pray God that our future and safety don’t depend on President Trump admitting he’s made a mistake, but with God all things are possible.
Lastly, it’s taken a lot of time to get here about the situation in the Middle East but I can imagine a way forward, even as things have become so dark and threats loom largest yet. I have seen miracles again and again since 2024 why not some more
Keep the faith people, best case scenario when we voted for Trump we were voting for a mutiny against nearly impossible odds, and even a successful continuance/conclusion to the original American revolution.
Real Hope, and hope we must is a theological virtue meaning it comes from God it is of God who is eternally Life
Personally, I hope people are learning from all this evil because that’s the only way we’re going to be able to live without it
Tulsi wysiwyg Gabbard—according to her Hawaiian constituents that I know.. And her right hand woman is Amaryllis Fox. Curiouser and curiouser.
I've been appreciating Pippa Malmgren's geopolitics take since I discovered her through her longtime presidential advisor Dad Harald Malmgren (how's the 27-year-old advisor to JFK delivered the news to Joint Chief of Staff.. that they couldn't have their way with the world in the Cuban missile crisis... General Curtis Le May / "bombs away lemay" notoriously stormed out of the room)...
Harald's wild final year as a biped in his '90s.. became a government and UAP whistleblower especially on X @halsrethink... (Btw He also had a great longform interview with Jesse Michels American Alchemy In that final year of his life).
Thank you, and I agree that the ethical thing for Tulsi Gabbard to do now would be to resign along with Joe Kent. Some say she's walking a thin line to hold on to her job and that eventually Trump will fire her anyway. One way of parsing her answers to Senator Ossoff's questions is that she was being very cagey to make sure all future blame on this debacle of a war goes to Trump and not her. She said "we gave the President all the inputs, ....." and the decision on whether there was an imminent threat was his alone. So without contradicting him or disagreeing with his decision, which would have been the honest and honorable thing to do, she cleverly distanced herself from future culpability. Sad to see, as I used to be a fan of hers, too.
That's a good point. However it is unfortunate that she must play these games to deflect responsibility. I think that the DNI's raison d'etre is to identify imminent threats to the country, no matter what she says in a hearing.
Why is everyone in the Anti-War movement picking on Tulsi now, like a total focus on Tulsi? The simple truth is if she stood up for the truth she would be fired and replaced with one of the neocon toadies who would be just lovin' the prospect of starting WW3 because in their version of the Bible that will usher in The Savior, and then we'll have Paradise.
Same may be true of JD Vance, he has to play along if he has any chance of ever changing things.
I would rather keep those two in the background, hoping that deep down they're one of us but are waiting for the best opportunity to cause a drastic change. Such secret revolutionaries are more often than not the ones that facilitate revolution, not the very loud and vocal ones on the outside.
If you want to pick on someone pick on one of the many Neocon Minions of the Central Bank cult who are really calling the shots on this Iran misadventure.
We are being set up for another Covid style economic debacle. Disaster Capitalism at its finest.
I am not picking on her. I pointed out her commitment to our country and not party just six years ago, cited her military service and participation in National Intelligence while she served on House Subcommittees. I then agreed that she was worthy of the DNI post. I even offered personal observations of her, her sincerity and warmth. My criticism of her was around the opportunity she is wasting at this moment, both for her country and for her political aspirations.
I also think that focus on her is justified. As the DNI she is playing a crucial role in the decision making process around taking this country into another war.
That still doesn't change the fact that if she does more than she has been doing in that direction, she will be fired. And guaranteed the new guy is going to be worse, much worse. It's like the US hating and killing the Ayatollah, thinking the next guy will be better. He wasn't.
It doesn't matter if the "new guy" does what she is doing with more enthusiasm. Her resignation will be more than symbolic. Once free of the chain of command she can start saying what she really thinks. If aligns with Joe Kent it will have a tremendous impact on public opinion.
Your rationale is pathetic.
You saying that means less than nothing.
Sorry.
Like your post and
Yeah on aim at the bank cult!
Not sure at all that they are calling the shots still
Not like they used to?
I’m still seeing this blood darkened water full of sharks can be the end of their multi millennia predatory parasite racket
'Picking on Tulsi?" Huh? Gabbard is an avowed Islamophobe and a known supporter of the state of Israel. Her friendships with Miriam Adel$on and Shmuley Boteach are legendary. THAT is why the criticisms/observations of her recent statements in CON gress deserve further scrutiny.
You can say that about 90% of the Congress & Senate. I don't like it, most Americans don't like it, but there is whole lot worse than Tulsi, which is also 90% of Congress & Senate. So why aren't you focused on any of them?
Why? Because we aren't talking about them. The subject is DNI Tulsi Gabbard who I have followed (even admired) for many years. This 'whole lot worse' thing that many Americans land on is really why we are in the shape we are. Always with the 'better than...' or 'worse than...'. We really need to be way more particular than accepting who we have. Currently there are only two or three sitting elected officials in CON gress who really represent the people: Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, John Kennedy and...do you know a few? I just chose a random few that have been outspoken of late on a variety of issues. And that's out of nearly 500 people on the taxpayer's payroll.
But why aren't you talking about them, instead of holding Tulsi's feet to the fire? Obviously all of them, including RFKjr, have to suck up to Trump, as he is a narcissist and egomaniac. Even Kent had to suck up until he decided to resign. But within certain constraints they have the ability to do a lot of good, that is not what the establishment wants. And would just love to get rid of them or get them to quit so they can put one of their manikins in their place.
I agree that they have the ability to do a lot of good. My point is that Tulsi could do more good by resigning than going along. We are talking about her right now because she is in charge of the IC, a wing of our government whose mission is to inform the POTUS around matters of national security.
To repeat, in this context, in this conversation we are not talking about anyone but Gabbard and, maybe by extension- Joe Kent. I think there are other people being 'sucked up' to besides Trump. Trump too is operating at their bidding. That phrase: holding feet to the fire. Ha! I hear that EVERY election season...'we'll hold their feet to the fire once they are in'. What a farce! That never, ever works. Once they are 'in' they are in- now that's about elected officials. Appointed officials are another matter and all of them at the Cabinet level (RFKjr and Gabbard) work at the pleasure of the President. Anyway- you are straying from the main argument here which is WHY Tulsi Gabbard pretended to be in synch with Kent and the Administration when mere months ago she testified that Iran was not an existential threat to the US.
Yes, and I was also talking about Gabbard. How I've been seeing this sudden bashing of Gabbard, kind of a swarming, all over the internet. This article is just one of many. It reminds me of all the concerted attacks on Tucker after they assassinated Charlie Kirk. So it is totally legit to question that laser focus on Gabbard, while ignoring the vastly more significant numbers of politicians who are in fact collaborators and treasonous traitors for foreign powers.
Why Tulsi modified her Iran threat assessment is pretty obvious. Because Trump, out of the blue, went to war with Iran, an entirely wacko thing to do. And if you know Trump, and the minions controlling him, dissent on that issue will not be tolerated. Play ball or be fired. That's her choice. And on topic, I'm saying that her best choice was to play ball while thinking some day, at the right time, she will undermine the traitors.
The seminal clear and poignant voice rises again. Your presence in the American and Global conversation is so appreciated and needed. Props to you my very good fellow. Hello .....? Anybody (and everybody should) out there listening to Madhava??? This is a timely challenge, respectfully (and I believe lovingly) beckoning Tulsi, one of us I think, who I still believe can stand up for honest, constitutionally, and humanely aligned values, not to cave in here. Stand tall Girl. Settle for nothing less than the principles we know you truly represent - for the integrity of Constitutional values and the love and respect for our American brothers and sisters, and all people throughout the world. Peace is really so easy and a truly natural phenomenon. We've been tricked into believing otherwise.
The Star Trek episode is a great parallel. The values of Picard are something Tulsi can rise to. Stand up Tulsi. Ps Joe Kent’s from Washington, the state that is.
Have you ever seen the whole episode? It's great.
Keep at it, Madhava! You've touched a nerve.
It can only be scripted and Trump has the role of Zionist, totalitarian bogeyman. Objectively, anyone he lavishly praises ends up being exposed in an unflattering spotlight (Bibi, Bourla, NATO) whilst anyone he aggressively denigrates (Massie, Gubbard, Paul) and/or who appear dangerously anti-narrative (RFK) are left free rein to expose the rot and appear positively in the public eye. The deep state enemies are so entrenched that the exposure has to be outsourced to apparently "disloyal" mavericks but awakening public opinion is a long, thankless task with victory uncertain.
I wander if this energy crisis was all planned out at the last Bilderberg meeting. Like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. It was leaked that in the previous Bilderberg meeting the Bankster Club were planning a major jump in the price of oil.
Of course this is the country of « free speech » and you have the right to express your opinion here. So do I.
But still. One might find your call for resignation (or rebellion) to DNI Tulsi Gabbard look like incitement to sedition. You say :
« She, of all people, knows that her boss decided to start a war on a whim. (…) If she joined ranks with Joe Kent it might be the push needed to finally swing public opinion far enough away from the Trump agenda that the military would refuse to follow his orders. (…) what good would that do if whoever is Commander-in-Chief cannot compel this country’s fighting force (the army) to comply with specific orders? (…) your boss is holding on to his job by a thread (…) perhaps the most obviously compromised administration in modern times (…) if you still have political ambitions now would be the time to jump ship (…) Resign before you are frivolously dismissed for not showing enough conviction. »
You claim that this war sits on the false pretense of destruction of nuclear menace from Iran.
Many beleive that the stakes are much higher.
The aim is to attack the globalist’s ventures in which Iran and Venezuela have been important allies for years. To drain the swamp, as your ugly president has put it.
But you fail to see or refuse to consider this possibility.
You « of all people » should grasp the seriousness of the present situation.
If Trump doesn’t do it, if the US don’t act now, our world might very well be at lost.
What we are living now is not just « another conflict ». We are in a war with evil forces. A decisive one. We have to chose a side.
Jo, I think it would be helpful to recognize that our fundamental beliefs differ before using the term "sedition".
Sedition: "Sedition is conduct, speech, or writing aimed at inciting rebellion, insurrection, or resistance against lawful authority and the government in power".
Can you see the problem here? I don't believe the administration in power in this country is lawful. I believe, like Joe Kent, that our President has been compromised by Israel.
Though Tulsi refuses to directly acknowledge that the intelligence community has concluded that there was no imminent threat from Iran, Joe Kent does. Tulsi also confirms that nine months ago the nuclear threat from Iran was obliterated and no effort has been made to rebuild it. She is basically saying it doesn't matter what the intelligence community thinks, it's all up to the President's judgement. If his decision is not based in fact, it must be based on a whim or something else.
I don't believe that Iran and Venezuela are part of a globalist agenda. In fact I think they oppose it. Both countries are willing to sell their oil for other currencies. If there is a globalist agenda, it must be facilitated through the banking system and reserve currency which is the US dollar.
That is my rationale and it is unfair to state that I "fail to see or refuse to consider this possibility." I have considered it and have discarded it for this reason.
I agree that we are in a war with evil forces, and I have chosen a side.
But I am not condoning a violent overthrow of our government. I noting that if our fighting force refuses to execute orders to attack Iran, the executive branch has lost all sway over us. DNI Gabbard could make that happen. It would be a non-violent means of beginning the process of replacing our President, whom I think is compromised, with someone else who reflects sensibility. That is my opinion.
Thank you for the comment. I write this newsletter to create a space where differing opinions can be expressed safely. No one has to pay to express their view here.
Thank you for your answer.
I think we can agree that we disagree. And it’s ok. Two points I wish to make:
a majority of people elected this governement. It is therefore totally « lawful », as they represent the voice of the majority, wether one agree with it or not. We are still in a democracy. For many, the last US administrations made many questionable decisions to say the least. They were « out-voted », not outlawed. Why would the present one be treated differently? As you well know, if we lived in today’s Iran we could not express any dissenting opinion. I know this for a fact.
Secondly, we must remember that we don’t know everything that goes on behind the scene. For example, what are Israel’s true plans? I do not trust them and suspect some nefarious goals (like the creation of Greater Israel?).
We should stay humble and keep hope.
Jo, your Postings have pumped my Hope Factor by several Orders of Magnitude. I do not need the CIA, FBI, QRZ, PST, LGB, or some "disinterested" third party to tell me if the oppressive regime in Iran is an imminent threat. I know they are a permanent imminent threat because I read a Book once.
Indeed this oppressive regime has done much harm over the years, to its people and abroad.
Are you serious Jo?
I certainly hope Jo is serious.
Well, after re-reading Jo's entry, I sense that he/she is serious. However, I believe that 'reading a book', dooprosses, about a nation that has existed for 3,000 years (Iran) and arriving at the position that it has 'done much harm over the years to its people and abroad' really begs exploration. When/where has Iran done ANY harm overseas? To whom? When? Much of the info we westerners receive vis a vis any 'harm' done to its citizens is filtered through the prism of a bought media. Then, not unlike Cuba, you have significant numbers of ex-patriots who wish for their nation to return to whichever entity it was when they left their country as refugees or asylees. Usually, those folks are well-off and inveigh their desires via political means- I'm thinking of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as examples. On the Iran side we have the pro-Shah (Reza Pahlavi) side whose lavish lifestyle is well-known. So, so much to this and we have to resist oversimplifying this so-called 'imminent threat'. Gabbard said there wasn't one 9 months ago, 'suddenly' she has dramatically shifted her position. Which is it?
Please define IRAN.
The name of the country 'Persia' was changed in 1935 to Iran by Shah Reza Pahlavi for the purpose of restoring the historical, native name and removing the colonialist name. It has been officially called Iran since then. There is plenty of info online that expands on this change.
Is IRAN 3,000 years old?
After watching the brutalization and destruction of the Persian People for many decades at the hands of their oppressors, and now, hearing the cries for help from the Persian People, it is nonsense to say that President Trump and Tulsi are acting on a whim.
Are you suggesting that Joe Kent was wrong in his assessment? Is it possible that there is oppression of the Persian people and that the decision to bomb their country was unjustified with respect to our national security?
In my opinion Joe Kent is not wrong nor right. He is a young man trying to endure unspeakable loss and grief which an empath would perceive as insurmountable burdens of Cognitive Dissonance. My Consciousness is weeping for him as for myself. The heat of the Burden is heavy in my shoulders, as I have walked similar paths as he has. The USA is not bombing Persia. The USA is eradicating merciless perpetrators of sub-human perversions that have been killing and threatening the American People for at least the last forty-seven years. At the beleaguered request of the indomitable, beautiful, and Free People of Persia, the USA is finally reaching out to the desperate arms of those who needed us half a century ago. Our greatest Task is protecting vulnerable Persians until they are Restored and Free from Arrogant Abusive Artificers of Avarice that seem to permeate the Human Experience.
Some interesting news today about the not-dangerous-totally-peace-loving Iran. Today from the Business Standard and Wall Street Journal:
“Iran fires two missiles at Diego Garcia, signalling extended strike range.” (...) "Iran has long publicly claimed to voluntarily cap its ballistic missiles at around 2,000 km."
Oups, they lied: the Diego Garcia, where British and US military bases sit, "is 4,000 kilometers from the nearest launch point in Iran" (...) : the IRGC launched two intermediate-range ballistic missiles —missiles it supposedly didn’t have— at Diego Garcia".
"A ballistic missile with an actual range of 4,500 km, if launched from western Iran, could theoretically strike most of Western Europe, reaching as far as southern England."
"Here’s the question: if Iran successfully concealed its lies about its “voluntary cap” on long-range missiles— what else has it lied about? What about its “voluntary restraint” from developing nuclear weapons?"
The US Administration "might’ve had a key reason (for attacking Iran) apart from Trump having a bad day or being somebody’s puppet?"
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/nato-origami-saturday-march-21-2026
Just looking at the photo of her with her lips pressed tight together, body language reads she will not allow herself to speak. Holding back. She is lying and she knows it. May her conscience eat her alive compelling her to speak the truth she knows in her heart.
I do not know how long you have known Tulsi. I have known Tulsi for a long time. She is not a liar. Judging from your presumptuous perfunctory analysis above an educated eye of genuine intellect would remind you that Curses are like young chickens, they always come home to roost. Your impertinence could not survive a moment in her presence.
Thank you, Alice.
Lots of assumptions on your part Mr Kent claims the Iranian Fawta against nuclear weapons as a major part of his argument against the imminent threat determination but beyond a generic statement at a conference by a leader of a religious organization that embraces lying as a part of its culture there is no direct evidence of any such commitment against Nuclear weapons by Iran. I don’t know nor do you what Tulsi knows. The only thing we can be assured of is that all of the principles are lying to us in some manner. I am in the camp that Tulsi is a true patriot who wants what’s best for America and in a situation where there is only two shitty choices she is making the less shitter choice in staying because she can have no effect from the outside vs being inside and making positive changes even if we are unable to see them now. Pray it’s all we can do now.
You don't think the DNI is able to identify imminent threats to the United States? What or who informs the President to make that determination if it is not his own Intelligence Community?
I am not making any assumptions. I am merely demonstrating the conflicting perspective from the two highest ranking intelligence officers in our country. And, in reality, they aren't actually in conflict. One says there is no imminent threat. The other says that Iran's nuclear capability was obliterated 9 months ago but refuses to admit that there is no imminent threat now.
I pray that in the end truth will prevail our recent history however causes me to be skeptical of everyone in authority especially the unelected ones
Truth? Truth will prevail? Oh boy. Someone else who's never heard Aeschylus' "Truth is the first casualty of war."
(Also attributed to Hiram Johnson but I like Aeschylus better).
Quit the pre-crime punishments. They're guilty because they look and sound guilty even if they haven't committed the crime. Maybe the authorities will apply that Gold Standard that you advocate, against you.
There is zero evidence that Iran is or intends to build a nuclear weapon. And they are a signatory of the NNPT. Unlike Israel, and that also has many nuclear weapons and illegally developed them and lied repeatedly about it. They attacked the USS Liberty and killed 34 soldiers once. Whose to say they won't fly as a friendly to Washington and drop one of their nukes there?
If they did would you impose the final solution and complete Hitlers desire?
You mean what they're doing to the Gazans?
No you claimed Israel would attack the United States with Nuclear weapon.
Apparently you are unaware of the Sampson Option.
No I didn't. I said by your logic we could just as easily worry Israel could attack the US with a nuclear weapon. They have them, zero doubt of that. And they have directly attacked a US ship, proven from past behavior. So why aren't you spreading Fear Porn over that more likely scenario?
Principals
I listened at length to Kent discuss his resignation and explain the features of the run up to war and much more. I got a very good sense of his position on the issues, and his knowledge, experience and character.
He didn’t mention the fatwa at all and didn’t need to. Calling it a major part of his argument just doesn’t land at all for me
As for the lying it’s said truth is the first casualty of war
Helpful to look where the loudest say we shouldn’t and listen to the people they want to shut down.
Don’t Trump supporters remember all the censorship and cancel culture when anything, not on narrative was misogynistic, racist, trans phobic??
Now the shriekers are calling to disavow many prominent Trump supporters and the best questions to the pro war on Iran mob reliably bring immediate cries of antisemitism
Well. “We see you and We’re not listening anymore!!”
As for Tulsi, I’m with you. I believe she’s a true patriot. And the essay here doesn’t make a dent in that for me, not at all.
Our author first lost me at
“it is only uncomfortable because you believe your job is to do the President’s bidding.”
This is a reactive and low resolution take and passes unwarranted judgement.
She’s moving to keep moving, where and how she can.
Near closing he decries Tulsi’s honesty with the claim:
“your compunction is written all over your face”. Another ad hominem attack AND fail. I did not see compunction at all. More like conscious intentional determination. Not even grim determination. She knows what she’s up against, she’s dealt with this a lot, and she’s quite admirable into her capability to stand against it without losing her cool and more importantly her connectedness.
I won’t go into it here, but I have a pretty good idea of what she is up to. You touched on it in your post about her working from the inside. She has already gotten some very significant things done on other fronts. But her title DNI has come to mean do not invite when it comes to the machinations of military planning, etc., in the administration.
I don’t know for sure but it seems entirely plausible that after the IC fulfills its duty to submit all the reports that legally the “buck
stops here” with the president
So yes, I pray for Tulsi and I pray for the president. Kent had some very good and illuminating things to say about President Trump and I think he has it right…
The president, however, really displeased me again with his remarks about Kent‘s resignation.
Further, it’s not likeTulsi‘s resignation would move the needle for Trump
I pray God that our future and safety don’t depend on President Trump admitting he’s made a mistake, but with God all things are possible.
Lastly, it’s taken a lot of time to get here about the situation in the Middle East but I can imagine a way forward, even as things have become so dark and threats loom largest yet. I have seen miracles again and again since 2024 why not some more
Keep the faith people, best case scenario when we voted for Trump we were voting for a mutiny against nearly impossible odds, and even a successful continuance/conclusion to the original American revolution.
Real Hope, and hope we must is a theological virtue meaning it comes from God it is of God who is eternally Life
Personally, I hope people are learning from all this evil because that’s the only way we’re going to be able to live without it
He mentioned it at the very beginning and talked about it very clearly as the primary reason he claimed that Iran did not want a nuclear weapon
Another incident of Gabbard flip-flopping: https://youtu.be/jq9p9NJbrMA?si=yrftCFf8O8fhgXPG
Tulsi wysiwyg Gabbard—according to her Hawaiian constituents that I know.. And her right hand woman is Amaryllis Fox. Curiouser and curiouser.
I've been appreciating Pippa Malmgren's geopolitics take since I discovered her through her longtime presidential advisor Dad Harald Malmgren (how's the 27-year-old advisor to JFK delivered the news to Joint Chief of Staff.. that they couldn't have their way with the world in the Cuban missile crisis... General Curtis Le May / "bombs away lemay" notoriously stormed out of the room)...
Harald's wild final year as a biped in his '90s.. became a government and UAP whistleblower especially on X @halsrethink... (Btw He also had a great longform interview with Jesse Michels American Alchemy In that final year of his life).