Tulsi Gabbard: F*cking Moron Intelligence

And I await for you to dispute me on this...

Alright, let’s just fucking dive in. The idea of Tulsi Gabbard as a pick for National Intelligence is straight-up bananas. This isn’t some offhand opinion either; the reasons for her unsuitability are as obvious as a slap in the face. We’re talking about a woman whose track record, public statements, and questionable alliances practically scream, "Keep her away from anything critical to national security!" Let’s break this shit down.

1. Her Foreign Policy Stances Are a Mess

Tulsi loves to bill herself as a "progressive peacenik," but don’t let that fool you. Her foreign policy is a fucking maze of contradictions and eyebrow-raising decisions. She’s been cozy with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator accused of war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons on his own people. And yeah, she took that lovely little meeting with him in 2017 without consulting the State Department or any higher-ups. That’s not just sketchy; it’s a diplomatic slap in the face.

This raises the question: Can you trust someone who willingly plays footsie with authoritarian regimes to oversee America’s intelligence apparatus? Hell no. The intelligence community has to be clear-eyed about threats, and we’re talking about someone who’s displayed zero qualms about hobnobbing with tyrants.

2. Russian Ties? Red Fucking Flags Everywhere

Gabbard’s critics have long pointed to her being a favored figure in Russian state media. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, the Kremlin’s consistent cheerleading for her should make anyone pause. This isn’t "woke mob cancel culture" bullshit; it’s about whether she can be trusted with sensitive intelligence when she’s been repeatedly boosted by actors hostile to U.S. interests.

Remember, Russia’s whole MO is exploiting divisions in the U.S., and Gabbard’s rhetoric on certain issues aligns suspiciously well with their goals. Her anti-interventionist stance—good on paper—has often crossed the line into parroting Russian talking points, especially when she criticized U.S. support for Ukraine during key moments of Russian aggression.

3. National Intelligence Requires Expertise—Not a Soapbox

National intelligence isn’t just about gathering secrets and playing 4D chess against adversaries. It’s about fucking judgment, an ability to discern between competing priorities and acting decisively. Gabbard has spent her political career as a lightning rod for controversy and contrarianism. That’s fine if you’re some podcaster trying to rake in Patreon dollars, but it’s disastrous for a role that requires discretion, collaboration, and actual goddamn expertise.

Has she ever demonstrated the ability to lead large, complex organizations? No. Does she have experience dealing with intelligence operations? Also no. What she does have is a penchant for making everything about her personal brand, which is a big ol' liability when managing national security.

4. Her Relationship With the Democratic Party (or Lack Thereof)

Let’s not mince words: Tulsi burned her bridges with the Democratic Party so hard you could see the flames from space. Whether it was her dramatic resignation from the DNC in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders or her relentless criticism of Hillary Clinton, she’s made it clear she’s not a team player.

Why does this matter? Because intelligence roles require bipartisan trust. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is supposed to brief both parties, maintain credibility with Congress, and avoid partisan drama. Gabbard’s scorched-earth approach to politics ensures she’d walk into the job with zero goodwill from half the people she’d need to work with.

5. Her Positions on Domestic Surveillance

Gabbard’s outspoken opposition to domestic surveillance programs is, on the surface, commendable. Who doesn’t want to keep Big Brother out of their shit? But—and it’s a big but—her absolutist stance shows a lack of nuance. Intelligence work is often a balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring national security. Her tendency to lean entirely one way or the other doesn’t inspire confidence that she’d make the tough calls required for this role.

6. Her Military Background Is Overblown

Yes, Tulsi served in the military. Kudos to her for that. But let’s not pretend her service automatically qualifies her for the complexities of intelligence work. Military experience can provide valuable perspective, but it’s not a substitute for actual intelligence training, expertise, or a track record of working with classified information at a high level.

Her supporters love to wave her military background like it’s a golden ticket, but let’s be real: serving doesn’t mean you’re ready to oversee an entire intelligence apparatus. It’s a talking point, not a credential.

7. Her Anti-War Messaging Lacks Realism

Gabbard’s anti-war stance often comes across as naive, especially when she’s criticizing U.S. interventions without offering credible alternatives. In intelligence, there’s no room for overly simplistic "peace at all costs" rhetoric. The job requires grappling with the reality that sometimes, shit’s complicated. Wars aren’t started or ended with tweets and speeches; they’re tied to geopolitical strategy, alliances, and cold, hard realities that Gabbard seems either unwilling or unable to grasp.

8. The Social Media Factor

The DNI needs to project seriousness and competence. Tulsi’s social media game is anything but. Her tweets and videos often veer into "edgy contrarian" territory, which might win her some fans online but would be a PR nightmare for the intelligence community. Imagine a DNI who tweets like a wannabe influencer—it’s fucking embarrassing and undermines the credibility of the entire role.

9. The Trust Factor

Here’s the bottom line: trust matters. The DNI needs to have the confidence of Congress, the intelligence community, and the American people. Gabbard’s history of controversial statements, questionable alliances, and tendency to prioritize her personal brand over constructive action makes her fundamentally untrustworthy for the job. Intelligence isn’t about making headlines; it’s about keeping the country safe.

10. There Are Just Better Fucking Options

Look, no one’s saying the DNI role is easy or that there’s a perfect candidate. But holy hell, there are so many more qualified people out there. People with years of experience in intelligence, a track record of sound judgment, and the ability to work across the aisle without setting everything on fire. Why settle for someone who’s been more divisive than helpful?

In Conclusion

Tulsi Gabbard as a pick for National Intelligence would be like hiring a pyromaniac to run the fire department. Sure, she might bring some "fresh perspective," but at what cost? The risks far outweigh any potential benefits, and her track record is a litany of red flags that should disqualify her outright. Let’s hope whoever’s making these decisions has the sense to see this and keep her as far away from the DNI as humanly possible.

Citations

1. "Tulsi Gabbard's Meeting With Assad Sparks Outrage," The Guardian.

2. "Russia’s Propaganda Machine and Its Love Affair with Tulsi Gabbard," The Daily Beast.

3. "Gabbard’s Anti-War Message and Its Flaws," Foreign Policy Magazine.

4. "Why Experience Matters for the DNI Role," Brookings Institution.

5. "The Complexities of Balancing Civil Liberties and National Security," The Atlantic.

6. "Tulsi Gabbard and Her Rocky Relationship With the Democratic Party," Politico