On the menu today: For decades, we’ve seen nominees in confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate distance themselves from past controversial statements. But yesterday, Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee to be the next U.S. director of national intelligence, took the practice to new heights before the Senate Intelligence Committee, declaring she no longer held emphatically stated positions she had held, in some cases, just half a year ago. As the editors of NR declare today, “Her sudden shift is as stark as a member of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union suddenly endorsing Jägermeister shots during lunch breaks.”
Tulsi Gabbard Can’t Make Up Her Mind
You may have noticed that the Tulsi Gabbard who sat before the committee answering questions on Thursday didn’t sound like the Gabbard we’ve been watching all these years.
The Killing of Iran’s Qasem Soleimani
Then-representative Tulsi Gabbard, discussing the U.S. killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, on January 3, 2020: “This was very clearly an act of war by this president without any kind of authorization or declaration of war from Congress, clearly violating the Constitution.”
A few days later, after the intelligence briefing for members of Congress: “I just came from the intelligence briefing that the administration came and brought to Congress. Really they provided vague comments, no justification whatsoever for this illegal and unconstitutional act of war that President Trump took.”
Tulsi Gabbard, discussing the U.S. killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, during her confirmation hearing Thursday: “I didn’t have access to all of the information behind that strike at the time, and my concerns were that that may be an escalatory action. President Trump was right. There was no escalation beyond that and his policies towards Iran turned out to be very effective for our own national security.”
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Tulsi Gabbard’s view on Section 702 of FISA, back in March 2020: “While there were marginal improvements in the bill that passed, they don’t even come close to the real reforms that are necessary to ensure our national security and our constitutional rights are protected. None of the reforms protect the American people from illegal warrantless surveillance. None of the reforms prevent the secret FISA Court from abusing the constitutional rights of Americans. None of the reforms provide real protection against surveillance orders targeted at activities protected under the First Amendment.” Gabbard then introduced legislation that would have repealed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which includes Section 702.
Gabbard on Joe Rogan’s podcast, May 1, 2024:
Section 702 of FISA gives our government the authority to surveil foreign actors, essentially to try to identify terrorist threats. But part of that is they have the ability to capture all of the conversations. If you talk to somebody in another country that they’re interested in, they can then go in and capture all of your information as an American citizen, and they can do this without a warrant. This has been in place for quite some time, but this legislation that was just passed recently expanded those authorities. So they can go and actually look at, like, your, your Wi Fi history. If you’re connected to Wi Fi, they can look at everything that you did connected to that Wi Fi signal. And in some other ways, it took an already bad problem and made it many, many times worse. [Emphasis added.]
Gabbard on Section 702, in her written responses to the Senate Intelligence Committee:
“Section 702, unlike other FISA authorities, is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U. S. persons abroad. This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans.”
Gabbard, testifying before the committee Thursday:
“702 provides a unique security tool and capability that is essential for our national security. There are a number of areas that we would be blind, from a national security perspective without this capability. It also must exist next to having safeguards in place to ensure Americans civil liberties are protected. . . . There are several other sections within FISA that speak to some of the civil liberties reforms that you all passed in last year’s legislation.”
Remember, in May, Gabbard was telling Joe Rogan that the passed reforms “made it many, many times worse.”
The Russian Invasion of Ukraine
Tulsi Gabbard, discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, February 23, 2022:
“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border.”
Gabbard, on her podcast, October 18, 2022:
“This regime-change war that the United States and NATO are waging via their proxy in Ukraine didn’t begin when Putin invaded Ukraine. They had their eyes set on this objective long before that.”
Gabbard, discussing Ukraine on Joe Rogan’s podcast, June 27, 2024:
“You hear President Biden say well this is Putin’s war, this is Putin’s fault, it’s, it’s Putin who’s the one who’s solely responsible. Well, the United States and some of these European NATO countries are fueling this war and need to provide the leadership to bring about a negotiated outcome.”
Gabbard, discussing Ukraine during her confirmation hearing Thursday: “Putin started the war in Ukraine.”
Edward Snowden
Tulsi Gabbard on Edward Snowden in October 2020: “I introduced [House Resolution] 1162 with my colleague congressman Matt Gaetz, that very simply calls on our government to drop all charges against Edward Snowden for the actions that he took in the public interest to expose a mass government surveillance program on all Americans that violates our privacy and civil liberties, and that courts deemed illegal more than once.” On November 26, 2020, Gabbard posted on X, “Since you’re giving pardons to people, please consider pardoning those who, at great personal sacrifice, exposed the deception and criminality of those in the Deep State.”
Tulsi Gabbard, discussing Edward Snowden during her confirmation hearing Thursday:
Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released nor the way in which he did it. There would have been opportunities for him to come to you on this committee or seek out the IG to release that information. . . . As Director of National Intelligence, I will be responsible for protecting our nation’s secrets and I have four immediate steps that I would take to prevent another Snowden-like leak.
On the Ethics and Judgment of Donald Trump
Tulsi Gabbard, declaring her support for an impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump on October 27, 2019:
After looking carefully at the transcript of the conversation with Ukraine’s President, the whistleblower complaint, the Inspector General memo, and President Trump’s comments about the issue, unfortunately, I believe that if we do not proceed with the inquiry, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Future presidents, as well as anyone in positions of power in the government, will conclude that they can abuse their position for personal gain, without fear of accountability or consequences. If we allow the President to abuse his or her power, then our society will rot from top to bottom. We will turn into a banana republic, where people in positions of power — from the president all the way down to the traffic cop — will feel it’s okay to abuse their power with no consequences.”
Gabbard ultimately voted “present” on the president’s impeachment, but declared that Trump should be formally censured for abuse of power:
Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box.
Tulsi Gabbard, at her confirmation hearing yesterday: “I don’t believe for a second that President Trump would ask me to do something that would break the law.”
Bashar al-Assad’s Use of Chemical Weapons
Gabbard, appearing on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, April 8, 2017:
Wolf Blitzer: Congresswoman, are you are saying when General James Mattis, the secretary of defense or General McMaster, the president’s national security adviser, come to the president and they say, ‘here is the evidence, we now know for sure that the Syrian regime did this, here are the various military options to respond,’ and he gives the okay. You say you have doubts about these generals providing that kind of proof to the president?
Gabbard: Wolf, I remind you of what happened before we launched an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Then Colin Powell and many others within the administration came to Congress, and came to the U.N., claiming they have the evidence proving that Saddam Hussein has weapons of destruction. We launched an extremely destructive counterproductive war, based on that intelligence, which has now, years later, proven to be wrong. We had leaders in Congress who questioned that evidence that as presented and voted against that war because they were not convinced by the administration saying they have the proof necessary to launch this war. So yes, I am skeptical.
Tulsi Gabbard, at her confirmation hearing yesterday, referring to her meeting with Bashar al-Assad: “I asked him tough questions about his own regime’s actions, the use of chemical weapons and the brutal tactics that were being used against his own people.” [Emphasis added.]
Gabbard and Bashar al-Assad met at 12:15 p.m. on Jan. 16, 2017, which was almost four months before she expressed her skepticism on CNN. Apparently, whatever Assad said in that meeting, it was enough to persuade Gabbard that he’s just not the kind of guy who would use chemical weapons.
Again, the evidence that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons is overwhelming. One of the most comprehensive investigations, published in February 2019, concluded:
Our research found that there have been at least 336 chemical weapons attacks over the course of the Syrian civil war — significantly more than has commonly been known. Around 98 percent of these attacks can be attributed to the Assad regime, with the Islamic State group responsible for the rest. Approximately 90 percent of all confirmed attacks occurred after the infamous “red line” incident of August 2013.
Gabbard was not asked about her November 21, 2018, accusation that Trump was “Saudi Arabia’s b****.” (There was only one fleeting reference to “the Arabian peninsula.”)
A lot of people in the comments section are going to be furious about everything you just read, arguing it constitutes attacking Tulsi Gabbard. No, see, pal, this is quoting Tulsi Gabbard. If the contrast between her past quotes and her present quotes makes her look stupid or like an unprincipled weathervane, that’s not my fault. Don’t get mad at me for remembering what she said then, get mad at her for what she’s saying now.
These past statements from Gabbard are not from decades ago. In most cases, they’re from Trump’s first term, and on Ukraine and Section 702, we’re talking about her positions from about half a year ago.
Yesterday, during his questioning, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said, “I appreciate this late conversion, but I’m not sure I buy it, because you had such a consistent position.”
Do you get the feeling that all of Gabbard’s positions are negotiable in exchange for a high-powered position in government? Her sudden and implausible reversal suggests that what she thinks is dependent upon her circumstances. But notice that whatever she thinks at any given moment, she goes all out and doesn’t leave any wiggle room or doubt. She didn’t merely have misgivings about the killing of Soleimani; she insisted it was illegal, unconstitutional, and had “no justification whatsoever.” And then yesterday she not only withdrew all that, she said it was “right” and “very effective.”
She didn’t merely say that Section 702 went too far, it was an unconstitutional abuse of power that needed to be repealed entirely. Now she says it’s crucial and essential and must be protected. The Tulsi Gabbard of 2025 wants to protect Section 702 . . . from threats of the Tulsi Gabbard of 2024.
Just the kind of person you want sitting in on the president’s daily intelligence briefing, huh?
ADDENDUM: Our Jeff Blehar, with a reminder about Snowden:
Edward Snowden was not a hero. Edward Snowden was a coward. He chose to violate his oath (one taken by all who are trusted with state secrets). He could have chosen to face justice for his crimes and claim the mantle of a prisoner of conscience. Instead he was willing to end up in the arms of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where he remains, in panopticon misery. The man is a traitor for those rather obvious reasons, and it should be reflexively simple for somebody interviewing to be America’s most senior intelligence official to say as much in Congress, under oath.