Tulsi Gabbard, Trump, and the Questions the Press Refuses to Ask
By SDC News One
WASHINGTON [IFS] --There is a dangerous habit in American political media: when someone wraps themselves in the language of patriotism, reporters stop interrogating the substance of their actions. Tulsi Gabbard is one of the clearest—and most troubling—examples of this failure.
This is not about personality. It is not about gender. It is not about tone. It is about patterns of conduct that consistently align with the strategic interests of hostile foreign powers—and the stunning reluctance of the press to confront those patterns directly.
A Record That Demands Scrutiny
Tulsi Gabbard’s foreign-policy record is not ambiguous. Over and over again, her public statements have echoed narratives advanced by the Kremlin:
-
On Syria, Gabbard dismissed or downplayed well-documented war crimes by the Assad regime—atrocities confirmed by the UN, human rights organizations, and U.S. intelligence—while repeating Russian-backed framing that portrayed Assad as a stabilizing force.
-
On Ukraine, she emphasized NATO “provocation” while minimizing Russia’s agency in launching a full-scale invasion, language indistinguishable from Russian state media talking points.
-
Russian outlets repeatedly amplified her remarks, treating her not as an adversary, but as a validating Western voice.
This pattern does not prove direction or control. But intelligence professionals don’t need proof of espionage to identify risk. They look for alignment, consistency, and benefit—and by those measures, Gabbard set off alarms.
Former U.S. intelligence and national security officials have said publicly that she was viewed as a security concern, not a trusted partner. That fact alone should have triggered sustained, aggressive questioning. It didn’t.
The Media’s Cowardice
Instead of pressing her on why her views so reliably tracked Russian strategic interests, too many reporters opted for soft-focus profiles, surface-level “both sides” framing, or outright avoidance. The hard questions—simple questions—were never asked:
These are not accusations. They are factual inquiries. And the refusal to ask them is not neutrality—it is journalistic malpractice.
Trump, Power, and “What He Knows”
Donald Trump’s attraction to figures like Gabbard has never been ideological—it’s transactional. Trump gravitates toward people with leverage, vulnerabilities, or utility. The persistent question is not whether Trump has “dirt,” but whether shared interests and mutual protection create silence.
History tells us this: authoritarian systems don’t require formal treason. They rely on informal alignment, opportunism, and people willing to advance narratives that weaken democratic institutions while claiming patriotism.
That is how democracies rot from the inside.
This Is Bigger Than One Person
The deeper issue is systemic. Media conglomerates consolidated under corporate control have abandoned adversarial journalism in favor of access, clicks, and conflict without consequence. When power concentrates—political or media—the truth becomes negotiable.
That is why calls for antitrust enforcement, renewed media accountability standards, and investigations into abuse of power under color of law are not radical—they are foundational to democracy. The United States has confronted concentrated power before. We survived because we did not confuse politeness with patriotism.
What Real Accountability Looks Like
Calling someone a “traitor” may feel satisfying, but it lets the real danger slip away. The more damning truth is this:
Tulsi Gabbard’s conduct consistently advanced the strategic interests of a hostile foreign power. Whether knowingly or not, that alignment alone should have disqualified her from sensitive roles in national security and governance.
The failure here belongs not just to politicians—but to a press corps that refused to demand answers when it mattered most.
No comments:
Post a Comment