I saw this statement in “The Hill” – “ ‘I think Tulsi Gabbard is flawed but [is] she going to be harmful? No, because I think that there are going to [be] enough strong intelligence people around her. I feel the same way about RFK Jr.,” said a Republican senator, referring to Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
‘When it comes to those nominees below the Cabinet who may be less on people’s radar, who will be able to facilitate things, that’s where I think it can be dangerous. I’m going to be looking at them more critically,” said the senator, who requested anonymity to discuss the skepticism facing Trump’s next batch of nominees.’”
Really?
And the Republican senator was not even courageous enough to put his/her name on the statement!
Before I worry, I should be clear about the role of the Director of National Intelligence, right?
Wikipedia’s description of the Director of National Intelligence says, “The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is a cabinet-level United States government official and is the director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The position is required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to serve as executive head of the United States Intelligence Community (IC) and to direct and oversee the National Intelligence Program (NIP). All 18 IC agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), report directly to the DNI.
The DNI also serves, upon invitation, as the principal advisor to the president of the United States, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council on all intelligence matters. The DNI, supported by the ODNI, produces the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a classified document including intelligence from all IC agencies, handed each morning to the president of the United States.[1]
President George W. Bush strengthened the role of the DNI on July 30, 2008, with Executive Order 13470,[2] which, among other things, solidified the DNI’s legal authority to direct intelligence gathering and analysis, and to set policy for intelligence sharing with foreign agencies and for the hiring and firing of senior intelligence officials.[3] The DNI was given further responsibility for the entire IC’s whistleblowing and source protection by President Obama via Presidential Policy Directive 19 on October 10, 2012. […]
The position was elevated to a cabinet-level role during the first presidency of Donald Trump, a status it retained under President Joe Biden. Currently, the DNI attends all cabinet meetings and liaises with the Executive Office of the President of the United States and other Cabinet secretaries in the execution of their duties. President Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to the position in 2025 and she was subsequently confirmed by the Senate.[4][5]
I’ll say it again, really?
I won’t even comment on why the unnamed senator felt that Gabbard was “flawed” for the position. You can read that for yourself if you are interested (and you should be).
But here’s what really confuses me… a duly elected Senator voted to confirm an individual he/she thought was “flawed? Wow. Whatever happened to his/her oath of office?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
What happened to the best individual for the job? Flawed?
And then I read…
I saw that Senator Mitch McConnell was the sole Republican dissenter in the February 13 confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy JR. as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Where the heck was Senator McConnell for the last three years – perhaps he was sleeping under the spell of the evil witch and Prince(ss?) charming came along and wakened him? Sorry for the snark, but I don’t know a way around it these days.
Where we are now
I really do understand those who want dramatic change and see what the current administration is doing as positive. I don’t agree, but I can see where the proverbial pendulum may have swung too far and needs balance. I try hard to understand those with whom I disagree.
Where it seems to me that we are now, however, is in tremendous danger. Back in my corporate days, we called it the slippery slope – if we make 1-2 bad decisions it puts us on the slippery slope to more bad decisions.
The United States has been a strong, proud, and powerful country with a global interest because today’s world requires that those in power care for others. That’s the way we have evolved. Those in power carried a responsibility to help others. I fear that we have lost that responsibility as those in power seem to be working to help themselves at the expense of those not in power.
If our legislators are making decisions that the know in their hearts are “flawed,” where does that slipper slope lead us?
If our legislators are so weak that they can’t say what they believe for fear of retribution, that doesn’t give me much hope.
