By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Gabbard, acting under the alleged direction of President Trump, revoked the security clearances of 37 intelligence officials involved in the 2016 Russia election interference assessment. She delivered the list to the CIA shortly before posting it on social media, without adequate consultation regarding its composition. Intelligence officials were reportedly unaware of the CIA officer’s undercover status. Moreover, the ODNI did not seek CIA input or inform them of her intention to publicize the list.
Read the original article here
In Major Flub, Tulsi Gabbard Reveals Identity of Undercover Officer
Alright, let’s unpack this whole situation. The core issue here is that Tulsi Gabbard, and there seems to be a general consensus on this, didn’t just make a simple mistake. This wasn’t a slip of the tongue or a misplaced document. It’s being called a “flub,” but the overwhelming sentiment is that it was far more deliberate than that. We’re talking about the alleged outing of an undercover officer, something that could have incredibly dangerous consequences. This is where we get into the heart of the matter: why would she do this, and what does it really mean?
The most common reaction to this situation is one of disbelief and a certain level of outrage. The argument being presented is that this wasn’t an accident. It’s been suggested that she’s done similar things before, like releasing information that exposed other countries’ intelligence operations. The consensus seems to be that this was a calculated move. If this is true, it really does raise some serious questions about her motivations and allegiances. Could it be a show of obedience? Is this administration, top down, a group of arrogant, ignorant people who bring nothing but chaos? That’s definitely a harsh assessment, but that’s the nature of the arguments being posed here.
Now, if it *was* intentional, the implications are pretty significant. If a person’s goal is to publicly expose and potentially endanger these people, the situation becomes a lot more serious. It calls into question whether she should be held to account. It’s not just a matter of being reckless or incompetent.
The comparison to the Valerie Plame affair is pretty telling. That incident caused a massive uproar. The outing of a covert operative, especially someone working in intelligence, is a serious breach. It’s a betrayal of trust, and it puts lives at risk. This situation is being framed in a similar light, as though the severity of the action is somehow being downplayed, or whitewashed.
The suggestion that this is somehow akin to a “flub” is being heavily criticized. It’s argued that it’s a criminal act. It’s about a lack of seriousness. It is seen as a deliberate act of harm. The argument is that the consequences of this, on both a personal and a national security level, are too significant to be dismissed as a mere accident.
The question of motive is central to all of this. Was this a direct action in line with Putin’s agenda? Or is it a display of incompetence? A lot of the discussion really turns on that question of deliberate action, versus incompetence.
One strong argument centers on the fact that it’s incredibly easy *not* to disclose classified information. You actively have to choose to do it. This perspective is important because it highlights the deliberate nature of this action. It’s not like the information accidentally leaked out, it was a calculated decision.
The reactions being expressed on this subject point to serious concerns about trust and security within the current administration. And the idea that this is a “flub” is dismissed. It’s a serious issue with serious repercussions.