Q: "Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon."

President Trump: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." pic.twitter.com/6KTye52xP9

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 17, 2025

NEWSY BACKSTORY: Wanna know why Trump appeared to diss @TulsiGabbard on AF1 to reporters early this morning?

There’s more to the story than her assessment abt Iran & nukes during her March testimony (which btw, wasn’t wrong…)

Trump has been upset with Gabbard over her…

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) June 18, 2025

I recently visited Hiroshima, and stood at the epicenter of a city scarred by the unimaginable horror caused by a single nuclear bomb dropped in 1945. What I saw, the stories I heard, and the haunting sadness that remains, will stay with me forever. pic.twitter.com/TmxmxiGwnV

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) June 10, 2025

It looks like Tulsi and Trump are not seeing eye-to-eye on things and she might be escorted to the door. She is currently the Director of National Intelligence overseeing all 18 of the nation's intelligence agencies. Trump has no love for the intelligence agencies and stated during his campaign that they needed to be "completely overhauled." As stated in one of the tweets above, it is rumored that the office she holds may be eliminated all together.

Another one of "the best people" bites the dust.

She has the same intel as he does. if they have a different view of the situation then its concerning that Trump might be going off gut feelings.

This issue is on Trump. Firing her would be dumb.

BS from CSpan… he had been answering questions and already answered this when some "reporter" shouted this out…he was staying on point and you freaking libtards try daily to fu everything to score a point

Politico girl is the source.

LOL. They have no cred!

Latest talking points are out.

Gabbard has a LONG history of being an Iran nuclear deal lover and hating how Trump took out terrorist leader Solemani. He is wise to not care what she thinks on this.

Literally a democrat.

Almost like Trump has a team with different viewpoints and he listens and makes up his own mind. Kinda like how you are supposed to use advisors. HMMMMM

My understanding is that she's basically already out. I don't think she's been in Trump's national security briefings.

Tulsi was always very soft on foreign relations. Disturbingly so for the position she has.

I fully believe Trump gave Tulsi and RFK their positions and immediately kicked them to the wilderness. Did just enough to tie them to himself politically, ruining their future political/presidential ambitions (no D will vote for them now and they're still too left for Rs), and then removed them far from any real meaningful policy. RFK might do some good on his own but Trump knows anything truly meaningful has to run through him first.

Wrighty said:

---

She has the same intel as he does. if they have a different view of the situation then its concerning that Trump might be going off gut feelings.

This issue is on Trump. Firing her would be dumb.

---

No. The issue is you are putting out a different message from your boss. That is on her and on her only. There aren't too many people sitting here reading this that can pull that off, and our boss isn't POTUS.

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

exactly right

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

You are fine having a different opinion, but you keep that to yourself or in closed door meetings. That doesn't go public in any situation. Which Tulsi seems to be having a hard time understanding.

TacosaurusRex said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

You are fine having a different opinion, but you keep that to yourself or in closed door meetings. That doesn't go public in any situation. Which Tulsi seems to be having a hard time understanding.

---

I also agree with that - unelected cabinet members should not be making public statements without WH approval. The outward message of the administration should be unified.

So Gabbard's comments are dated back to March. Perhaps the intelligence changed in the last 3 months?

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

Hell no! Supreme Leader requires 100% loyalty and obedience!!!

javajaws said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

You are fine having a different opinion, but you keep that to yourself or in closed door meetings. That doesn't go public in any situation. Which Tulsi seems to be having a hard time understanding.

---

I also agree with that - unelected cabinet members should not be making public statements without WH approval. The outward message of the administration should be unified.

---

I do agree with messaging should be uniform. That being said, I have a feeling the reason why you have appointee after appointee speaking out is that they are being ignored internally if they don't toe the Trump ideology 100%. Trump has always wanted 100% loyalty and obedience within his ranks.

Im Gipper said:

---

Gabbard has a LONG history of being an Iran nuclear deal lover and hating how Trump took out terrorist leader Solemani. He is wise to not care what she thinks on this.

---

Why did Trump hire her if she's so fundamentally flawed? Iran is one of our biggest issues and he thought she could do the job?


Can you provide links to support your claims about her?

javajaws said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

You are fine having a different opinion, but you keep that to yourself or in closed door meetings. That doesn't go public in any situation. Which Tulsi seems to be having a hard time understanding.

---

I also agree with that - unelected cabinet members should not be making public statements without WH approval. The outward message of the administration should be unified.

---

I was extremely happy with her appointment, and I had high hopes that she would help expose the people that went after her in the intelligence community, but I also understand how important a unified message is. She is leaving Trump without any options besides get rid of her. Again, that is on her and not Trump.

It's not just that she claimed Iran was not pursuing a nuclear bomb that makes her look so incompetent, but rather the fact that Austria's intelligence service contradicted her less than 24 hours later and claimed that she was wrong.

Which she was.

That's pretty embarrassing for her. Bad, incompetent look

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

javajaws said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Ask yourself this: would you rather Trump surround himself with only "yes" men/women? Or would you rather him have people who sometimes might disagree with him?

I don't like the idea of surrounding yourself with people who will only tell you what you want to hear - nothing good ever comes from that.

Now, if she disobeys an order or something like that...then can her. But for holding a different opinion? No (so long as she is not holding info back from him).

---

You are fine having a different opinion, but you keep that to yourself or in closed door meetings. That doesn't go public in any situation. Which Tulsi seems to be having a hard time understanding.

---

I also agree with that - unelected cabinet members should not be making public statements without WH approval. The outward message of the administration should be unified.

---

I do agree with messaging should be uniform. That being said, I have a feeling the reason why you have appointee after appointee speaking out is that they are being ignored internally if they don't toe the Trump ideology 100%. Trump has always wanted 100% loyalty and obedience within his ranks.

---

Then you don't take the job. If Trump has always worked this way, what egotistical person thought their spoke in the wheel would be enough to change an entire administration?

Rapier108 said:

---

Latest talking points are out.

---

Yep. The left is running out of them so they trot out lake crap like this.

Also, if Gabbard was so moved by her visit to Hiroshima, it sure seems like she would be in favor of Israel, and the U.S. if necessary, intervening in Iran to assure those psychos never get a nuclear weapon.

Media will do anything they can to damage Trump. Admin with a consistent message? Syncophants! Different message? Chaos and betrayal! Viewpoints stay the same? Stubborn, childish Trump. Viewpoints change? Impulsive, childish Trump.

It's a wonder he even has an admin if you ask liberals and especially the Concerned Moderate

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-trump-soleimani-iran-1480311

https://iowastartingline.com/2019/09/17/tulsi-gabbard-u-s-one-spark-away-from-war-with-iran/

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/27/tulsi-gabbard-democratic-debate-iran-trump

As for why Trump gave her the job? Probably listened to some nitwit that said "reach across the aisle. Also helps with diversity! Hire a woman" (He should have ready my posts on why she was bad news)

She was tasked with determining what JFK docs to keep classified, but she couldn't even do that without getting AI to do it for her!

The sooner she is out, the better.

Politico also said Trump is still colluding with Russia to rig the next election in 2028!

Threads started using Politico as a source should be nuked by staff!

Quote:

---

Trump has been upset with Gabbard over her cryptic, 3-min video posted on X earlier this month, warning that "political elite and warmongers" are "carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers" and that the world is "on the brink of nuclear annihilation."

---

If the story is true, Trump SHOULD be upset with her! She essentially called him a wamonger in her silly Tweet!

Regardless of Iran's nuclear ambitions or capabilities, these mf'ers have had this coming for decades. Iran is responsible for the majority of the violence in the region and have attacked US assets thru their proxies multiple times. What we're witnessing isn't war, it's payback. The Iranians can do nothing to stop this beating. Frankly, this should've been done long ago. Now that the opportunity has presented itself, I'm thankful that Israel has been unleashed.

Allowing the overthrow of Qaddafi was a mistake, but bombing his family sure put a stop to much of his terroristic ways. It seems like what Israel is doing to Iran should be SOP every time their proxies launch attacks.

Well, three months ago they were not close to a weapon. Then last week they were "days away". There is a messed up message in there somewhere. And we got sucked into a war in Iraq over the same mixed messaging.

torrid said:

---

Well, three months ago they were not close to a weapon. Then last week they were "days away". There is a messed up message in there somewhere. And we got sucked into a war in Iraq over the same mixed messaging.

---

Citation please!

Here is one:

Quote:

---

He said Israel had acted because "if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time".

"It could be a year. It could be within a few months," he warned.

---

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo

Im Gipper said:

---

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-trump-soleimani-iran-1480311

https://iowastartingline.com/2019/09/17/tulsi-gabbard-u-s-one-spark-away-from-war-with-iran/

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/27/tulsi-gabbard-democratic-debate-iran-trump

As for why Trump gave her the job? Probably listened to some nitwit that said "reach across the aisle. Also helps with diversity! Hire a woman" (He should have ready my posts on why she was bad news)

She was tasked with determining what JFK docs to keep classified, but she couldn't even do that without getting AI to do it for her!

The sooner she is out, the better.

---

So it's never Trump's fault that he hires these people? He's just the pawn.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Regardless of Iran's nuclear ambitions or capabilities, these mf'ers have had this coming for decades. Iran is responsible for the majority of the violence in the region and have attacked US assets thru their proxies multiple times. What we're witnessing isn't war, it's payback. The Iranians can do nothing to stop this beating. Frankly, this should've been done long ago. Now that the opportunity has presented itself, I'm thankful that Israel has been unleashed.

Allowing the overthrow of Qaddafi was a mistake, but bombing his family sure put a stop to much of his terroristic ways. It seems like what Israel is doing to Iran should be SOP every time their proxies launch attacks.

---

Agree.

Also, Obama starting the Syrian civil war was a huge mistake.

Yet Obama always played Iran with kid gloves, giving them cash and time!

Quote:

---

So it's never Trump's fault that he hires these people

---

I never said or implied anything of the sort! Stick to facts.

Any hire is 100% on Trump. He hired her, its his "Fault"

Iran has been two years away from a nuclear bomb for the last forty years.