This article appears in the January 10, 2025 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Gabbard, Patel in the
Cross-Hairs of U.S./UK War Party
[Print version of this article]
An epic battle is underway in Washington, D.C., mostly being waged behind closed doors, conducted by a network of spooks accustomed to operating under a cloak of darkness. Shaken by the defeat they suffered in the November 2024 United States presidential election, they are employing their usual mix of hybrid warfare tactics, which includes unleashing a torrent of leaks, slanders, and lies. Their intention is, minimally, to constrain the victor in that election, former President Donald Trump, to prevent him from fulfilling the promises he made to the voters, chief among which is to “drain the swamp” of the Permanent Bureaucracy which runs key Executive Branch offices, regardless of which party controls the White House and the Congress.
They may not be able to overturn the results of the election, but seem to believe that through their control of the narrative—made possible by their ownership of the corporate cartel which dominates the mainstream media—they can succeed in undermining Trump’s agenda, as they did in his first term, through constant repetition of the lie that Trump’s victory was arranged by electoral interference by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their success depends on whether or not the neocon War Hawks in both parties can keep their ultimate goal a secret: that they intend to maintain their treasured “Unipolar Order” through permanent warfare against the awakening leadership of the Global South, led by the BRICS alliance; and to use censorship, which enables them to control the “narrative,” to put those mobilized to vote against them back to sleep.
A Campaign of Lies and Disinformation
The center of this battle will be the Senate confirmation hearings of two of Trump’s most bold appointments, those of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence, and of Kash Patel as Director of the FBI. Both have demonstrated they are fully aware of the magnitude of the task. The question facing them, and the nation, is whether they can communicate the urgency of taking control away from those who have gotten away in the past with lies, innuendo, and dirty tricks, to control global policy.
The same network which employed the “big lies” of Russiagate is at the center of the campaign to discredit the selection of Gabbard and Patel. This includes operatives from the various intelligence agencies who will have to answer to Gabbard, if she is confirmed, and corrupt former officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ), who fear exposure and possible prosecution if Patel is confirmed.
One dirty trick is taken directly from the big lie deployed against Trump in the 2020 election campaign, in which more than fifty former intelligence officials signed a letter accusing the campaign of a tactic which “has all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation,” following the discovery of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden with incriminating evidence of corruption of the Biden family. The letter was organized by former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, at the request of Biden campaign operative Antony Blinken, who was later named President Joe Biden’s Secretary of State. Signers included former DNI James Clapper and past CIA Directors Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, and John Brennan. Even after evidence emerged that the laptop was real, the attack on Trump continued, with Russiagate serial liar Rep. Adam Schiff—now a Senator from California—insisting that the issue of the laptop was a “smear on Joe Biden [which] comes directly from the Kremlin.”
NBC News reported on December 6 that they had obtained a letter signed by nearly 100 former officials urging the Senate to “carefully evaluate” whether Gabbard is “equipped” for the position. The letter states, “Several of Ms. Gabbard’s past actions call into question her ability to deliver unbiased intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and to the entire national security apparatus.” It alleges that after her 2017 trip to Syria, when she met with then-President Bashar al-Assad, she “aligned herself with Russian and Syrian officials.”
It continues: “Senate committees should consider in closed sessions all information available to the U.S. government when considering Ms. Gabbard’s qualifications to manage our country’s intelligence agencies, and more importantly, the protection of our intelligence sources and methods.” The letter also argued that Gabbard would “be the least experienced” person to hold the director position since it was created in 2004.
“The Senate must carefully evaluate,” it concludes, “whether Ms. Gabbard is equipped to effectively oversee an organizational structure as unique and large as the National Intelligence Program and also the effect of her holding this position on the willingness of our closest allies to share intelligence with the U.S.,” the letter said.
A spokesperson for Gabbard on the Trump transition team, Alexa Henning, responded to the letter by challenging the signers’ credentials. “These unfounded attacks are from the same geniuses who have blood on their hands from decades of faulty ‘intelligence,’ including the non-existent weapons of mass destruction,” a reference to the lie used to justify the Iraq War in 2003.
“These intel officials continue to use classification as a partisan weapon to smear and imply things about their political enemy without putting the facts out,” Henning continued.
The line from the never-Trump media hypes statements from former officials that Gabbard’s opposition to the wars and “regime-change” policies of the “Deep State” would threaten the “Special Relationship” between U.S. and British intelligence and defense officials. This has been a consistent theme of coverage in the pro-war British press, the same media which defends the lying narrative that the Russian attack on Ukraine was “unprovoked,” and that if Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he will target Poland and Germany next.
Typical of this coverage is an article in the (London) Guardian, subtitled “intelligence experts spooked by Tulsi Gabbard,” identifying her alleged “lack of experience in the field of intelligence” as the cause of concern. As an example, it cites her “public doubts” about allegations that Assad used chemical weapons against his opponents, with no mention that the initial investigation by the OPCW (Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) found no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s military.
Another example is coverage in The Daily Telegraph, headlined “British defence figures are alarmed” by her choice. Their main concern: “potential reductions in intelligence sharing across the Five Eyes alliance.” It quotes former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who complained that Gabbard has “no experience of intelligence and security.” No mention is made that Dearlove was involved in certifying the fake story that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, used by the Bush administration to launch the war against Iraq in 2003; and the Russiagate story, which included British “confirmation” that Putin was involved in rigging the 2016 election, backed by the fake dossier produced by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, and vouched for by Dearlove. [Box: Carter Security Archives Show Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Duplicitous Thug]
An additional British source of the anti-Gabbard offensive is The Independent (UK), which quotes an unnamed former U.S. intelligence veteran who accused her of being “very prone to misinformation, prone to conspiracy theories.”
The attacks on Gabbard and Patel are a sign of the desperation of the defense-intelligence establishment. The exposure of their lying narratives threatens their ability to defend the so-called Rules-Based Order, which commits the U.S. and NATO to protect the special looting rights of their collapsing global neo-colonial system, through orchestrated coups, now known as “regime change” operations, and endless wars against those who refuse to submit. As Trump pointed out in his successful election campaign, this has nothing to do with protecting U.S. national interests, but, rather, sustaining an unjust system which benefits the billionaires who run the “Military-Industrial Complex.”
It is now up to those who voted for Trump to join the mobilization of The LaRouche Organization (TLO) to pressure the Senate to reject the fraudulent campaign against Gabbard and Patel, and to bring the U.S. into a collaborative relationship with the BRICS, to create a new security and development architecture to benefit all. Gabbard and Patel have pledged to expose the lies and the liars who spin them. This can be accomplished only by shining the bright light of truth on those, like Dick Cheney, Brennan, and Clapper, who face possible prosecution for their crimes.
Gabbard was critical of the attempt to murder Julian Assange for his exposure, through WikiLeaks, of the lies behind the wars which destroyed numerous nations, resulting in the deaths of millions. She also points to the unjust threats against NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who leaked documents exposing the creation of the security state after the attacks of 9/11.
Gabbard and Patel should further publicly commit to a full investigation of the Permanent Bureaucracy’s decades-long persecution of Lyndon LaRouche—whose only crime was exposing the rot and corruption of the networks which later ran Russiagate against Trump—and support for the policy of endless wars. LaRouche’s exoneration would represent a major step in uprooting the toxic networks which are behind the Permanent War policies, which are pushing the world toward a nuclear World War III.
Carter Security Archives Show Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Duplicitous Thug
With the death of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the National Security Archives at George Washington University published a sampling of documents it had compiled on his administration, under the heading, “Jimmy Carter: A De-classified Obituary.” Among the documents were some which show the relationship Carter had with his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Though Brzezinski died in 2017, these quotes provide a window into his perverse mind, which continues to shape U.S. foreign policy through his protégés, as a variant of the ideology of British imperial geopolitics. He was a mentor to Madeleine Albright, who has been claimed by Antony Blinken as his mentor. The refusal of President Joe Biden’s regime to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the fighting in Ukraine reflects Brzezinski’s commitment to prevent Russia from emerging as a “rival” to the U.S. in Eurasia.
One of the documents was the National Security Council Weekly Report prepared by Zbiggy on April 21, 1978. In it, Brzezinski writes of the need to “toughen policy,” rather than just “negotiating agreements and devising formulas.” He called for adoption of a hard-nosed effort “to influence attitudes and to shape political events.” Among the proposed tactics was the use of “demonstrations of force … to infuse fear.” He advocated “saying publicly one thing and quietly negotiating something else.” Carter’s hand-written note in the margin of this doc says “Lying?” This duplicitous approach has been applied often in dealing with Russia, e.g., in President Clinton’s negotiations with Soviet President Yeltsin on NATO expansion, or the lying acknowledged by former French President Hollande and former German Chancellor Merkel in the Minsk Accord.
Zbiggy went on to call for “using black propaganda to stimulate difficulties” for our opponents. He concludes the memo by stating, “The world is just too complicated and turbulent to be handled effectively by negotiating ‘contracts’ while neglecting the need also to manipulate, to influence and to compel.”
A comment from Carter on Brzezinski’s predecessor as National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, is noteworthy. He wrote, “H.K. is a liar and also irresponsible. We must prepare to tell the truth about him.” Unfortunately, Carter never did. Perhaps this explains the fear among the “old boys” in intelligence, over the prospect that Tulsi Gabbard will be confirmed as Director of National Intelligence. Imagine a DNI who tells the truth about present covert plans, while at the same time exposing past dirty operations! [back to text]
