While the media reacted with shock and dismay at Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s claim that only the President can decide what is an imminent threat, the truth is so clear, even PolitiFact got this one right.
Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Congress that the President was ultimately in charge of making decisions related to the threats facing the United States. When Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff asked her whether there was an “imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime,” she replied with what should be obvious to everyone based on our Constitutional order, “the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president” and “It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.” Sadly, what should be obvious is rarely so to the mainstream media when the Orange Man is involved and therefore it wasn’t surprising that The New York Times and other outlets reacted with shock and dismay, as though this was some radical new, never before uttered idea. Opining that “On Iran, Gabbard Turned Intelligence Duties Over to Trump,” David E. Sanger and Julian E. Barnes began with more than a little snark, noting “President Trump has taken on many ancillary roles in Washington: chairman of the Kennedy Center. The de facto chief architect of the city’s landmark properties. And now, the nation’s chief intelligence analyst. This revelation came from Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence.” In their view, DNI Gabbard only arrived at this conclusion to please the President himself, claiming “she has remained in her position by being a careful student of Mr. Trump, and knows how to stay on his good side. And critiquing the president’s view of the threat from Iran was clearly not the way to keep your job. So she came up with her line that it is Mr. Trump, not the intelligence community, that determines what constitutes a threat.” Equally unsurprising, they agreed with Senator Ossoff who declared, “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States” in response, but to do so, they relied on a rather bizarre, entirely irrelevant point, “In fact, while the president has broad authority to interpret intelligence any way he deems proper, Mr. Ossoff was right: At the National Intelligence University, which trains the intelligence agencies’ future leaders, there is a large body of literature about the art and science of providing warning (although Ms. Gabbard has ordered the university merged with another government school).”
Thus, The New York Times believed the Constitutional order of our Republic is somehow subservient to the curriculum of the National Intelligence University and sadly, they were not alone. ABC News claimed that “Gabbard doubles down on deferring to Trump on whether Iran posed ‘imminent threat,’” insisting that it was merely “her view” that the decision was President Trump’s to make. Melvin Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, and a former CIA analyst writing for Counter Punch came close to accusing DNI Gabbard of a dereliction of duty for the statement., citing the National Intelligence University as some sort of authority as well. “The fact that Tulsi Gabbard, a bizarre choice for the position of director of national intelligence, is not familiar with her most important duty regarding the warning of threat, let alone an ‘imminent’ threat, is particularly stunning and dispositive regarding her continued role in that job. Her own National Intelligence University defines threat warnings as ‘one of the core responsibilities’ of the intelligence community, and stresses that intelligence failure is ‘associated with a failure to warn.’ Gabbard’s failure to understand her role is actually far worse because she was clearly unwilling to challenge Donald Trump’s false assessment of an ‘imminent threat’ to justify his illegal and immoral attack against Iran.” To further this theory, Mr. Goodman cited Cynthia Grabo, “one of the most influential scholars regarding warnings intelligence,” who rather circularly claimed “it is an axiom of warning that warning does not exist until it has been conveyed to the policymaker, and that he must know he has been warned.” In other words, I’m not quite sure what given the President is not merely a policymaker, Ms. Gabbard did not say that she provided no intelligence upon which the President could make a decision, and both the Constitution and debates among the Founders about the role of the Commander in Chief are quite clear on the matter.
Article II, section 1 unequivocally states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President” and section 2 that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.” Whatever the National Intelligence University may claim, the intelligence community reports directly to the President, provides information to them, but he or she is the final authority on all executive branch matters. You might say simply that they gather and provide, then he or she learns and decides, or as Thomas Jefferson himself put it, “For the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary.” Incredibly, even the left-leaning supposedly “fact checker” website PolitiFact seemed to agree with this, though you have to read their coverage almost all the way to the end to learn that was the case. As they put it, “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard sent eyebrows raising during a recent exchange with Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., when she said it is the president’s responsibility — and not that of the intelligence community — to determine imminent threats against the U.S.” First, they attempted to claim that “There can be a fine line between analysis and determination, but national security specialists said determining whether threats are imminent is core to Gabbard’s job,” citing Stephen Marrin, director of the Intelligence Analysis Program at James Madison University. “Responding to requirements set by the policymakers, the intelligence community collects and analyzes intelligence in order to enhance U.S. government understanding, to protect security and advance interests. Part of protecting security is assessing threats to U.S. national interests and warning if the threat is deemed to be imminent.”
Later in the same post, they finally arrived at the truth, however, stating in no uncertain terms that the “Intelligence community presents information, then the president decides,” “Experts say there’s a longstanding division of labor between the president and the intelligence community. At root, the intelligence community collects the most accurate information it can and tells the president its best assessment of potential outcomes if certain policies are pursued. But it’s the president who ultimately decides what to do with that information.” “The intelligence community never dictates, nor should it suggest, policy,” explained Mark S. Chandler, a lecturer in the department of intelligence and security studies at Coastal Carolina University. PolitiFact went even further from there to explain how “The president can also ignore what the intelligence community says. However, the intelligence community always has a ‘duty to warn,’ Chandler said. If intelligence agencies see something that could hurt U.S. national security, they will share that information as quickly as possible, he said.” In conclusion, “Chandler said it’s not unusual for presidents to disagree with or ignore intelligence community findings, citing Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, at least on occasion.” Putting this another way, everyone knows the President is in charge and always has been in charge. They are only saying otherwise because Donald Trump is the current President and dating back to his first term, detractors have always refused to acknowledge that he possesses the regular powers and privileges that go with it. At the risk of repeating myself, for all the talk about the importance of our democracy and the belief that our democracy is under the worst threat since the Civil War, there’s precious little understanding of it to be found at least when the Orange Man is involved.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 