Matt: Two people in the Trump administration had access to the same intelligence on Iran. Both built careers on opposing exactly this kind of war. One resigned Tuesday and told the truth. The other released a statement that could have been written by any regime spokesperson in history. Joe Kent is a hero. Tulsi Gabbard is a coward. And Tulsi's cowardice is worse than the hawks who wanted this war in the first place because she knew it was wrong and she chose the title over the principle. Let's look at what Tulsi used to believe in her own words in 2019 on Fox News. She said, currently, Iran does not pose a direct threat to the United States. In 2020, after the Soleimani strike, she said, quote, this is a blatant undermining of our constitution. She called it reckless. She said it put troops at risk. And she took to the House floor and warned that war with Iran would be ⁓ worse than Iraq. and Afghanistan. In fact, it would make them both look like a picnic. And then her 2020 campaign famously sold no war with Iran t-shirts for $24.99. Then in 2024, endorsing Trump, she said, a vote for Donald Trump is a vote to end wars, not start them. So she campaigned for him. Then she got the job. She got the clearance. She got the seat in the Situation Room. Then the war started and for almost three weeks, silence. On Tuesday, Joe Kent resigned and he posted this, quote, I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. And then hours later, Tulsi broke her silence and she said, quote, Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our president and commander in chief. As our commander in chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country. Now, I wanna go through, this statement's crazy ⁓ if you read it critically. So I wanna go through Tulsi's statement line by line because... You'll see every sentence is doing work. It's expertly crafted. None of it's accidental, but it tells a lot about what's going on. So let's start with the opening. She says, Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people. So she opens her statement by establishing his authority. She's not establishing the intelligence. So she's making a legitimacy frame, a legitimacy argument. She's saying that the people chose him, so his decisions are inherently valid. That's saying it doesn't even really matter what's out there in terms of intelligence because he is the commander in chief, because he was elected by the populace, his decisions are inherently valid. That's what she's saying. So it's like creating this political shield for her. It's like no matter what, he's the guy. And it's true, but striking. in the context of the statement. The second thing that she says, as our commander in chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat. So this is the key sentence. ⁓ She, Tulsi, is the director of national intelligence. Her job literally is to assess threats. And instead of saying, assessed or we determined, she assigns that responsibility entirely to Trump. She pushes it to him. So what she's doing, clearly is building this firewall between herself and the decision. And then she goes on to say, whether or not to take action, he deems necessary, he deems. So again, she's not saying anything about the intelligence. She's not saying the intelligence supports. She's not saying the evidence shows. She's saying he deems. She's telling you in very bureaucratic political language that this is his call and his alone. And if it goes wrong, that sentence is her exit. And then the next one, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion. See, she's saying again, President Trump concluded, not ⁓ the intelligence community concluded, not I concluded. ⁓ So we have the director who will not put her own name on the threat assessment that tells you everything. Joe Kent wrote, Iran posed no imminent threat. Tulsi wrote, President Trump concluded that Iran posed an imminent threat. is a statement of conviction. The other is a statement of attribution. Now, here's why this is worse than the hawks. So Marco Rubio wants war with Iran. He's always wanted a war with Iran. Lindsey Graham has been dreaming about this ⁓ in own perverse, perverted way since 2003. These guys suck, I disagree with them, but at least they're consistent. They believe what they're selling. Tulsi does not believe anything that she's selling. That's what makes it worse. She built a following on the explicit promise that she would stand against exactly this. The anti-war coalition respected her, defended her confirmation, said she'd be the voice of restraint inside the administration. Well, she's not the voice of anything. In fact, sources told MSNOW, take this with a grain of salt, because this is like former MSNBC, but sources told them that in... ⁓ meetings before the war, Gabbard didn't raise concerns with Trump and read sentences off a piece of paper rather than from her own knowledge. So it seems like she's been sidelined from serious national security decisions for months. She's kept her mouth shut, just kept her title. And when her closest ally put his career on the line, she responded with a press release that amounted to the President Decides Things. Marjorie Taylor Greene called it out directly. She said, quote, people are paying attention, very close attention. Silence won't cut it. So let's talk about what principle actually costs. So Joe Kent will never work, of course, in this administration again. Trump called him immediately after his statement, weak on security, like within hours. Can you believe that? ⁓ The White House called him a crazed egomaniac. APAC and the ADL tagged him as an anti-Semite. Of course they did. That's what they do. They call everybody that. So his career in government is over. And this is a man, I'm sure you know, it's widely reported with 11 combat deployments. He's a Green Beret and a CIA paramilitary officer. I'm sure you know this too, like his wife Shannon was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria in 2019. Trump personally nominated him. He was confirmed 52 to 44 by every measure. He was a MAGA loyalist and You know, this was personal to him, but he gave all of that up because he looked at the intelligence, he concluded the war was unjustified and said so publicly. So that's what principle costs. Tulsi looked at the same intelligence and decided that the personal cost of doing the right thing was too high. You know, that's her choice, but nobody gets to make that choice and... keep the credibility that she built opposing these wars. You're either against unjustified wars of aggression or you're not. You don't get to campaign on it, fundraise on it, build a brand on it, and then sit in the situation room while the bombs drop and write a statement crediting the president for his leadership. So Tulsi, we'll see today what happens. She testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee later on today, a couple hours from now, think. ⁓ House Intelligence Committee, I think is tomorrow. I'm sure she'll be asked about Kent's claims. She'll be asked whether she agreed with his threat assessment. would imagine. Watch her answers carefully. And not just for what she says, but for what she doesn't say. If she says something like, I assessed the intelligence and concluded the threat was imminent. Well, then she's lying and Kent's resignation letter is the proof. if she says the president makes those determinations, well, she's then doing exactly what her Tuesday statement did, hiding behind process. to avoid any accountability. Kent gave up his career for a principle Tulsi used to share. Well, she chose differently. It was worth a title and a seat at the table, but nothing more.