Another anti-Trump Darroch claim !!

[Drummond]

It's becoming, I think, rather more obvious that the former UK ambassador to the US, Sir Kim Darroch, was heavily biased against President Trump. His accusations against Trump's Administration being 'inept' is proving to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Here's the latest, originating as a news story from the Mail on Sunday, but covered here by the BBC (it's currently their lead story on the domestic BBC News channel, and even being relayed on BBC-1):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978484

Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal to spite Barack Obama, according to a leaked memo written by the UK's former ambassador to the US.

Sir Kim Darroch described the move as an act of "diplomatic vandalism", according to the Mail on Sunday.

It says the memo was written after the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appealed to the US in 2018 to stick with the nuclear deal.

Under that agreement Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities.

It would also allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.

However, President Trump did not think that the deal went far enough.

The newspaper reports that after Mr Johnson returned to the UK from the US, Sir Kim wrote that President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" because the pact had been agreed by his predecessor, Barack Obama.

'APPEARED TO BE'. Not 'definitely was'.

It's surely completely clear by now. Darroch was working to disseminate his prejudices and biases by selling them, he hoped completely privately, as official, 'objective' reports. Seems to me that he was making an effort to poison UK-US relations, perhaps as a reaction to Trump not bending to Boris Johnson's views on the Iran deal.

'Sadly' for him, he's been found out, 'outed' by the Mail on Sunday.

What disturbs me is that the UK Government must've known the full range of Darroch's attacks when they defended him with their 'high praise'. But that praise has been unstinting.

Iran will be delighted, since it paints them as an innocent victim of Trump's so-called 'spite'. They'll claim that their trustworthiness within the parameters of the deal is inferrable, whereas the US, by contrast, has become an 'aggressor power' ....

... and all because we've a sick, jaundiced excuse for a 'diplomat' in Sir Kim !!

[Noir]

You expected the U.K. Ambassador to be in favour of removing a deal which the U.K. government was in favour of keeping?

[Gunny]

You expected the U.K. Ambassador to be in favour of removing a deal which the U.K. government was in favour of keeping?

I expect the President of the Untied States to not enter into any such one-sided deal with despots that are the mainframe exporters and suppliers of terrorism, warfare and unrest in the Middle East.

I fully expect stupid, baseless, class-less public accusations and insults to come from the Democratic Party, not the representative of a foreign nation and closest ally just because some leftwingnut wants to jump on the Hate Trump train.

I'd have killed the deal first thing in office too. Not to spite Obama; rather, to fix his fuck-up. It is not in the best interest of the United States, nor the rest of the World that we just "slow down" Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Spiting Obama was just a bonus to fixing the fuck-up.

You lefty Brits need to keep your damned mouths shut until you fix your own damned mess. Don't you have an enslavement to Europe you're trying to get out of walking backwards out the "in" door?

[Drummond]

I expect the President of the Untied States to not enter into any such one-sided deal with despots that are the mainframe exporters and suppliers of terrorism, warfare and unrest in the Middle East.

I fully expect stupid, baseless, class-less public accusations and insults to come from the Democratic Party, not the representative of a foreign nation and closest ally just because some leftwingnut wants to jump on the Hate Trump train.

I'd have killed the deal first thing in office too. Not to spite Obama; rather, to fix his fuck-up. It is not in the best interest of the United States, nor the rest of the World that we just "slow down" Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Spiting Obama was just a bonus to fixing the fuck-up.

You lefty Brits need to keep your damned mouths shut until you fix your own damned mess. Don't you have an enslavement to Europe you're trying to get out of walking backwards out the "in" door?

[Drummond]

You expected the U.K. Ambassador to be in favour of removing a deal which the U.K. government was in favour of keeping?

Gunny's given you a great answer, Noir.

I'd also say to you that your concept of a British Ambassador's role is a very strange one .. far removed from the parameters the role demands.

Darroch's role was essentially a Civil Service role. By what right did he inject his own political beliefs and biases into his job of objective reporting on the US ? If, repeat, IF, the British Government has any active view of American foreign policy, then it is THEIRS to hold to, and to initiate responses to it. Darroch was always meant to be our diplomatic representative, but in the process, he was meant also to exercise political neutrality to the point where he automatically recognised the American Government's right to create, follow, and implement, ITS policies as IT felt fit to !!

Darroch's arrogance in reporting in such a way as to loftily judge for himself the worth and the motivations of a man whose Government he had no jurisdiction over WHATSOEVER, and especially as he had no role, standing, or means of establishing motivations driving anyone in that Government ... is arrogant judgmentality that's off-the-scale.

Trump and his Administration have a right to govern as they choose (yes, Noir, really !) ... and they're not answerable to biases held by an arrogantly opinionated foreign Ambassador. Darroch should have done his job, and kept as neutral as his purview demanded ... not abused his position, as he clearly did.

[Noir]

Gunny's given you a great answer, Noir.

I'd also say to you that your concept of a British Ambassador's role is a very strange one .. far removed from the parameters the role demands.

Darroch's role was essentially a Civil Service role. By what right did he inject his own political beliefs and biases into his job of objective reporting on the US ? If, repeat, IF, the British Government has any active view of American foreign policy, then it is THEIRS to hold to, and to initiate responses to it. Darroch was always meant to be our diplomatic representative, but in the process, he was meant also to exercise political neutrality to the point where he automatically recognised the American Government's right to create, follow, and implement, ITS policies as IT felt fit to !!

Darroch's arrogance in reporting in such a way as to loftily judge for himself the worth and the motivations of a man whose Government he had no jurisdiction over WHATSOEVER, and especially as he had no role, standing, or means of establishing motivations driving anyone in that Government ... is arrogant judgmentality that's off-the-scale.

Trump and his Administration have a right to govern as they choose (yes, Noir, really !) ... and they're not answerable to biases held by an arrogantly opinionated foreign Ambassador. Darroch should have done his job, and kept as neutral as his purview demanded ... not abused his position, as he clearly did.

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.

[Drummond]

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dannoch wasn't there to represent ME.

What nonsense is this ?

Check out the role of a foreign ambassador. When you've done your research, THEN come back with your opinion(s), if any.

Until then, I assert: foreign Ambassadors aren't in the jobs they are, to manufacture political policies FOR the Governments they represent. The more an Ambassador injects subjective bias into his / her reporting, the greater the potential likelihood that Governmental policy will be influenced by those efforts.

This takes things in precisely the wrong direction. Policy-making should be home-grown, not invented either wholly or in part by Ambassadors !

[Gunny]

It was very arrogant indeed for the man to have an opinion that you don’t share.

You going to cry "racism" next? It's about the same level as your comment.

[Noir]

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dannoch wasn't there to represent ME.

What nonsense is this ?

Check out the role of a foreign ambassador. When you've done your research, THEN come back with your opinion(s), if any.

Until then, I assert: foreign Ambassadors aren't in the jobs they are, to manufacture political policies FOR the Governments they represent. The more an Ambassador injects subjective bias into his / her reporting, the greater the potential likelihood that Governmental policy will be influenced by those efforts.

This takes things in precisely the wrong direction. Policy-making should be home-grown, not invented either wholly or in part by Ambassadors !

Presumably then you see the problem as being much bigger than Dannoch? After all everyone who reads his reports, and did not take issue with them, is at fault, no?

[Drummond]

Presumably then you see the problem as being much bigger than Darroch? After all everyone who reads his reports, and did not take issue with them, is at fault, no?

The issue is more major than the way you've painted it, Noir. Darroch actually has strong SUPPORT.

I take it that you followed Alan Duncan's own commentary on this matter ? He's rounding on everybody who fails to give Darroch outright support. He's attacked Boris Johnson. He's attacked Nigel Farage. Duncan's gunning for everyone not agreeing with HIM !

I'm sure that Alan Duncan has access to Darroch's reports, and was familiar with them. Yet, there he was, claiming he 'threw something at the radio', in response to what he was hearing from Nigel Farage at the time:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...-us-ambassador

FOREIGN Office minister Sir Alan Duncan jokingly revealed he “threw something” at the radio during Nigel Farage’s Today Programme appearance on Monday morning.

Nigel Farage lashed out at the UK’s ambassador to the US, Sir Kim Darroch, after a series of scathing memos were leaked. Sir Alan Duncan told the Commons he “threw something” at the radio as Mr Farage’s appeared on the Today Programme, before “switching it off”. During urgent questions in the Commons, Labour MP Madeleine Moon said: “Sir Kim Darroch has always been someone who gave honest and frank reports, no matter which party he represented.

“Whenever delegations go to the US, it is vital that the briefings they have are honest and impartial, and they always have been.

“On the positive that happened this morning, is that during my journey to the station so many people I spoke to tuned in to Radio 4.

“And the minute they brought on Nigel Farage to make his comment, they immediately turned off because they felt his opinion on Sir Kim was so appalling.”

Sir Duncan replied: “I’d rather like to echo everything the honourable lady has just said.

“I also heard him on the radio and after throwing something at it I then switched it off.

'HONEST AND IMPARTIAL.'

This is surely a joke. A sick joke.

[Noir]

The issue is more major than the way you've painted it, Noir. Darroch actually has strong SUPPORT.

I take it that you followed Alan Duncan's own commentary on this matter ? He's rounding on everybody who fails to give Darroch outright support. He's attacked Boris Johnson. He's attacked Nigel Farage. Duncan's gunning for everyone not agreeing with HIM !

I'm sure that Alan Duncan has access to Darroch's reports, and was familiar with them. Yet, there he was, claiming he 'threw something at the radio', in response to what he was hearing from Nigel Farage at the time:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...-us-ambassador




'HONEST AND IMPARTIAL.'

This is surely a joke. A sick joke.

Do you think Boris Johnston has access to Datrochs reports?

[Drummond]

Do you think Boris Johnston has access to Datrochs reports?

I've no idea. Of course, I'm assuming it'd help if I knew who 'Datrochs' actually is ....

Anyway: back to the plot !

Noir, it's at times like this when I wonder if you're genuinely British. Are you seriously unaware of the details of Boris Johnson's (note the actual spelling !) career ?

He's done more than just be a London Mayor, you know (... you DO know ... don't you ?). More recently, he was a Foreign Secretary of ours ! So .... YES .... I think it possible that Johnson had access to Sir Kim's abusive 'missives' !!

Whether this helped determine the extent of non-support Johnson is said to have offered Darroch ... that's speculation. Perhaps.

Not that it's really relevant. I was addressing the wholehearted support Alan Duncan has expressed, and Duncan's intolerance of anybody not seeing this as HE does.

[Elessar]

Do you think Boris Johnston has access to Datrochs reports?

When exactly are you going to help fix the mess your ilk have caused the UK?

Instead you waltz in here and tell us how to right our ship of state!

You must be a reject from UK boards.

[Drummond]

I've no idea. Of course, I'm assuming it'd help if I knew who 'Datrochs' actually is ....

Anyway: back to the plot !

Noir, it's at times like this when I wonder if you're genuinely British. Are you seriously unaware of the details of Boris Johnson's (note the actual spelling !) career ?

He's done more than just be a London Mayor, you know (... you DO know ... don't you ?). More recently, he was a Foreign Secretary of ours ! So .... YES .... I think it possible that Johnson had access to Sir Kim's abusive 'missives' !!

Whether this helped determine the extent of non-support Johnson is said to have offered Darroch ... that's speculation. Perhaps.

Not that it's really relevant. I was addressing the wholehearted support Alan Duncan has expressed, and Duncan's intolerance of anybody not seeing this as HE does.

An addition to my post quote above, Noir.

I've been watching the latest BBC News broadcast on this issue. The report confirms that at the time Darroch sent his 'Trump scuppered the Iranian deal to spite Obama' allegation, Boris WAS THE FOREIGN SECRETARY. They further CONFIRM that Boris would've seen Darroch's assertion himself.

So, there's your answer, Noir.

I think it's becoming clear that Boris Johnson failed to give the extent of support to Darroch that his Conservative Party leadership competitor, Jeremy Hunt has done ... because he knew that Darroch was behaving as an opinionated maverick in his post, and was therefore unfit to continue.

[Drummond]

When exactly are you going to help fix the mess your ilk have caused the UK?

Instead you waltz in here and tell us how to right our ship of state!

You must be a reject from UK boards.

The annoying thing of it is that it IS Noir's ilk who hold the key to fixing the dysfunctional chaos we've got in our Parliament.

When Article 50 (the official means by which we began the process of withdrawing from the EU) was invoked, cross-Party support was given to that. This followed, of course, the 2016 Brexit Referendum result, the outcome of which each Party pledged to respect.

Noir's ilk in the Labour Party have been throwing spanners at the EU withdrawal process ever since, now taken to the extreme of a fundamental policy shift. They're now pro-Remain (staying within the EU), instead. They've reneged on everything.

Our mainstream Socialists offer nothing constructive. They act to sabotage at every turn. They even want a Referendum re-run, to overturn (they hope) the unwanted outcome of the first one. Why ? Because the People made a decision not to THEIR liking.

Hope for constructive thinking or conduct from the Left, and you'll be waiting forever. So it is, also, with political systems and decisions which aren't even their own to meddle with.

But, meddle, they will. Leftie arrogance knows no bounds.