UK wasn't prepared - and initially failed?

[STTAB]

I just wanted to say that I've nothing but sympathy for that point of view, and I've posted on this in years past.

My country has been prone to that sort of attitude in the past (I think it was a factor over the Falklands war, for example, back in the early Eighties; though, happily, Ron & Maggie had a better relationship than many leaders did). I agree. Some of my own people are simultaneously highly critical of aspects of American politics they don't like, but expect you all to instantly forget such judgments when we find it convenient.

It infuriates me. If America is our friend, and one we have expectations of 'rushing to our aid', then it's a friend we should respect and appreciate, not one we'll turn against at other times.

It's one reason why I felt pure disgust at the revelation of Kim Darroch's backstabbing libels. His comments showed him to be unfit for his job, and a national disgrace.

I wasn't even thinking about England when I wrote that. IMHO England is a true friend to this country. Does that mean we always agree, or always get along? Nope. You and I can disagree from topic to topic, does that mean we can't be friends? Of course not. As long as a solid basis of friendship exists.

[Drummond]

I wasn't even thinking about England when I wrote that. IMHO England is a true friend to this country. Does that mean we always agree, or always get along? Nope. You and I can disagree from topic to topic, does that mean we can't be friends? Of course not. As long as a solid basis of friendship exists.

[STTAB]

I'll go even further, shouldn't a friend be able privately communicate that they think a friend is wrong? I don't think what Darroch did or said says anything about the relationship between the US and England

[Drummond]

I'll go even further, shouldn't a friend be able privately communicate that they think a friend is wrong? I don't think what Darroch did or said says anything about the relationship between the US and England

Again ...

For my money, the best friend you can have is one prepared to do exactly that. None of us is immune to being wrong, and it'd be a good friend who acted in the friend's interests to correct them.

I agree. What Darroch said, or did, should't say anything about the relationship between the US and England.

That said -- there's a real world out there, and some 'non-friends' would very happily use any excuse to place a wedge between those two friendly powers. Darroch's crap isn't exactly immune to such opportunism being attempted.

In case this needs to be addressed, though, and for clarity, what Darroch said was not the act of a 'critical friend'. He went too far for that. An attack is exactly that. Darroch attacked Trump and his Administration, obviously fuelled by some barely-fathomable biases he possessed.

He was as unfit to continue in his job as he was to deserve having it.

[STTAB]

Again ...

For my money, the best friend you can have is one prepared to do exactly that. None of us is immune to being wrong, and it'd be a good friend who acted in the friend's interests to correct them.

I agree. What Darroch said, or did, should't say anything about the relationship between the US and England.

That said -- there's a real world out there, and some 'non-friends' would very happily use any excuse to place a wedge between those two friendly powers. Darroch's crap isn't exactly immune to such opportunism being attempted.

In case this needs to be addressed, though, and for clarity, what Darroch said was not the act of a 'critical friend'. He went too far for that. An attack is exactly that. Darroch attacked Trump and his Administration, obviously fuelled by some barely-fathomable biases he possessed.

He was as unfit to continue in his job as he was to deserve having it.

I don't know enough about the guy to know whether he was fit for the job or not. Based on my very limited experience with foreign Ambassadors I'm inclined to say he was fit for the job, it's a very low skill job in reality. They barely do any work at all, and that's exactly what most of them are qualified for.

And I definitely won't agree that having an opinion about Trump that we may or may not agree with neither qualifies nor disqualifies anyone for any public office.

[Kathianne]

Again ...

For my money, the best friend you can have is one prepared to do exactly that. None of us is immune to being wrong, and it'd be a good friend who acted in the friend's interests to correct them.

I agree. What Darroch said, or did, should't say anything about the relationship between the US and England.

That said -- there's a real world out there, and some 'non-friends' would very happily use any excuse to place a wedge between those two friendly powers. Darroch's crap isn't exactly immune to such opportunism being attempted.

In case this needs to be addressed, though, and for clarity, what Darroch said was not the act of a 'critical friend'. He went too far for that. An attack is exactly that. Darroch attacked Trump and his Administration, obviously fuelled by some barely-fathomable biases he possessed.

He was as unfit to continue in his job as he was to deserve having it.

I assume this was a missive that was to remain private. I thought he had a duty to be perfectly honest and opinionated on his take of those he was dealing with. If his judgement was found wrong too often, then he should be dismissed at worst; ignored at best. What wasn't expected was the info to go public, whomever leaked that, was the villain.

[STTAB]

I assume this was a missive that was to remain private. I thought he had a duty to be perfectly honest and opinionated on his take of those he was dealing with. If his judgement was found wrong too often, then he should be dismissed at worst; ignored at best. What wasn't expected was the info to go public, whomever leaked that, was the villain.

Said the same thing now that I said when the phone conversation between Trump and the Prime Minister of Australia was leaked way back when. You can't expect anything to be resolved if these people are lying to each other privately because they are afraid to be honest due to conversations being made public.

In the end, who gives a shit if Trump talked a little tough to the PM of Australia when he first took office, and who cares that Darroch thinks Trump is a moron?

Imagine in your own relationships if you were scared to tell those you were involved in the truth. Is that the basis for any kind of relationship? No.

[Drummond]

I don't know enough about the guy to know whether he was fit for the job or not. Based on my very limited experience with foreign Ambassadors I'm inclined to say he was fit for the job, it's a very low skill job in reality. They barely do any work at all, and that's exactly what most of them are qualified for.

And I definitely won't agree that having an opinion about Trump that we may or may not agree with neither qualifies nor disqualifies anyone for any public office.

Governments, be it mine, or yours, or others, benefit from objective reporting from the Ambassadors posted in the country in question. I don't regard their job as being legitimately one where the Ambassador sends pure vitriol. Darroch made comments so strong that you surely have to conclude they have no acquaintance with objectivity.

Darroch didn't just denigrate Trump. He attacked his entire Administration. If you believed Darroch's rants, you'd have to conclude that the current Administration is so dire that it has no right to exist.

It was certainly bad enough for our Left to take satisfaction from it !! Here's one Leftie newspaper, the UK's Guardian, doing just that:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-about-trump

This is what Kim Darroch, the British ambassador to the US, is reported to have said in private about Donald Trump.

On Trump’s ‘dysfunctional’ administration

“As seen from here, we really don’t believe that this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional, less unpredictable, less faction-riven, less diplomatically clumsy and inept” – Summer 2017

Comment: Or, to put it another way, the ambassador has read the papers. What Sir Kim Darroch said is not particularly contentious – at least outside Trump circles – but, in the best traditions of the Foreign Office, he states his case with an elegant turn of phrase.

On Trump radiating ‘insecurity’ ...

“For a man who has risen to the highest office on the planet, President Trump radiates insecurity … There is no filter [that prevents Trump making offensive comments] … We could also be at the beginning of a downward spiral, rather than just a rollercoaster; something could emerge that leads to disgrace and downfall” – Summer 2017

Comment: “Radiates insecurity” is another zinger, which appears to reflect personal knowledge of the president. In an interview with the Financial Times last year, Darroch gave a slightly different assessment. “I have met [Trump] seven or eight times and always found him to be absolutely charming,” he said.

On Trump’s state visit to UK

“The president knew from the outset that it amounted to genuinely special treatment … Although initially worried about getting the protocol right, he became more relaxed as it progressed; and by the end, he could not have been happier or more fulsome in his assessment” – 17 June 2019

Comment: In this memo, Darroch says inviting Trump to the UK for a state visit was a “gamble”. But he says from Washington’s perspective it was a great success, earning the UK embassy precious extra goodwill from Trump staffers for whom this was “the hottest ticket of their careers”.

On a Trump rally

“As is standard at these rallies, the language was incendiary, and a mix of fact and fiction – hard to reconcile with [vice-president Mike] Pence’s remarks about governing for all Americans … All that said, there is still a credible path for Trump – but so much rides on who the Democrats choose in July 2020” – 20 June 2019

Comment: Diplomats tend to enjoy trying their hand at reportage, and Darroch’s description of the Orlando rally – “the atmosphere was unique – somewhere between a major sporting event (where only the home team fans are in the crowd) and a mega-church” – would bring credit to any decent foreign correspondent.

On Trump aborting an airstrike against Iran at last minute

“[Trump’s] claim, however, that he changed his mind because of 150 predicted casualties doesn’t stand up; he would certainly have heard this figure in his initial briefing. It’s more likely that he was never fully on board and that he was worried about how this apparent reversal of his 2016 campaign promises would look come 2020 [at the next election]” – 22 June 2019

Comment: This is one of the most interesting memos because it is particularly recent. Darroch says the embassy was in the dark on the night of the aborted airstrike for a while because even its “best contacts” were unwilling to answer calls. He warns that a further Iranian attack, involving the loss of American life, could trigger a U-turn from Trump.

You can conclude the following .. obviously ...

1. The Guardian enjoyed itself ! It not only reported, it included its comments as part of its report ! Leftie 'spin' for you.

2. We're not talking about a 'one off' comment. We're not seeing any positivity at all, either. It's a catalogue of critical comments spanning, literally, years, and painting such an extreme picture that our own Government, if they believe that stuff, couldn't help but be wary or very guarded in its dealings with America !!

3. Note his comment: ' Darroch says inviting Trump to the UK for a state visit was a “gamble”.'. A comment showing a degree of poisoning of the US-UK relationship, because by Darroch's reckoning, having Trump here involved risk !! Where does Darroch express regret for this ??

Even more ... Darroch's Civil Service role meant he was supposed to be politically neutral. So why is he commenting on the political decision his employers had made by issuing the invitation ??

Can you not see that Darroch was disseminating poison, letting his own personal views rule his commentary .. that he had no regrets about doing any of this, & that was so bad that it threatened our whole ability -- IF believed in -- !! -- to maintain a proper political relationship with America !!!

Now .. is that, or is it not, an Ambassador's job to either create, or maintain, rather than try to undermine ???

I don't think I need to say more. My case is made.

[Drummond]

I assume this was a missive that was to remain private. I thought he had a duty to be perfectly honest and opinionated on his take of those he was dealing with. If his judgement was found wrong too often, then he should be dismissed at worst; ignored at best. What wasn't expected was the info to go public, whomever leaked that, was the villain.

Yes, it was meant to remain private. But, the 'commentary' from Darroch was so bad that it created its own diplomatic incident.

I don't agree that Darroch had any right to let vitriol take the place of objectivity. Darroch sent 'reports' back that were so bad, that, if believed in them, we in the UK would have to wonder just how stable any diplomatic relationship between the UK and US could be .. for as long as Trump and his people remained in office.

That is ridiculous, and SURELY, badly violates any diplomat's function !

Darroch should've been dismissed, without question. But until these reports were leaked, Darroch remained secure in his job.

Worse .. much worse .. he still commanded strong support from the UK side, even AFTER the leak !!

Alan Duncan attacked Boris J, very strongly, for failing to give the fullest possible support for Darroch. Jeremy Hunt went on record as saying he'd keep Darroch in his post until Christmas.

Jeremy Corbyn (Leftie Leader) was also unstinting in his support (surprise, surprise).

Meanwhile, the Guardian (Left wing newspaper) made a meal of the whole thing. I've just posted to show how far that went.

The leaker committed a criminal act (a clear breach of our Official Secrets Act). Yes. But .. what was being leaked ?

No, Kath, there's no excuse for what Darroch did. Nor yet for the astonishing SUPPORT our side continued to offer.

Clearly, Darroch's rabid prejudices have had their effect.

[Drummond]

Said the same thing now that I said when the phone conversation between Trump and the Prime Minister of Australia was leaked way back when. You can't expect anything to be resolved if these people are lying to each other privately because they are afraid to be honest due to conversations being made public.

In the end, who gives a shit if Trump talked a little tough to the PM of Australia when he first took office, and who cares that Darroch thinks Trump is a moron?

Imagine in your own relationships if you were scared to tell those you were involved in the truth. Is that the basis for any kind of relationship? No.

Sheer vitriol is not truth. Darroch went so far as to speculate on our future fortunes depending on who the Democrats could counter Trump with, in 2020. Bias, much ? Exceeding your political neutrality, much ... ?

Darroch evidently was not neutral, but his brief demanded political neutrality. That 'diplomat' was a total disgrace.

[Kathianne]

Yes, it was meant to remain private. But, the 'commentary' from Darroch was so bad that it created its own diplomatic incident.

I don't agree that Darroch had any right to let vitriol take the place of objectivity. Darroch sent 'reports' back that were so bad, that, if believed in them, we in the UK would have to wonder just how stable any diplomatic relationship between the UK and US could be .. for as long as Trump and his people remained in office.

That is ridiculous, and SURELY, badly violates any diplomat's function !

Darroch should've been dismissed, without question. But until these reports were leaked, Darroch remained secure in his job.

Worse .. much worse .. he still commanded strong support from the UK side, even AFTER the leak !!

Alan Duncan attacked Boris J, very strongly, for failing to give the fullest possible support for Darroch. Jeremy Hunt went on record as saying he'd keep Darroch in his post until Christmas.

Jeremy Corbyn (Leftie Leader) was also unstinting in his support (surprise, surprise).

Meanwhile, the Guardian (Left wing newspaper) made a meal of the whole thing. I've just posted to show how far that went.

The leaker committed a criminal act (a clear breach of our Official Secrets Act). Yes. But .. what was being leaked ?

No, Kath, there's no excuse for what Darroch did. Nor yet for the astonishing SUPPORT our side continued to offer.

Clearly, Darroch's rabid prejudices have had their effect.

Here's where we see an ambassador's job differently. They are to be the eyes and ears of the executive. They are also to make 'educated guesses' about the administration in general and the leaders as specific as they can. It is both an objective and subjective position. The ambassador's use to their boss, is only worth that boss's assessment of the information given. President Trump and /or his Secretary of State and minions, rely on the ambassadors for what they 'see' and 'how they interpret' both the leaders and those led. They are making judgments for how long the leaders may remain and how the people are going to follow. When they are giving these assessments, they may well be contradictory. Say in Puerto Rico right now, the governor there has been very negative towards the President and now is in a very, very bad position in his country-Our president in all likelihood had a good heads up of what was going to happen. PR certainly isn't the UK and the ambassador there would not be a 1st tier choice-likely just a political payback, big donor. Still, with the help of the staff, President Trump had pretty good intel, along with the NSA info most likely knowing all about the emails. LOL!

Some positions are more important than others. I'd imagine for UK, the ambassador to the US is very important-as is vice versa. Churchill for instance was well aware that FDR had decided that Stalin wasn't going to cause the US to deal with communism immediately after WWII. I'd guess that Churchill had a few words about that. Both the British and American ambassadors heard plenty from both, not to mention both countries ambassadors to USSR. Each knew as much as possible what the other one was thinking, hoping for, etc. That kind of information isn't possible without the ambassadors being able to communicating their own observations and thoughts, they are the ones spending time. It doesn't mean that others from State, (in the case of US) or the executives themselves putting their own judgments from personal dealings into the mix, but the transparent opinions of the ambassadors are also useful.

It is not a requirement that the opinions be those of the executive or of the majority/minority of persons in the country.

It seems that since you vehemently disagreed with what was said, you find the person delivering the information to blame. I'd only agree with that if he were the one who put his opinions out in the open. Now, it may well have been that Ms. May strongly disagreed even if kept quiet, and let him go. That though does not seem to be what transpired.

[STTAB]

Governments, be it mine, or yours, or others, benefit from objective reporting from the Ambassadors posted in the country in question. I don't regard their job as being legitimately one where the Ambassador sends pure vitriol. Darroch made comments so strong that you surely have to conclude they have no acquaintance with objectivity.

Darroch didn't just denigrate Trump. He attacked his entire Administration. If you believed Darroch's rants, you'd have to conclude that the current Administration is so dire that it has no right to exist.

It was certainly bad enough for our Left to take satisfaction from it !! Here's one Leftie newspaper, the UK's Guardian, doing just that:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-about-trump



You can conclude the following .. obviously ...

1. The Guardian enjoyed itself ! It not only reported, it included its comments as part of its report ! Leftie 'spin' for you.

2. We're not talking about a 'one off' comment. We're not seeing any positivity at all, either. It's a catalogue of critical comments spanning, literally, years, and painting such an extreme picture that our own Government, if they believe that stuff, couldn't help but be wary or very guarded in its dealings with America !!

3. Note his comment: ' Darroch says inviting Trump to the UK for a state visit was a “gamble”.'. A comment showing a degree of poisoning of the US-UK relationship, because by Darroch's reckoning, having Trump here involved risk !! Where does Darroch express regret for this ??

Even more ... Darroch's Civil Service role meant he was supposed to be politically neutral. So why is he commenting on the political decision his employers had made by issuing the invitation ??

Can you not see that Darroch was disseminating poison, letting his own personal views rule his commentary .. that he had no regrets about doing any of this, & that was so bad that it threatened our whole ability -- IF believed in -- !! -- to maintain a proper political relationship with America !!!

Now .. is that, or is it not, an Ambassador's job to either create, or maintain, rather than try to undermine ???

I don't think I need to say more. My case is made.

You are wrong about Ambassadors being subjective. Their entire purpose is to give the home country OPINIONS which the elected leaders than use to form policy.

What if, for example, France elected someone who was truly crazy, don't you think the President of the United States would need our Ambassador to France to give frank honest opinions?

This really was much ado about nothing.

[Drummond]

Here's where we see an ambassador's job differently. They are to be the eyes and ears of the executive. They are also to make 'educated guesses' about the administration in general and the leaders as specific as they can. It is both an objective and subjective position. The ambassador's use to their boss, is only worth that boss's assessment of the information given. President Trump and /or his Secretary of State and minions, rely on the ambassadors for what they 'see' and 'how they interpret' both the leaders and those led. They are making judgments for how long the leaders may remain and how the people are going to follow. When they are giving these assessments, they may well be contradictory. Say in Puerto Rico right now, the governor there has been very negative towards the President and now is in a very, very bad position in his country-Our president in all likelihood had a good heads up of what was going to happen. PR certainly isn't the UK and the ambassador there would not be a 1st tier choice-likely just a political payback, big donor. Still, with the help of the staff, President Trump had pretty good intel, along with the NSA info most likely knowing all about the emails. LOL!

Some positions are more important than others. I'd imagine for UK, the ambassador to the US is very important-as is vice versa. Churchill for instance was well aware that FDR had decided that Stalin wasn't going to cause the US to deal with communism immediately after WWII. I'd guess that Churchill had a few words about that. Both the British and American ambassadors heard plenty from both, not to mention both countries ambassadors to USSR. Each knew as much as possible what the other one was thinking, hoping for, etc. That kind of information isn't possible without the ambassadors being able to communicating their own observations and thoughts, they are the ones spending time. It doesn't mean that others from State, (in the case of US) or the executives themselves putting their own judgments from personal dealings into the mix, but the transparent opinions of the ambassadors are also useful.

It is not a requirement that the opinions be those of the executive or of the majority/minority of persons in the country.

It seems that since you vehemently disagreed with what was said, you find the person delivering the information to blame. I'd only agree with that if he were the one who put his opinions out in the open. Now, it may well have been that Ms. May strongly disagreed even if kept quiet, and let him go. That though does not seem to be what transpired.

I do vehemently disagree with what was said. Yes, I definitely do ! But, WHY do I ?

I don't believe an Ambassador's role includes fomenting tensions, by submitting commentary that can't help but have that effect. You talk of it being part of an Ambassador's brief to be subjective as well as objective. Well ... if this is a well-founded summary of a diplomat's range of duties, doesn't it also follow that professionalism must also be involved ? Do Ambassadors not receive proper training, to ground them in the proper execution of their duties ?

Does it not follow that subjective comment MUST NOT be reckless, so intemperate as to not even have a nodding acquaintance with diplomatic reserve or verifiable, grounded, FACT ?

Does it not follow that reports need to be evidence-based ? That conclusions, partly to serve the cause of sheer fairness, need to be entirely separated from individual (especially doctrinaire) bias ?

I've posted this on another thread; see below. It's a video clip of Nigel Farage (founder of UKIP, and the newer Brexit Party, and therefore a seasoned and experienced UK politician) ... who had dealings with Darroch, in a former role of Darroch's, in Brussels.

Play the clip, from around 45 seconds in (the recording dates back to the moment the Darroch scandal first broke, and before Trump had begun tweeting his responses). See & hear what Farage's assessment of Darroch is. Note his revealing to us that Darroch was candid about thinking he COULD do his job, but in doing it, not - apparently - bother with neutrality. Darroch considered - as you'll hear - his job to be one of promoting a pro-EU agenda, when in Brussels !



Farage was one notable figure who called for Darroch's sacking. He considered Darroch's commenting to be a total disgrace.

Point: surely, SURELY, diplomatic reports need to be evidence-based ? That, rather than founded on pure suspicion, for which there are no grounds ? Note from Farage what Darroch had to say on Russians ? Claiming that Trump 'could be indebted to dodgy Russians' was speculation that Darroch passed on, but which he couldn't possibly have backed up !!! As for what it was, well ... and especially from some time ago ... it was prime pro-Democrat propaganda-fodder.

This tells you .. what ?

[Drummond]

You are wrong about Ambassadors being subjective. Their entire purpose is to give the home country OPINIONS which the elected leaders than use to form policy.

What if, for example, France elected someone who was truly crazy, don't you think the President of the United States would need our Ambassador to France to give frank honest opinions?

This really was much ado about nothing.

Opinions ... perhaps. Giving vent to personal bias, masquerading as fact-based opinion ... I don't think so.

If it was really 'much ado about nothing', then how come Darroch isn't still there, in Washington, peddling his vitriol ?

No. Darroch himself realised that the game was up. The leak had 'outed' him, he could see what massive damage his comments had caused, and even HE concluded that he couldn't operate as our Ambassador any longer.

If Darroch had done nothing wrong, and had operated within the proper parameters of his brief, why did even Darroch realise he couldn't continue in his job ?

Darroch offered no opinion (and what would've stopped him, given his record ??) saying that the job of UK Ambassador to the US was impossible to do.

That's because ... it isn't. NOT FOR AN AMBASSADOR DOING HIS JOB RESPONSIBLY.

[STTAB]

Opinions ... perhaps. Giving vent to personal bias, masquerading as fact-based opinion ... I don't think so.

If it was really 'much ado about nothing', then how come Darroch isn't still there, in Washington, peddling his vitriol ?

No. Darroch himself realised that the game was up. The leak had 'outed' him, he could see what massive damage his comments had caused, and even HE concluded that he couldn't operate as our Ambassador any longer.

If Darroch had done nothing wrong, and had operated within the proper parameters of his brief, why did even Darroch realise he couldn't continue in his job ?

Darroch offered no opinion (and what would've stopped him, given his record ??) saying that the job of UK Ambassador to the US was impossible to do.

That's because ... it isn't. NOT FOR AN AMBASSADOR DOING HIS JOB RESPONSIBLY.

The reason he's gone is that for somoene who likes to hurl insults the way he does Trump is a thin skinned baby back bitch . That's the facts jack. The guy resigned b/c Trump threw a fit and this guy didn't want to be a further distraction.


See, I like some of the things Trump is doing, but he flat out sucks in some areas and this is one of them. I learned in like the 2nd grade that not everyone is gonna like you. Shrug that shit off and move on, most people react this way. But Trump isn't one of those people.