Just when we thought the great national embarrassment of a UN Ambassador Samantha Power was over, we are suddenly faced with a new US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who almost makes Ms. Power look like a giant in world affairs and diplomacy.
Addressing the UN Security Council Open Debate on Conflicts in Europe today, Ambassador Haley managed to get nearly every single point spectacularly wrong while mixing in the most banal of platitudes to further deaden the delivery.
Said Haley:
It can be tempting to take Europe’s peace and security for granted. Europe is a continent of strong, stable democracies. And Europe is a continent of flourishing economies that benefit from close cooperation.
But Europe faces serious challenges – most acutely, Russia’s attempts to destabilize Ukraine and infringe upon Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
How exactly is Russia attempting to destabilize Ukraine? It was Russia, after all, and not the US, which called together the opposing sides two years ago to hammer out the “Minsk II” ceasefire and reconciliation agreement. Was not that in fact a stabilizing move rather than a destabilizing move?
Haley continues:
More than three years ago, the Ukrainian people took to the streets to speak out against political oppression and corruption. These protesters demanded freedom, democracy, and respect for the rule of law, and they succeeded in creating a new Ukraine.
That is not all what happened. It was the “protesters” who started the killing. They targeted police officers to provoke a response and thus add fuel to the simmering flame of months long protests in 2014. Russian propaganda, you say? Not at all. The killers went on television to brag about it!
Here is the story of one of the cop killers, Ivan Bubenchik, as reported in Foreign Policy magazine (hardly a pro-Russia outlet) and told on camera to Ukraine’s Hromadske TV station:
To create a word of mouth effect, you have to shoot two or three [police] commanders I only picked two. And after that, there was no need to kill anyone else, so I aimed at the legs.
Does Nikki Haley support killing police officers?
Another report – this time in the BBC – told the same story. It was Nikki Haley’s peaceful protesters who started the violence by shooting at police:
The protest leaders, some of whom now hold positions of power in the new Ukraine, insist full responsibility for the shootings lies with the security forces, acting on behalf of the previous government.
But one year on, some witnesses are beginning to paint a different picture.
‘I was shooting downwards at their feet,’ says a man we will call Sergei, who tells me he took up position in the Kiev Conservatory, a music academy on the south-west corner of the square.
‘Of course, I could have hit them in the arm or anywhere. But I didn’t shoot to kill.’
Sergei says he had been a regular protester on the Maidan for more than a month, and that his shots at police on the square and on the roof of an underground shopping mall, caused them to retreat.
Does Nikki Haley believe shooting police officers is justified as long as you’re demanding “respect for the rule of law”?
In fact, the overthrow of the government in Ukraine was not at all set in motion by the Ukrainian people. It was planned in Washington and executed in the streets of Kiev, where US policymakers openly urged an overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government.
It is established fact that US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was on the streets of Kiev with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt meeting with the protesters, encouraging them, and handing out food. Later she was caught in a phone call with the US Ambassador plotting in detail the overthrow of the government and how to replace it with Washington’s picks.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was also on the streets of Kiev during the early stages of the coup. He was actively supporting the overthrow of Ukraine’s legal government. Said McCain:
We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe…
Later on CNN, McCain admitted his role in the coup, stating:
What we’re trying to do is try to bring about a peaceful transition here…
How would Senator McCain react were a Russian member of parliament appear in the midst of a Washington, D.C. riot urging “a peaceful transition here”?
Trump’s Ambassador to the UN continued:
But Russia has tried to prevent the change that the Ukrainian people demanded. Russia occupied Crimea and attempted to annex this piece of Ukrainian territory – an act the United States does not recognize.
That is also demonstrably false. Russia did not “occupy” Crimea because the Russian military was already in Crimea! Russia had leased the naval base in Crimea from the Ukrainian government until 2042. The troops were already there. Russia did not attempt to annex Crimea, but rather a referendum was held in which, according to the BBC, 90 percent of the residents voted to rejoin Russia (of which they had been a part since the 18th century).
Surely this is fake news! Why would Crimeans vote to leave Ukraine and join Russia? In fact Russians make up more than 65 percent of the population of Crimea and when the US-backed coup brought to power a vehemently anti-Russian government in Kiev was it really so surprising that the people would look for the exit signs?
Haley continues:
Russia then armed, financed, and organized separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, leading to a devastating and senseless conflict that has cost more than 10,000 lives.
Again untrue. The rebellion in eastern Ukraine was fueled by the US-backed coup in Kiev. Eastern Ukraine is predominantly Russian-speaking and in some parts of the region 96 percent voted for the president ousted with US support. As one might expect, unrest follows when one’s president is overthrown with assistance from an outside power. And it was the US who did the arming, financing, and organizing the unelected coup forces who took power in Kiev.
More Haley:
The scenes of destruction from the town of Avdiivka in recent weeks show the consequences of Russia’s ongoing interference in Ukraine.
Avdiivka fell under attack after the Kiev forces advanced into the no-man’s land separating the opposing sides. Ukrainian deputy defense minister Pavlovaky admitted that “meter by meter, step by step, whenever possible our boys have been advancing.”
You get the point. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has no clue what is happening in eastern Ukraine and so has just dusted off the dusty old talking points of the Obama Administration.
While on the campaign trail last year, Donald Trump sharply (and correctly) criticized the Obama Administration’s militaristic foreign policy. At the time Trump said:
…unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength.
He continued by calling for new people and new approaches to foreign policy:
My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations. That’s why I also look and have to look for talented experts with approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war. We have to look to new people.
Well, Mr. President, I am sorry to have to inform you of this, but when it comes to Ambassador Nikki Haley, you may technically have “new people” in positions but you most certainly do not have new ideas. You have failed former ambassador Samantha Power’s stale, regurgitated talking points. Enough!
Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Isn’t it part of the job description of U.S. Ambassador to the UN: to be an embarrassment to the American people?
Yes!
The Trump supporters are hateful delirious.
No,no: the job is to be an embarrassment ON BEHALF OF the American people. You’re not embarrassed by this feminist fraud?
Does the South Carolina sun have a particularly deleterious effect on SC politicians? Ex-SC Gov. Nikki Haley joins SC Sen Lindsey Graham as two of the most delusional politicians in the swamp.
S.C. is radioactive.
I would suggest that the title of this piece doesn’t frame the problem correctly. Clueless and parroting the official US stance are two different things.
And so, while Power was a reflection of the Obama admin, and spoke accordingly, Haley reflects the position of the Trump admin.
And so where is some apparent ‘clueless’ discrepancy in Haley’s words which wouldn’t be reflecting the Trump admin’s position.
I guess that when it comes right down to the short strokes folks, Americans have to come to terms with recognizing that they are the enemy of peace. Unless somebody can promote the idea of ‘clueless’ on Haley’s part?
Exactly, suggesting that it’s about being clueless is similar to asking “when will they learn?” It is purely a matter of it being US imperialist policy. We are the evil empire.
Agree to your agreement. Major speeches by the U.S. UN ambassador are always coordinated with and approved by Washington. Haley was mouthing what the White House wanted her to say.
The interesting subtext is if Tillerson has been shoved into a corner with foreign policy being run out of the Pentagon and by the Security State militarists in Trump’s inner circle. (BTW, like in the Bush Administration.)
My guess is that it is indeed the case. Trump has been turned to bellicose Neocon orthodoxy.
Tillerson is in for Exxon.
Hard to face the truth but it is essential to reverse this course set by a small but powerful minority.
Right and Trump has one of the lowest IQ in the whole US!
David, how are we ever going to make any antiwar progress with racist pigs like you around?
I object to your ugly hateful racism. Your and my political views have nothing to do with that.
And then you up the ante with a suggestion that I should be shot. It’s pretty obvious that there’s nothing good about you at all.
Well said David! Do you have many friends who think the same as you?
Just one question: What is it about other races that is different from whites, other than just skin colour.
I’ve suggested in the past on this site that you wouldn’t be in the minorty with your thoughts. I’m of the opinion that most Trump supporters would be mostly with you. Would you say that a majority of Trump supporters are with you on what you have said?
“All this talk of “tax reform” is just smoke and mirrors, a way of disguising the reality that every dollar government spends has to come from somewhere, and that that somewhere is taxation. Borrowing money is just promising to tax later. Inflating the currency is just a hidden tax.”
This is Knapp in an article on proposed tariffs. It is anarch-capitalist blind dogma (and completely false).
If you supplied a link, it didn’t show up.
In my opinion all the talk on tax reform is just people hoping that tax reform will be to their personal benefit.
I’m completely aware of government waste but I think of that in the perspective of free enterprise waste. Government can usually do something as well as free enterprise and in a lot of cases better. I’m Canadian and am most likely to the left of most Americans. Fwiw: Obamacare would have been a huge success if it wasn’t for big business protecting it’s interests at the expense of the people.
It is an article of faith to the right wing that currency issuing governments don’t actually issue their currencies. This suits the plutocrats’ private agenda but it is clearly absurd on its face.
It’s not capitalist in any respect, nor is it specifically anarchist. It’s just plain common sense and an irrefutable fact of reality.
It also has precisely zero to do with Antiwar.com. At some point you stop being just an annoyance and become an off-topic thread flooder.
As I said, it is an article of faith (as opposed to discernible reality) amongst the far right voodoo economics types.
Your take on ‘reality’ is important to explore.
The US government is the issuer of $US. But you apparently have been convinced otherwise.
OK, so you want to talk about far rightists. And you want to talk about me, a far leftist. The problem is that you seem to think they’re the same thing.
A far leftist?
I think not.
Good job of balance. Your first sentence is false to the extent that it implies a falsity of my claim (libertarianism is the leftmost point on the political spectrum — a consistent leftist is a libertarian and vice versa). Your second sentence is the truest thing I’ve read today.
Don’t define yourself to death
I think you are being deliberately disingenuous here Tom. Few people these days think of libertarians as radical communist syndicalists. The term has been hijacked as you well know.
We all associate the term with the nutty right wing Ron Paul types and their wacky Austrian voodoo economics.
And I see you more in line with Rothbard than I do with Marx.
Am I wrong?
John g,
I’m certainly an Austrian subjectivist in economics.
Not a big Rothbard fan.
Marx was the first major right-deviationist from the libertarian class theory elaborated by Comte/Dunoyer with a background in Hodgskin and Paine.
Austrian economics is cartoonish nonsense. It has no place in serious discourse.
Who is to say? No one is an expert in political terminology but I have noticed a lot of fascists who think themselves to be champion of patriotic values. Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and semantics is their starting position.
Cognitive dissonance is the essence of both the technique and the problem.
If, as you claim, the Federal government can only get dollars from taxing the private sector, where the hell does the private sector get them?
It’s not common sense, Tom. It is conditioned delusion.
Taxation serves several purposes but ‘revenue’ for spending is not one of them.
Dollars are a used as a medium of exchange and a store of wealth. The fact that the markers (“dollars”) are printed by the US Treasury (after being created as account balances and loaned to the Treasury by the Federal Reserve) is irrelevant to the fact that the actual wealth those markers are used to represent, and that is extracted from the populace through taxation in one or more of the forms I mention, is not in fact created by government.
And all of which, one last time, has nothing whatsoever to do with the article you’re commenting on.
US$ are liabilities of the Federal government created by keystroke mark ups of private bank accounts. Thus, they are credits of the non-government. (Remember your balance sheet?)
They are virtual and their supply is unlimited.
So we are living in virtual reality?
The monetary system is an accounting system of credits and debts. We have state money by fiat.
OK, so now you are saying what I’ve been saying the whole time. Schizoid much?
You have stated the opposite.
In your imagination, perhaps. I must admit, that imagination is pretty vivid.
I was very specific vis a vis Austrian economics. I said I’m an Austrian subjectivist. Reading any more into it than that (extreme apriorism, a particular business cycle theory, etc.) would be unwarranted.
You’ve asserted unambiguously that the US government can ONLY obtain US$ from taxation.
Whatever labels you care to pin on your lapel can’t get you out of that falsehood.
Actually, that’s not precisely what I asserted, but it will do. You seem to think there’s some conflict between what I say and what you say. Which may be the case, but only if you have some secret esoteric meaning to what you say.
It’s not me being secretive. I am stating that the US government issues its own $ and does not require tax ‘revenue’ nor ‘borrowing’ to fund its spending.
Look at that last word. Consider it. It explains why you are wrong.
Yes, the US can create “dollars” out of thin air all it wants.
It can’t spend those dollars unless the people it’s trying to buy things from consider those dollars to be an acceptable medium of exchange and store of wealth.
A dollar is worth whatever you and I — two people trading something for a dollar or vice versa — AGREE it is worth.
The government can create dollars all it wants. It can only SPEND dollars through taxation — that is, by taking wealth (taxing), borrowing wealth (promising to tax) or inflating wealth away (secretly taxing). Otherwise it just has a bunch of pieces of paper that are good for nothing but wiping its ass with.
Thomas, ultimately demand for $ is created/driven by taxation. This is not what you are saying before you claim so.
How the F can the government SPEND through taxation?
Government spending creates net financial assets in the non government sector. Taxation removes those (previously created) financial assets.
All this ‘agreement on a dollar’s worth’ malarkey is just drivel. $ are accounting units.
The gold standard era, thankfully, is long gone.
Yes, dollars are accounting units — and since they are used as a medium of exchange and a store of wealth, there is something they’re accounting FOR.
Valuation is not “malarkey.” Any time I offer you a dollar for something, you have to decide which is worth more to you, the dollar I’m offering or the thing you have. And vice versa. That judgment, in the aggregate of the billions of such transactions that take place daily, is the entire basis of the dollar’s value.
There were reasons that gold made good money, but they certainly can be over-emphasized. It was convenient to purify/unitize, it was fairly rare, it was a useful material that people wanted for purposes other than medium of exchange/store of wealth, and since both wealth and information moved at the speed of horse until a couple of centuries ago, it was more trustworthy than a note with “Bank of [State] promises” on it. But I have no problem at all with currencies that lack “intrinsic value” as a commodity.
“Any time I offer you a dollar for something, you have to decide which is worth more to you, the dollar I’m offering or the thing you have. And vice versa. That judgment, in the aggregate of the billions of such transactions that take place daily, is the entire basis of the dollar’s value.”
Good lord. You seem determined to muddy the waters rather than accept the simple concept of state currency issuance.
We have no argument about state currency issuance. We have an argument about what makes state spending possible. What makes state spending possible is taxation. The state can print dollars (or just create them as electronic balances) all day long, but those dollars can’t be spent unless the people accepting believe they have value.
It isn’t where you started and your ‘value’ guff is a red herring.
As opposed to your assertions, government spending pays the taxes that the government levies.
So we’re back to you either living in a fantasy world or being a complete idiot. Either way, it’s not really something I’m interested in continuing to pursue at a web site that’s about something else entirely. Especially when, in theory, my job includes putting the kibosh on threadjacking.
Astonishing ignorance.
I think you just can’t get your head around macro, Tom. But you don’t want to admit it. So you resort to abuse and authoritarianism.
C’est la vie in Libertoonian world.
Interesting aside though. Thanks
Tom Knapp, please David’s comment standing. It doesn’t get any more honest and direct than that. Here’s an example of a guy who isn’t afraid to speak his mind!
And too, it’s just screaming for others to comment on it
That’s not how it works.
What doesn’t work that way? I’m hoping for David to tell us how much support for his views he thinks he has. That’s how it’s going to work if he hasn’t figured out what’s going on. Thanks for leaving his comment up so far anyway!
Thomas, I’ve been trying to promote interest in Ron Paul’s reports and it’s going slow. Some of my comments are commending him and some are criticism. How about you get in there on these worthwhile pieces and do some commenting. it’s in need of an intellectual boost here on this site.
As for his and Daniel’s stuff being seen elsewhere, is it? If not then it’s a waste and it shouldn’t be wasted.
“What doesn’t work that way?”
Stormfront trolls get shown the door and their stuff gets deleted, not kept as a showcase for whoever might find it fun.
The Ron Paul Liberty report appears in various venues other than Antiwar.com. We don’t produce it, we just carry it.
I comment when I’m interested in commenting, just like everyone else.
Thanks, I may search it out to see if there are other comment boards where Ron and Dan are interactive.
I support your right to do so
Knapp bans people from his own blog for showing up his inability to understand a balance sheet.
Laughing out loud at you Tom.
Knapp bans people from his own blog who annoy him. That’s not limited to people who babble incoherent nonsense like you. It’s just a general policy. “My own blog” means exactly that.
Balance sheets are ‘incoherent nonsense’ to you Tom.
Still laughing at you.
Knapp’s an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ who is so uneducated and deluded that he thinks that is a real proposition.
“Knapp’s an ‘anarcho-capitalist'”
Nope.
You’ve read him wrong. He’s educated enough and he’s a libertarian. That doesn’t always mean anarchist because anarchy is only on a graduated scale. The libertarian is hardly ever the entire mindset of anarchy.
.
Except that the libertarian title is not an adequate description in my opinion. There are libertarians and then there are libertarians. It’s a political persuasion to varying degrees
.
A long and drawn out conversation is necessary with a libertarian in order to determine their level of commitment to the total agenda. That is seldom possible because they don’t speak out clearly on their fringe beliefs. But they do hint at them from time to time.
Maybe no different in a way to a leftist in the US not expressing his/her entire agenda, for a fear of lack of acceptance by the mainstream.
One thing we do know about libertarians is that they are nearly always very angry. Sometimes that anger is channeled into useful purposes.
I’m certainly an anarchist. But I’m not a capitalist.
You display about as much knowledge of actual libertarianism as I do of brain surgery.
Anarchists come in varying degrees Thomas and although that message was written for you too, it wasn’t an attempt to label you or pin you down. You’re not a total anarchist but I suspect you’re as close as most libertarians get.
If you were that you wouldn’t have electric power for your computer or access to the internet. you would be living out in the wild somewhere where there are no roads and not grocery stores. Just the bears and the birds!
OK, so now we know that you haven’t the slightest idea what “anarchist” means. Noted.
I know what qualifies a person to be an anarchist and you ain’t got it.
I know of no real ones but lots of pretenders who are reliant on the system and on government to keep it working.
I know all about the American style of pseudo-libertarian Thomas and the reason why they got there. It’s where they turn when they’re angry and can’t turn left because it’s been crammed into their heads since the cradle that it’s evil. Canadians have that option and so don’t need to trun to a completely false hope of their persuasion ever actually becoming reality.
It’s just too bad because it’s a bloody waste. But it’s good for US style capitalism because it’s never challenged. Hence, the US hasn’t ever experienced the kind of success socially responsible capitalism has to offer. You’re bing snookered by the system and it doesn’t matter how angry you get about it, those who prop up the system know that you will never be a threat to their power.
You see, in Canada the powers that be are constantly aware of the socialist (commie) at the door, whereas in the US there’s no opposition to the two big capitalist parties.
That’s sure a long-winded way of saying “you’re right, I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
In any case, I’m not really sure what the subject of my anarchism (not primitivism, not capitalism, anarchism) has to do with an article about the US ambassador to the United Nations.
You may want to try demonstrating some of your libertarian views in your comments on the antiwar site. For the most part all I hear from you are hints that you’re interested in deconstructing society without proposals on how you would rebuild it. It leads me to believe that you have none. About all I hear is anger and an indication that you would be happy dictating your terms on others, and so you have set yourself up in a position of authority that can serve your needs in a small way.
In any case, I guess it’s fair to say that any libertarian or anarchist can only hope to be such and can never achieve the goal. At least others should be able to expect that we would be hearing more about their goals as they pertain to their endgame. Without such, it just comes off as negativism due to some skeleton in the closet? Sadly, that’s the only commonality I’ve ever been able to find.
On the supplyside forum which I’ve mentioned, I got to know some of the libertarians over a period of ten years or so. It actually took about that long to be able to understand where they ‘really’ were coming from. In my opinion it turned out that most of them were really Republicans or hard rightists that felt disenfranchise by the Republican party. They individually let the truth leak out when they talked about how they hated paying taxes and then proposed something like a flat tax. Or in reality, just a system of taxation that would favour them.
Would that make you happy and solve all your problems? I ask because it works for most people. It seems to be the part of society that gets in the way for libertarians. And if not, then would you take the time to explain what else you would require? Or in other words, if you got to keep all your money, would that be anarchist enough for you?
“For the most part all I hear from you are hints that you’re interested in deconstructing society without proposals on how you would rebuild it. It leads me to believe that you have none.”
If you’re too lazy to use Google, why should I bust my ass to educate you? I already bust my ass writing, among other things, about 150 newspaper columns a year chock full of the stuff you claim to be looking for.
Good! But it’s only in your mind to think that somebody would go looking for you in other places. So why not provide some links (directions) instead of the anger? That just reinforces my opinion and the perception with others. So specifically, after you have succeeded in tearing down society, I’m interested in the positive stuff on how you would rebuild it.
Actually, I did find something by you quite some time ago by googling your name. Probably as much as anybody else has done through this antiwar site? I didn’t hear anything at the time that caused me to be interested but I may not have pursued it far enough. I’ll give it another try today. Can you back off on the anger a bit? It’s not exactly a pretty picture that encourages others to be interested. And I don’t understand how it should have anything in common with anarchy or libertarianism.
I don’t expect that anyone and everyone would go looking for me in other places. But you have complained more than once that you don’t know what I think about a whole bunch of things, and indicate that you want to. Last time I noticed, there were more than 40,000 search results attached to my name in Google, most of them pointing to my current libertarian media project (thegarrisoncenter.org), the anarchist tank I used to work at (c4ss.org), my blog (knappster.blogspot.com), etc. I’ve got about 20 years of online political writing under my belt, most of which is still available on the web for anyone who cares to look for it.
Very little of it has anything to do with Antiwar.com. When I write something relating to foreign policy I do submit it for publication here and sometimes it’s picked up, but I try to keep foreign policy down to 10-20% of my writing.
Like I said, I listened to #117 and I learned quite a bit more about you because it was mostly about you. And so, you’re definitely a leftist because we have some things in common. As well as some things not. I’ll try the link to the garrison center.
You were asking about Jason Ditz. Angela Keaton is traveling so it took a little while to get in touch with her, but she responded that Jason has been out sick for a couple of days.
Thank you for pursuing it for me. I was starting to have some bad thoughts of him being fired by the powers that be. Whoever they are? It could be Jason himself for all I know.
I notice that the fundraising drive is progressing as normal and so, so far at least Raimondo hasn’t done too much damage. Or, at least I think it’s going o.k. but I went and forgot to record the length of time that it took last time to reach the goal. It seems to me to be about on par. Maybe you know for sure on past fundraisers? And didn’t this one start around the 15th. of February?
Angela Keaton? Is she the big boss?
I don’t keep track of how long it takes most quarterly fundraisers to make their goal. My anecdotal perception is that this one is going a little more slowly than usual, but I could be wrong. Angela Keaton is executive director of Antiwar.com. It’s not quite as simple as being “big boss” — there’s a board and so on — but she’s definitely MY boss.
Yeah, my podcast is about me. The podcast and blog are where I talk inside baseball stuff with my libertarian friends. The Garrison Center is where I try to push libertarian ideas to non-libertarians through mainstream newspapers and non-libertarian political publications. I’m a left-libertarian market anarchist personally but Garrison isn’t specifically anarchist. It’s also generally about whatever’s riding high in the news cycle at the moment. That’s the op-ed market.
“market anarchist ”
Wah hey, we have a new oxymoron.
And Thomas, please don’t fu-k with my sense of personal worthiness too much. I’m much needed traffic as well as an audience on who you can bounce off your ideas. I’m interested but it won’t be without some argument. (delete this)
question: Where’s Jason Ditz?
His economic education is an absurd concoction of nonsense and quackery.
Anyone who isn’t angry these days is brain dead or not paying attention
“A long and drawn out conversation is necessary with a libertarian in order to determine their level of commitment to the total agenda. ” Indeed it is.
So who is in charge of deleting comments?
I’m the main moderator. Why?
There was speculation in the comments on another site when she was appointed that the real reason the President did so was to get her of of the governorship of SC in order to allow a staunch supporter of MAGA to have a chance at getting elected.
“US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has no clue what is happening in eastern Ukraine”
I suspect she knows very well what is happening.
And I suspect Trump is totally on board with her. He got enough of the anti-war vote to help his election result. Now he doesn’t need them anymore.
You’ve got Trump figured John. On Thomas, I’ll watch for more indications of what his schtick really is. the quick and easy answer is anger but I think it’s a little deeper than that.
In any case whatever it is, it’s compatible with the antiwar cause and that’s about all that’s important to me for now.
What’s happening in Ukraine is actually ‘nothing much’ but more shelling. Ukrainian sources are posting all sorts of ‘victory footage’, filmed when the ‘panzers’ were rolling all over both dissident regions in back 2014 and calling it ‘advances’, to-day. The sunshine and green grass belies what February looks like. And the laughing ‘liberators’ belie the ‘ass-kickings’ they’ve received three times.
I believe “clueless” is the proper adjective for Nikki Haley. She is regurgitating the Neocon narrative which most Republican Party member s actually believe. I doubt she has had enough exposure to the REAL world to actually be convinced to purposely mislead when it is so easy to “trust” the talking points of the “leaders” of the Republican Party to whom she owes her Governorship and rise in political power.
It would be kind on the part of those in the UN who are actual diplomats like the late Ambassador Churkin to clue her in slowly that her MSM fake news outlets and many blackmailed members of both US Parties show her to be nothing more than an ignorant fool who has a grasp of absolutely NOTHING in the real world outside of the US.
Nicky isn’t as strident as Calamaity Jane was, but at one time even Calamity was a dove. Harridans are developed not born. Nicky will ‘rise’ to her office.
Jane was a bad choice but Trump was worse. Most of the hype over Jane was manufactured during the campaign. Both Jane and Trump hyped it out of proportion from the reality of the situaiton. Jane was not nearly what she was portrayed as before the campaign but became that picture of warmonger during the campaign.
Each side promoted the rhetoric. I see it as domestic politics creating very dangerous situation with Trump in control.
Suggest that the ambassador just keeps her mouth.shut until President Trump has met with President Putin and heard his perspective of.things. The alternative is to inadvertently start a nuclear war, which US will not win if you can talk about winners in this context.
I support Trump, but this is ridiculous. Forget Americans, we humans, as a species, better get it together soon, or it will be game over for all of us in the near future.
Another Stepford politician. No doubt AIPAC has the compromising videos.
Liars Inc!
Nikki prohibited supporters of BDS from doing business with South Carolina when she was governor.
Now she’s an ambassador. Coincidence?
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” I forget who wrote this, but I know I’ve always hoped against my better instincts that the new president would be better than they appeared to be, going all the way back to Lyndon Johnson. However, within a short period of time in office they all showed their true colors. Everyone of them, though doing some good here and there, has been an agent for the worst elements of society. What choice do we people have anymore but to revolt, peacefully or otherwise?
You’re fired! (I wish!)
After Trump has expelled most of the 11 million so called illegal immigrant there will be hardly any brains left in the US.
ya..seems to be at odds with Trump…must be reading something else