Nikki Haley has resigned. You could not find a more extreme, abrasive, undiplomatic, dangerous Trump appointment, unless it be John Bolton.
Yet the media commentators, many of them, characterize her as moderate and think she’s done a great job. For an opposing view, see today’s article on LRC by Caitlin Johnstone.
Haley’s resignation is not at all unusual for UN ambassadors from the U.S. Of the 29 ambassadors so far, 21 occupied the post for about 2 years or less.
I was so upset with Haley that I once used the word “asshole” in a blog about her behavior. I later deleted it, but it’s still floating around in some parts of the internet ether. I think the term “jerk” suffices. The occasion of my lapse in civility was her outrageous comments toward North Korea. Her statements about Iran are equally offensive. Her one-sided support of Israeli slaughter in Gaza is shocking.
This person with highly extreme views that are dangerous to our safety is viewed by the media as presidential timber. Search the news on Nikki Haley and you’ll find all sorts of commentary that’s entirely blind to her actual behavior, which has been abominable.
Media in large measure simply cannot be taken at their word in their interpretations and meanings they attach to events. This is true of left-biased, right-biased and libertarian media. You as readers must look for facts, reasoning and constructions of reality that make sense. There must be “meat” to back up interpretations or theories being floated.
For example, yesterday LRC ran a lead article in which James Kunstler suggests that Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony cannot be believed or at least cannot be believed at its most critical points. I agree with him. I had already reached the same conclusion. The point is, however, that Kunstler backed up his view with irrefutable facts that cast great suspicion on Ford’s story. Not only that, even more questions and facts can be raised that suggest that her story is a concoction in which Democratic operatives and supporters have played a very significant role.
In three areas, Ford and her handlers have put up walls intentionally to obscure the truth and shield her from being questioned further. These are her memory of the alleged incident, her psychotherapist’s notes and events surrounding her lie detector test and the test itself. That’s just for starters. The fact is that we have not had an in depth investigation of her and her handlers that reveals how this entire affair came about and was managed in order to thwart Kavanaugh’s appointment. The real story is as yet untold. Yet its outlines are clear, and Kunstler has indicated some of them.
Upon reflection upon what we know, one cannot conclude that Ford’s story is supportable or credible. The imprints of handling and management of her and her story are everywhere evident, and these shields, delays, negotiations and convenient refusals to be forthcoming detract from her credibility.9:27 am on October 11, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff