Kim Darroch’s Crime Was Stating the Obvious

[Newman]

Okay, so you know nothing, and you're assuming. The cables were leaked to a newspaper. Newspapers don't typically engage in signal interception. If someone in the receiving office takes a securely transmitted message and walks a copy out to a news desk, that is not an indication that the transmission line was compromised, or that the ambassador could have done anything at all to prevent it.

England's ambassador works for the UK government, not for the White House. His job is to provide frank assessments to the home office, not to sugar coat them in case the childish US President finds out.

None of us know, and we are speculating. We don't even know that this Darroch guy didn't arrange the "leak" himself.

We know leaks in diplomatic channels are a very serious problem. If you can't trust a country to be able to keep diplomatic secrets, your relationship changes.

We also know that diplomats are human, most of them, and this isn't the first time candid, derogatory assessments, made public, have caused embarrassment.

I feel like this will be forgotten before I learn how to pronounce the guy's name.

[Norm dePlume]

None of us know, and we are speculating. We don't even know that this Darroch guy didn't arrange the "leak" himself.

Well, here's a thought. How about, when you don't know and you're speculating, you attach a word like "maybe" to your assertion of fact.

Or, if you forget to attach a "maybe" and someone asks "How do you know?" you could perhaps respond with "Well, I don't actually know. I'm speculating."

[Norm dePlume]

Do you all remember when Wikileaks released a whole bunch of diplomatic cables back in 2010? There was a lot of embarrassing and harsh assessments among those cables and the leak created a huge amount of damage to US diplomacy and required an enormous amount of diplomatic smoothing and patching and repair. And did you blame the diplomats for writing such harsh statements or for "not using a more secure method of transmitting"? Fuck no. And Hillary fucking Clinton was among those diplomats. But you didn't suspend all rationality to put the blame on her. You blamed Wikileaks, and you blamed (then) Bradley Manning.

But that didn't involve criticism of Dear Leader. Now the British Ambassador has disrespected the great orange one. Now the British Ambassador must be blamed. This is how far you've degraded.

I know, someone is going to bleat on about Hillary's email server now. That also is how far you've degraded.

[Frostbit]

Do you all remember when Wikileaks released a whole bunch of diplomatic cables back in 2010? There was a lot of embarrassing and harsh assessments among those cables and the leak created a huge amount of damage to US diplomacy and required an enormous amount of diplomatic smoothing and patching and repair. And did you blame the diplomats for writing such harsh statements or for "not using a more secure method of transmitting"? Fuck no. And Hillary fucking Clinton was among those diplomats. But you didn't suspend all rationality to put the blame on her. You blamed Wikileaks, and you blamed (then) Bradley Manning.

But that didn't involve criticism of Dear Leader. Now the British Ambassador has disrespected the great orange one. Now the British Ambassador must be blamed. This is how far you've degraded.

I know, someone is going to bleat on about Hillary's email server now. That also is how far you've degraded.

You sound exactly like Bok. What a coincidence.

[Norm dePlume]

You sound exactly like Bok. What a coincidence.

Thanks for making the most thoughtful contribution to the topic that you are capable of.

[Newman]

Well, here's a thought. How about, when you don't know and you're speculating, you attach a word like "maybe" to your assertion of fact.

Or, if you forget to attach a "maybe" and someone asks "How do you know?" you could perhaps respond with "Well, I don't actually know. I'm speculating."

Nothing in my post was speculative, except the last sentence, which I prefaced with the words "I feel," as a hint.

Nor was any part of my post meant as an insult, but only to broaden your first sentence reply to Gingersnap, "Okay, so you know nothing, and you're assuming."

edit to add: Don't make me come back there and start quoting Don Rumsfeld about unknown unknowns...

[Gingersnap]

Gee, Norm - too bad the Ambassador didn't have you edit his comments about Trump. Then the information would have read, "He may be incompetent or perhaps feeling insecure (I honestly don't know). Some say he's inept but who knows, really? We've met a handful of times on mostly formal occasions. He doesn't confide in me and I haven't had any luck sleeping with his wife who might dish some dirt on him. Basically, the guy eats too much ice cream in front of journalists.".

[Frostbit]

Gee, Norm - too bad the Ambassador didn't have you edit his comments about Trump. Then the information would have read, "He may be incompetent or perhaps feeling insecure (I honestly don't know). Some say he's inept but who knows, really? We've met a handful of times on mostly formal occasions. He doesn't confide in me and I haven't had any luck sleeping with his wife who might dish some dirt on him. Basically, the guy eats too much ice cream in front of journalists.". Trump bad!!

fixed

[Tom Servo]

What do you call the type of person who makes a big show of not caring what people think, and then makes a big show of being offended when they find out what people think?

The term "snowflake" certainly springs to mind.

Look on the bright side, at least he wasn't in a secret Facebook group sharing comments with other diplomats.

[Lady Marva]

Again, you're confusing a leak with an intercept.

Why does it make any difference. It got out. The Ambassador toasted himself like a roasted wiener.