Leaked ambassador's messages scandal

  • Trump axed Iran deal to spite Obama

    Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal as an act of ‘diplomatic vandalism’ to spite his predecessor Barack Obama, Britain’s Ambassador to Washington wrote in a bombshell memo to Downing Street.

    Sir Kim Darroch’s claim – made after Boris Johnson made a doomed trip to the White House to change the President’s mind – is revealed in leaked cables and briefing notes which led to Sir Kim’s resignation last week

    Already spoken about the leaks in The Donald thread, but this topic is now much wider than just American politics, especially following the latest revelations in the Mail today.


    Lots of topics to discuss here, but lets start with the main topic from the Mail today, which are from this second batch of leaked messages from our ambassador to Washington, who stated in his messages that he believed that Trump axed the Iran deal to spite Obama.


    This is his opinion, there is no evidence for this, or at least no evidence given in the article. As the article goes on to say, Trump was against the Iran deal while campaigning to be president, so buy ripping it up, he's simply doing what he said he would do all along. As I said on the Iranian thread, I think it was very wrong for Trump to tear up the deal, but Trump wants a new deal that includes all of Iranian actions in the region, not just the nuclear stuff.


    Perhaps Trump is being spiteful and as the article says, the Americans had no plan for what happened after the deal was ripped up, but in my opinion this is a matter of policy difference, but our ambassador said this was all down to Trump's personality traits without providing evidence of this. Is the ripping up of the deal all about Trump being spiteful to Obama?


    The second major story, is the intended police action not just against the "leaker in chief" but against the journalist who broke these stories. All of the politicians have today come out in favour of press freedom and said in no way should the police prosecute the journalists, are they right?


    The police are inferring that they have come under pressure to prosecute from "on high", which I read as Downing St aka May. Is this May's departing present to the incoming prime minister, Boris?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Trump was against the Iran 'deal' even before he considered becoming President. He promised to get a more balanced deal, and has tried to keep his promises. Iran hasn't kept it's side of the bargain, so they literally invited Trumps intervention.

  • Freedom of the press is essential (even though most of it is biased rubbish). I always think back to the Catholic priest scandal which was uncovered by journalists, despite much pressure (and threats) from the government and other influential people to hide it. Likewise with the numerous grooming scandals in the UK. That would still be unknown today if the government and the police had managed to silence the press.


    This diplomatic revelation does not threaten the safety of the UK, so prosecution would be very OTT, but denying freedom of the press would open a whole can of very unpleasant worms.

  • The police are inferring that they have come under pressure to prosecute from "on high", which I read as Downing St aka May. Is this May's departing present to the incoming prime minister, Boris?

    May is desperate to have some sort of legacy other than Brexit failure. Hammond won't let her splurge cash so I think this is just sour grapes.


    Freedom of the press is essential (even though most of it is biased rubbish).

    Indeed. The press must be free to shine the light into the dark recesses of the establishment, however much the establishment despises this.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • This diplomatic revelation does not threaten the safety of the UK, so prosecution would be very OTT, but denying freedom of the press would open a whole can of very unpleasant worms.

    Agree, which begs the question why the police went down this route to begin with, hence my theory that the orders came from May. But then the question would be, why would she do this? Just to cause problems for Boris, or could it be that she believes that Boris is indeed "Deep Throat" here aka the leaker-in-chief. I love a good conspiracy theory.


    The Guardian is reporting that the leaker has been identified and police are now building a case against them good enough to stand up in court, so perhaps not Boris the, otherwise his name would have got "leaked" to the press as the culprit, excuse the pun.:)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I wouldn't be surprised by anything May does. In fact, the worse it is for the UK, the more likely she is to do it! She really should be prosecuted for trying to tie the UK into her (the EU's) appalling WA. She either hates the UK, or is too stupid to understand the contents.

  • Sir Kim was the architect-in-charge of his misfortune.


    For three reasons:


    1) There is a fundamental flaw in the very "reason for being" of diplomats in general and ambassadors in particular: they cannot, must not and are not expected to be be critical of the host country, its government or its leader, except in the most veiled or subtle language or damning with faint praise. Anything more than that has to be spoken or written with watertight secrecy. Their primary object is to be a go-between who maintains, improves or patches up a good relationship between their country and their host country.


    2) One of Sir Kim's criticisms was old hat: that Trump and/or his Government erratic, incompetent etc. It was entirely unoriginal, with nothing to be gained by stating it and everything to lose by stating it so indiscreetly. Britain then added fuel to the fire by its pompous outrage at Sir Kim being given the White House cold shoulder. It should be remembered that Sir Kim started this fire by such incompetent and un-secure communication of a considerable indiscretion, which Trump was entitled to respond to in kind, using Trump-speak rather than Kim-speak.


    3) The other criticism (the accusation of cancelling the ridiculously expensive nuclear restraint deal with Iran chiefly purely for political spite as it was Obama's deal) is not only without substantiation (unless Washington swamp gossip is enough for Sir Kim) but also inconsistent with Trump's promise early in his election campaign to rescind this bad deal and, in any case, Sir Kim disregards the incontestable fact that it was Iran which was in brazen breach of the deal by significantly increasing its nuclear development beyond domestic and towards military application.


    Boris's consequent refusal to offer unconditional support to Sir Kim was at the time the only objective honest response in a sea of hysterical pompous patriotic hypocrisy. That's the kind of leader I'm looking for, not a managerial good-at-detail apparatchik who cannot resist cheap comments to win cheap votes

  • 1) There is a fundamental flaw in the very "reason for being" of diplomats in general and ambassadors in particular: they cannot, must not and are not expected to be be critical of the host country, its government or its leader, except in the most veiled or subtle language or damning with faint praise. Anything more than that has to be spoken or written with watertight secrecy. Their primary object is to be a go-between who maintains, improves or patches up a good relationship between their country and their host country.

    As far as what's said in the public true, but that's not the case for private messages between ambassadors and government.


    I seem to recall a similar incident about twenty years ago and it was the America ambassador to London whose messages got leaked and they were damning about us. Or, am I imagining this??

    2) One of Sir Kim's criticisms was old hat: that Trump and/or his Government erratic, incompetent etc. It was entirely unoriginal, with nothing to be gained by stating it and everything to lose by stating it so indiscreetly

    But that's the Point!! It wasn't indiscreet. It was in a confidential message.

    Britain then added fuel to the fire by its pompous outrage at Sir Kim being given the White House cold shoulder. It should be remembered that Sir Kim started this fire by such incompetent and un-secure communication of a considerable indiscretion, which Trump was entitled to respond to in kind, using Trump-speak rather than Kim-speak.

    Unless the ambassador himself leaked this stuff, then no, he hasn't fuelled the fire as you state.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 3) The other criticism (the accusation of cancelling the ridiculously expensive nuclear restraint deal with Iran chiefly purely for political spite as it was Obama's deal) is not only without substantiation (unless Washington swamp gossip is enough for Sir Kim) but also inconsistent with Trump's promise early in his election campaign to rescind this bad deal and, in any case, Sir Kim disregards the incontestable fact that it was Iran which was in brazen breach of the deal by significantly increasing its nuclear development beyond domestic and towards military application.

    On the first part of that, I agree and that's why I said in my OP (original post). On the second part, I thought the intentional atomic agency (or whatever it's called) said that Iran was compliant with the deal until Trump ripped it up?? That's why Boris went to Washington last year to try and save the deal which has now resulted in this leak.


    Boris's consequent refusal to offer unconditional support to Sir Kim was at the time the only objective honest response in a sea of hysterical pompous patriotic hypocrisy. That's the kind of leader I'm looking for, not a managerial good-at-detail apparatchik who cannot resist cheap comments to win cheap votes

    I'm in two minds on this one.


    I think Boris should've supported our ambassador*, but what's more important as we leave the EU (hopefully) is maintaining good relations with America. I think to be fair to Boris, he was damned by which ever way he went on this.


    *The precedent is now set that a foreign leader can now decide on who we should send to their country to represent us. That's very dangerous.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I wouldn't be surprised by anything May does. In fact, the worse it is for the UK, the more likely she is to do it! She really should be prosecuted for trying to tie the UK into her (the EU's) appalling WA. She either hates the UK, or is too stupid to understand the contents.

    Which is why after all his bluff and bluster, as you said the other day, Boris is essentially going to keep May's deal.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • *The precedent is now set that a foreign leader can now decide on who we should send to their country to represent us. That's very dangerous.

    How do you work that out? Trumps refusal to cooperate with a biased diplomat hardly merits that statement. Has Trump said (or even hinted) that he wants to choose the UK ambassador? No. It's just more spin and lies. If you disagree, then please point me to the evidence.

  • Which is why after all his bluff and bluster, as you said the other day, Boris is essentially going to keep May's deal.

    Not correct. I didn't say Boris would keep May's deal. You must have me confused with someone else.

  • When Neil tried to pin them down over May's WA agreement, neither stated they would bin it. Both just mentioned they want the backstop removed. That isn't good enough for the UK

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Why support an ambassador that the US administration would not deal with ? , what would that achieve?

  • It's the dangerous precedent that it sets, that a foreign country can decide who represents us. Now that precedent is set, any foreign leader who has issues with anyone of our ambassadors, could do the same as Trump.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • It's the dangerous precedent that it sets, that a foreign country can decide who represents us. Now that precedent is set, any foreign leader who has issues with anyone of our ambassadors, could do the same as Trump.

    Refusing to deal with a particular ambassador is NOT the same as deciding who that ambassador should be.

  • When Neil tried to pin them down over May's WA agreement, neither stated they would bin it. Both just mentioned they want the backstop removed. That isn't good enough for the UK


    Horizon: Not stating they would bin it is NOT the same as stating they would keep it! Neither actually said they would keep the WA if the backstop was removed. It was just mentioned as the main obstacle to the deal. If either tries to get the WA (minus backstop) through Parliament, then I hope they fail and fail spectacularly. I do fear that the Remainers in Parliament will back it, in preference to a WTO exit.


    We still have Farage fighting our corner, thank goodness. If Boris or Hunt do any dodgy dealing we'll find out about it from Farage and the various Leave organisations.

  • Refusing to deal with a particular ambassador is NOT the same as deciding who that ambassador should be.

    But it equates to the same thing, he's vetoed who was our (May's..) choice for ambassador.


    Horizon: Not stating they would bin it is NOT the same as stating they would keep it! Neither actually said they would keep the WA if the backstop was removed. It was just mentioned as the main obstacle to the deal. If either tries to get the WA (minus backstop) through Parliament, then I hope they fail and fail spectacularly. I do fear that the Remainers in Parliament will back it, in preference to a WTO exit.

    If they keep the deal in all but name minus the backstop, then its still May's deal, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


    I hope the "amended" deal fails too, but as we've seen with the ERG capitulation over voting for May's deal, I reckon they would vote it through this time round, but we may not ever get to that point.

    We still have Farage fighting our corner, thank goodness. If Boris or Hunt do any dodgy dealing we'll find out about it from Farage and the various Leave organisations.

    As I mentioned in the other thread today, it looks like Boris will lose his majority when he becomes PM and that opens up a whole new opportunity or can of worms (an election), depending on your viewpoint, but I'll create a new thread on that later.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • If they keep the deal in all but name minus the backstop, then its still May's deal, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

    I agree with that statement. It was your previous one I disagreed with. Not saying they will dump the deal is not the same as saying they will keep the deal.


    I still disagree with your statement regarding the ambassador, and that's not a problem. I've had the opportunity to air my views, and you have too, as it should be.

  • It's the dangerous precedent that it sets, that a foreign country can decide who represents us. Now that precedent is set, any foreign leader who has issues with anyone of our ambassadors, could do the same as Trump.

    When did the US say this ?, got a date?, they have said they would not deal with an ambassador that claimed the President was in league with dodgy Russians, why is that not an issue for the luvvies?

  • There was no "they", it was Trump who said he would not deal with our ambassador and has blocked his access to White House staff essentially making him redundant.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • There was no "they", it was Trump who said he would not deal with our ambassador and has blocked his access to White House staff essentially making him redundant.

    It is MrTrumps right to block anyone , our man has claimed "dodgy Russians" , he deserves to lose his job as he had NO PROOF of this.

  • We've have to agree to disagree on this. Trump, as America's head of state as well as head of government, should rise above everything, instead he's a thin skinned toddler who throws twitter tantrums every five seconds.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • We've have to agree to disagree on this. Trump, as America's head of state as well as head of government, should rise above everything, instead he's a thin skinned toddler who throws twitter tantrums every five seconds.

    We will , last point from me is that if the standard of official information going back worldwide is the same as in this instance , God help our government .

  • I agree!


    At least in the Mail article, the ambassador gave no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump and I've already given my opinion about the Iranian issue, something Trump was talking about well before he became president.


    This ambassador, look all the civil service, is a rabid remainer and it seems that this leak has been orchestrated to damage relations between us and America, just at the time that are seeking a trade deal with the Americans. The leaker would know how thin skinned Trump is.


    If we don't get a trade deal out of the Americans, I hope the leaker will feel "happy" about themselves, because it will hurt him/her too.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • And as with all things, look at the timing of the leak. It didn't happen last year, when these events occurred, it's happening now, just as Boris is the one likely to be the next PM.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • They will try to tear down Boris as heartily as they tried to tear down Trump.

    There, in a mauve light of drifted lupins,

    They hung in the cupped hands of mountains

    Made of tingling atoms.- Ted Hughes


  • Yes, timing is all. Another increasingly desperate play by arch remainers: Sour the relationship with the US so they can claim that we have to stay in the EU for a US trade deal to continue.:rolleyes:


    This is also the reason that the leak culprit will never be exposed as the civil service closes remainer ranks to protect him/her. Any police investigation will be met by a wall of silence. I guess this is why the police are going for the press instead.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • This is also the reason that the leak culprit will never be exposed as the civil service closes remainer ranks to protect him/her. Any police investigation will be met by a wall of silence. I guess this is why the police are going for the press instead.

    They always go after the messenger, rather than the perpetrator, especially if the perpetrator is from the 'protected species', or is a person of influence. How many people in public office have been prosecuted for doing nothing about the grooming rape gangs ... for decades? I think the answer in NONE!

  • This is also the reason that the leak culprit will never be exposed as the civil service closes remainer ranks to protect him/her. Any police investigation will be met by a wall of silence. I guess this is why the police are going for the press instead.

    As I said, the Guardian was reporting that the culprit has been identified, but they need to build a strong enough case to bring the matter to court. As you say, the police will probably get little help in their investigation.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.