I reckon
David Frum, writing in The Atlantic, is right in his interpretation of Trump's reluctance to point the finger at Russia:
“As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”
That is not support for Britain. It is the direct opposite.
Britain
and the United States share intelligence information fully, freely, and
seamlessly. It’s inconceivable that the U.S. government has not already
seen all the information that Theresa May saw before she rose in the
House of Commons to accuse Russia.
If the U.S. government had a
serious concern about the reliability of that information, it would have
expressed that concern directly and privately to the U.K. government before
May spoke. But the U.S. had no such concern—that’s why the now-fired
secretary of state and the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom both
endorsed May’s words. When Trump raises doubts about the facts, about
American agreement with its British ally, about the accuracy of the
British accusation against Russia, Trump is not expressing good-faith
uncertainty about imperfect information. Trump is rejecting the
consensus view of the U.K. and U.S. intelligence communities about an
act of Russian aggression—and, if his past behavior is any indication,
preparing the way for his own determination to do nothing.
It echoes the approach he took toward
Russian intervention in the U.S. election to help elect him in 2016:
Feign uncertainty about what is not uncertain in order to justify
inaction.
The
U.S.-U.K. response to the Russian nerve gas attack should have been
coordinated in advance. It was not. The U.S. statement of support for
Britain should have arrived on the day that the prime minister delivered
her accusation. It did not. The retaliation—if any—should also already
be agreed upon. It plainly has not been.
The United Kingdom does
not find itself deprived of U.S. support because of some British mistake
or rush to judgment. Most of the U.S. government shares the British
assessment of what happened—as attested by Tillerson’s statement in
support of Britain, which would have relied on U.S. intelligence agency
reports. Only Trump stands apart, vetoing any condemnation of Russia and
perhaps punishing his secretary of state for breaking ranks on the
president’s no-criticizing-Putin policy.
Other support for not blaming Russia for Russian double agents (and British civilians) being killed/seriously endangered by nerve gas invented by Russia: "strong man" fan CL:
1 comment:
CK has gone the full Kates.
Why would MI5 or the CIA want to kill a former KGB agent?
He is very good at connecting dots that are not there but never when thewy are bleeding obvious
Post a Comment