OK, OK. We’re doing it again. Offering our humble criticism of what is arguably the leading national newspaper today… the Wall Street Journal. To suggest that it is also as liberal as the N Y Times, however, would be inaccurate. As we have oft noted, the “news” section of the paper features reporters and writers who do rival the Times in their disdain for Donald Trump and thus their disdain for objective, unbiased journalism.
One might accuse us of reveling in the opportunity to highlight the almost daily examples of their worst efforts. We may not agree with the term “reveling” but we do take some satisfaction in alerting our readers to just how they seek to, over time, establish in the minds of their subscribers that Donald Trump as president is BAD, conservatism is always EVIL and Democrats are ‘kind and caring’!
Which brings us to today’s exhibit A , contained in the story announcing Trump’s choice of Rep. John Ratcliffe to replace the departing Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats:
“Mr. Ratcliffe, who as a lawmaker has focused on counterterrorism and cybersecurity issues, has been praised by Mr. Trump’s allies for his strident questioning of former special counsel Robert Mueller for declaring Mr. Trump wasn’t exonerated on the question of obstruction of justice in his report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.”
As most stories related to anything President Trump says, does, or writes (mostly as in “tweets”) the Journal’s reporters are insufferably disposed to include a subtle ‘slant’, reflecting their personal biases and attempting to present to readers in an almost subliminal way. In this story, the writers, Dustin Volz and Ian Talley, cannot resist ‘reporting’ that Mr. Ratclffe was “strident”, that is, having a “shrill, irritating quality or character” of questioning, according to dictionary definitions.
And, as the rest of ‘Dustin’s’ and ‘Ian’s’ report on Ratcliffe’s questioning of former Special Counsel Mueller indicates, they didn’t approve of the congressman’s ‘impertinence’ toward the ‘honorable one’.
Just all in a day’s work at the Journal. DLH
About Dan Coats
It appears to us that President Trump has made an excellent choice in picking Congressman John Ratcliffe to succeed Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
For one reason, Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer doesn’t like him. That’s a big plus, in our book.
Another reason is, we were never ‘bowled over’ by Mr. Coats’ selection. And his performance as DNI further reinforced that view.
We have noted before that if a Trump nominee ever gets a majority of Democrat senators voting for his or her confirmation, that person is probably not a good pick as one who will support the president’s goals. In Coats’ case , he received a confirmation vote of 85-12. That means he got a lot of Democrat votes!
A second reason we suspected that Coats may not have been a good choice is that the Former Obama CIA Director, John Brennan liked him. That’s a really bad sign!
Coats had been considered a conservative by most everyone when he was nominated. And, he was a conservative on many issues…a strong right-to-life and traditional marriage proponent. He advocated for the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in reference to gays in the military. He was a severe critic of Russia’s annexing of the Crimea.
He was against any attempt to establish a relationship with Russia and he was convinced that Russia had attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
Perhaps Coats’ strong animosity toward Russia may have negatively influenced him regarding Trump and the president’s foreign policies.
In our opinion, Dan Coats, in some ways, has undermined Trump’s foreign policy initiatives.
We also believe that Gina Haspel, Trump’s choice for CIA Director has, as well…and based on some of the same reasons we have for being suspect: a) John Brennan supported Haspel’s appointment; b) although her senate confirmation was more narrow, 54-45, she was opposed by a number of senators from both sides of the aisle, mainly for her tenure in the CIA during the period that the agency was alleged to have practiced ‘torture’.
Sadly, these two, and Christopher Wray’s selection as FBI Director are examples of Trump choices that have “Deep State” roots and have not been supportive of various Trump initiatives. And unfortunately they are a formidable force in the nation’s national security and law enforcement apparatus.
And, as we recall Chuck Schumer’s admonition: if you cross those agencies, they have “6 ways from Sunday to get you”.
So for us, it’s good riddance to Dan Coats in this role and welcome John Ratcliffe…an excellent selection in our view. DLH
As always, we welcome your view as a Veritaspac reader