US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley: We Must Sanction Assad Over Chemical Weapons!

Recently, we had a look at the ways President Trump’s Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is making her predecessor, “humanitarian bomber” Samantha Power, look like a model diplomat by comparison. It turns out Haley’s ghastly performance at the UN thus far is no fluke. Each time she opens her mouth she spews not the kind of foreign policy that President Trump campaigned on, but rather the boot-in-the-face know-nothingness that we have grown accustomed to in recent years.

In the latest “Haley Alert,” the Ambassador is furious over a Russia-threatened veto of a UN Security Council resolution offered by the US, UK, and France to impose new sanctions on the Syrian government over unproven allegations that Syria used chemical weapons against its own population.

Yes, under Ambassador Haley we have entered a time machine back to 2013, where the US is ready to deploy its entire diplomatic (and perhaps military) arsenal against the one government in the Middle East actually fighting President Trump’s sworn enemies: ISIS and al-Qaeda.

President Trump, in one of his first interviews after the November election, starkly contrasted his position with those both of the outgoing Obama Administration and his defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton:

I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. …My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.

His employee, the US Ambassador to the UN, clearly does not share her boss’s “opposite view” on Syria. And she is not afraid to contradict her boss’s position on a regular basis. Today the US Mission to the UN released Ambassador Haley’s remarks condemning the threatened Russian veto of new sanctions against Syria, and her comments do not in any way suggest a diplomat remotely well-informed about the complex matters at hand:

I think what we saw in there was pretty amazing, because you had unity in the fact that we needed to be concerned about chemical weapons being used in Syria. You had an overwhelming vote to say we need an investigative mechanism that would prove that these chemical weapons were being done by the Syrian regime. Now you’ve got the results that have come out, and people don’t like what the results are. It is ridiculous. How much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime? People have died by being suffocated to death. That’s barbaric.

So what we’re going to do is – we were given all these reasons on why we shouldn’t propose the resolution. We were given all these reasons on why the timing was wrong. That is exactly why the timing is right. That is exactly why this resolution needs to happen. Whether people are going to veto it or not, you are either for chemical weapons or you’re against it. People died because of this, and the United States isn’t going to be quiet. Thank you.

Let’s unpack this head-scratcher of a statement. First off, “we need an investigative mechanism that would prove that these chemical weapons were being done by the Syrian regime.” So she is stating that there must be an investigation to prove what she has predetermined to be true before the investigation took place? Does that sound like “innocent until proven guilty”? Or does it sound like Hoxha-era revolutionary justice? “We must have a trial to prove comrade X guilty so we can execute him!”

And this from Haley: “How much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime?”

Ms. Ambassador: Do you mean the regime that just liberated Aleppo from its murderous occupation by al-Qaeda? You know, those guys who attacked the US on 9/11?

If Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people (Why? Presumably for fun?) then why once Aleppo was cleansed of the al-Qaeda occupiers have former residents flocked to return to an Aleppo under Assad’s control? Do they enjoy being gassed?

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is an absolute train wreck. She embodies the worst traits of her predecessors with a much lower level of understanding of foreign affairs or diplomacy. Will President Trump recognize his mistake in appointing her to represent the US at the UN and replace her with someone who will actually carry out his foreign policy? Or was he simply lying when he said he had an “opposite view” from the conventional Washington wisdom on Syria (and Russia as well)?

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

20 thoughts on “US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley: We Must Sanction Assad Over Chemical Weapons!”

  1. Hey Daniel, wait a minute! You wrote: “In the latest “Haley Alert,” the Ambassador is furious over a Russia-threatened veto of a UN Security Council resolution offered by the US, UK, and France to impose new sanctions on the Syrian government over unproven allegations that Syria used chemical weapons against its own population.”

    Is that Nikki Haley’s resolution? Is she now the president and the US congress who are responsible for US resolutions to the UNSC? Or does she just represent the wishes of the president? Did Nikki get together with the UK and France to write up this UNSC resolution?

    Did Trump lie?
    Do ducks swim?

    It’s disappointing to read an article by you Daniel, that is written from the POV that allows the question to be asked on whether or not Trump lied. Sometimes the evidenc is so strong that if points directly at the one responsible for US resolutions to the UNSC, and that’s not Nikki. Here’s an alternative title for your article:

    Trump Lied About His Position on Syria!

    You should have taken a chance Daniel and if it turned out that Trump fires Nikki then all that can happen is that you were wrong for a very good reason. You wouldn’t have been wrong Daniel. And the danger in writing it your way is that it just gives Raimondo another chance to pretend some more on Trump’s agenda.

  2. The neocons are taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. Repeat a lie long enough and eventually it will be believed. The claim of the 2013 chemical was not committed by the Syrian government.

    1. Yes the rebels are actually the ones who are guilty of using chemical weapons, but the U.S. government and its lackeys in the media don’t want that fact repeated.

  3. Hypocrisy, nothing new. Like the original intent, Jefferson writes “that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless they’re in bondage in which case never mind.” Words which their authors speak or write having no meaning, by design. Anti-war speech ahead of an election? Why would the people think the words were truth? It’s like a disease of the soul in this country, probably every other but this one is close to home… we expect and accept being the patsies for heinous liars. Oh well, say the people, hope it doesn’t interrupt our regular shows. I’m just tired, though. In the morning I might find something to celebrate.

    Or a way to impact the decisions made in our name by a group of pathological congenital professional liars.

  4. From article: “So she is stating that there must be an investigation to prove what she has predetermined to be true before the investigation took place”

    No she’s claiming it happened and the “results are in”. Although Haley’s mission surely reads like a train wreck, to start commenting on it with such a misreading, is not going to help.

    The only hope is that Trump does not care about the UN proceedings and gave this UN position to the “business as usual” camp as part of a “deal”. Although it would create a real howler when the US will act contradicting their own statements at the UN. Not that the White House seems to care much about such situations these days. They have bigger problems.

    1. The US cares a lot about the perceptions of others in the world. And if Trump messes with that perception then he will be taken care of eventually. I think he’s skating on pretty thin ice already but the powers that be could be holding off to see if the Repubs will sign on to an impeachment first. It would save a lot of trouble!

  5. Why would he do that? Chlorine is simple to produce and so it would force Syria to produce it’s own, if it’s not already doing so.

    It could be because Trump has been told that Syria uses chlorine for weaponry and he believes it.

    That would be kinder to Trump than accusing him of a genocide which could very likely result if Syria is deprived of chlorine. We would have to assume that Trump would be ignorant of the uses of chlorine?

    Why not ask Raimondo for his explanation of why Trump would do it? I can’t because I’m banned from commenting on his articles. I think I might be one of quite a few who are banned from commenting on his articles because he needs at least an equal number of commentors who praise his views. But I could be wrong? In any case, if Raimondo supports Trump who could be a part of genocide then we should know why.

    1. That was a rhetorical question. It is the same reason they did it in Iraq in the 90s. It was to kill the citizens especially the young in a mass genocide (the US took out half a million possible future fighters) and to limit the weaponry Iraq had before invasion. No one really thinks about the genocide in Iraq because it was indirect.

      Really you were banned from posting on Raimondo’s articles? I wondered where you went off to.

      1. Yeah, I was banned quite some time ago and it’s being maintained that it was for something I said to comrade hermit. It could be but I don’t know who banned me. Thomas says it wasn’t him and that Raimondo doesn’t have the power to do it. Maybe Thomas’s boss, what’s her name?

        I think it’s more just a convenient excuse to keep the number of people calling bullshit on Raimondo down to a minimum. There’s no doubt it’s a political mess that needs to be sorted out soon for the good of the site.

        In any case, I’m banned from commenting on all the editorials for the same reason I guess?

        1. “Maybe Thomas’s boss, what’s her name?”

          [Looks into distance, whistles, declines to comment]

          “In any case, I’m banned from commenting on all the editorials for the same reason I guess?”

          Banning is by section, not article, author, etc. News, “original” aka commentary, blog. You were banned from the section you decided to break the rules in because it didn’t occur to the banning moderator (as it would have to me) that three bans would be necessary to remove you from the site entirely.

          1. You said: ” You were banned from the section you decided to break the rules in because it didn’t occur to the banning moderator (as it would have to me) that three bans would be necessary to remove you from the site entirely.”

            Could you restate that for me. Sorry but I’m having difficulty understanding what you mean. Did the banning moderator in this case fail to take the appropriate action. Should she/he have banned me from the whole stie? He/she shouldn’t have taken action until I was banned three times? I’m not trying to funny, I just don’t understand. Maybe tell me how you would have handled it would be the easiest explanation?

          2. Once again: Banning is by section. If you’re banned from commenting on the blog, you’re not banned from commenting on the “original,” aka commentary section or the news section. It takes three separate bans to ban you from the whole site.

            When I was told to ban you, if I had done so, I would have gone to each section and banned you there; three different bans to remove you from the whole site. Since I refused to do it, the person who DID do it was someone who either didn’t know that it took three different procedures, or didn’t intend to ban you in the other areas (I didn’t ask because I didn’t care).

          3. Thank you so much. Now I understand what you said. The reason I said ‘what’s her name is only because what her name is. Angela something. Don’t tell me.

      2. Just one problem I have with your comment above. We now know that the US knew that Saddam didn’t have the WMD’s and hence the chem/bio stuff. So the precaution couldn’t have been something to do with keeping chlorine away from Saddam to serve that precaution. That only leaves the reason being to promote a possible mass genocide. Same with Syria now by the looks of it. Question is, does Trump understand that? He just may be too stupid to understand.
        Then on the other hand, it’s probably because he’s what we know he really is. A fu–ing homicidal psychopath who won’t stop at anything.

  6. Kikki is off on this BS again? I thought the chem weapons contained western signatures and as such were probably introduced by SA or one of the Gulfies. Next she wants to bomb Syria and face Vlad and the Iranians together with Powers and the Kagans on the vast desert plains of Syria? You go girl.

    1. Do you know what stands out the most as the difference between the Trump presidency and the Obama presidency?

      It’s that during the Obama presidency Obama did all the objectionable things and was presonally responsible. And now during the Trump presidency it’s not the president doing those things. It’s somebody that works for the president that’s turned into a loose cannon. Why do you think that would be?

      So youhaven’tseenthisbefore, it’s different this time.

  7. Amnesty has verified that it was US backed “rebels” that used chemical weapons against Syrians. Don’t you dare to point the finger at Assad, he’s an hero.

  8. Trump could demolish the Dems by pointing out Obama was running a terrorist training camp in Jordan, spending a billion a year on it even as he allowed ISIS oil caravans free passage into Turkey. Since these things meet the Constitutional definition of treason, that would counter the Dem’s phony Russia hysteria nicely. Unfortunately, it appears that our shadow government has gotten to Trump just as they got to Obama.

Comments are closed.