Interesting Word Choice From Conservative Newspaper, Or Just More ‘Biased’ Reporting?
While reading the newspapers today one word popped out at me. Now I am sure the wild-eyed anti-reporter types will see this as more evidence that the devil’s workers are steaming ahead at every turn. But for the mature ones in the nation the word underscores concern what many feel about the Trump White House leaning into Putin’s arms and the lack of credibility from the Oval Office on this matter being demonstrated in the weeks since the inauguration. The word was a solid choice that defines the whole argument taking place among some in the government.
That the story appeared in the conservative Wall Street Journal—and yes as a liberal I read it for it excellent writing and my desire to have opposing viewpoints from the OP/Ed pages–makes a real statement about the unease that is evident in the land.
It goes without saying no other candidate for the White House ever embraced a Russian leader more than Trump did with President Putin. No other election in our history has been challenged due to outside influence such as those alleged against Russia. Had this happened to a Democratic administration impeachment proceedings would already be underway. I add this for context as the lack of regard to real national security matters as relating to Russia goes unheeded in this White House.
So will conservatives find the word, given the background of the past year, biased? Or will they have to agree that the word, though weighted, to be indeed proper?
The White House has tapped Fiona Hill, a highly regarded Russia scholar, to be the National Security Council’s senior director for Europe and Russia, an administration official said.
The Trump administration’s selection of Ms. Hill would bring a top expert with a sober view of Russian President Vladimir Putin to advise President Donald Trump as questions about his aides’ connections to Moscow continue to swirl.
Ms. Hill didn’t respond to a request for comment. If she accepts the offer and joins the NSC, she would bring a somewhat skeptical view toward prospects of U.S. rapprochement with the Kremlin, which would line up with her boss, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.
Her choice also could signal moderation in the White House’s Russia policy that until Gen. McMaster’s arrival, pointed more toward Mr. Trump’s pledge to warm relations with Moscow. But that pledge has been tested by differences with Russia over Ukraine and Syria, and by controversy over ties and communications between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.