I don’t know why, but I get a bad feeling about this guy. I didn’t really know anything about him until I saw this video interview:
Without listening to what he says, just looking at his mannerisms, I have the feeling that he’s mentally unstable.
When he talks, yes, it makes a degree of sense. But he seems to be motivated by a desire to share his version of the truth rather than reaching a balanced informed opinion. After all, does anyone really believe that in a representative selection of political communication going back to 1986, there will be no instances of diplomats urging their masters to send humanitarian aid, to reward struggling democratic governments, to relax policies that are counter-productive.
These leaks seem to be selective, designed to embarass rather than to inform.
I’m not a big fan of the US government’s behaviour, but I think we owe it to ourselves to be objective rather than just focus on the facts that fit our political viewpoint.
Anyone else have an opinion about the messenger, not the message? I’d be grateful if we could avoid discussing the US’ actions, and keep this focused on the man and his mission.