[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
I remind you that Iceland is a nation of 260.000 inhabitants. Are you sure you want to play big on this? No, I don't know many US Ambassaddors personally but I do know several Icelandic ambassadors and I guess they do similar things to the US ones. I even expect the US ones to do more important work.

Can you in some way prove me wrong?

No. But neither can you prove me wrong. The subject is the influence within the US government of US Ambassadors, not Icelandic Ambassadors within the Icelandic government. I'd say my knowledge is a sight more relevant than yours.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hmm, perhaps the best argument for Simey's case is to look at the people who get appointed to the post. Sure, there are some real diplomats in key strategic posts here and there, but there are also a lot of "friends" of various administrations enjoying their retirement years on Unlce Sams' dime around the world.

I've met a few that reminded me of Wal-Mart door greeters.

Perhaps. But why put this one on Iceland? Iceland really isn't all that important in international politics. He seems a little more than a Wal-Mart door greeter to me(but of course I'm comparing him to the Icelandic ambassadors)

[shmerek]

I keep bringing up Celucci because when Canada said they wouldn't support the war in Iraq Celucci went on and on about how disappointed the adminsitration was and that his message was straight form the top.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by shmerek:
I keep bringing up Celucci because when Canada said they wouldn't support the war in Iraq Celucci went on and on about how disappointed the adminsitration was and that his message was straight form the top.

What did you want him to do, lie? The Administration was disappointed. He is the representitive of the Administration in Canada. He communicated accurately what the Adminitration felt. That is what Ambassadors are supposed to do.

Frankly, I wish more US ambassadors would do a little more communicating, and a little less partying.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Logic:
Perhaps. But why put this one on Iceland? Iceland really isn't all that important in international politics. He seems a little more than a Wal-Mart door greeter to me(but of course I'm comparing him to the Icelandic ambassadors)

Sadly, the fact that this guy is so well qualified kind of goes hand in hand with TF's post. It seems that career diplomats that do manage to get appointed to Ambassadorships end up in out of the way and less important countries (no offense to Iceland, I happen to like that unpronounceable capital of yours) and the key posts are given away as political plums to friends and big donators. I mean, if you just ponied up a million dollars to the campaign to by yourself an embassy, wouldn't you rather have Spain or Greece than a rock in the North Sea?

I seem to remember the list of Bush's ambassador candidates, and the only ones that were career diplomats went to places like Iceland and Malta. It's sad, but with communication what it is these days, it's easier for Bush to pick up the phone and call a foreign leader, than relay messages through a third party. these days, they are just there to politic and try to spin things in our favor. Todays Ambassadors are nothing more than glorified PR men not the international power brokers of yesteryear.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Sadly, the fact that this guy is so well qualified kind of goes hand in hand with TF's post. It seems that career diplomats that do manage to get appointed to Ambassadorships end up in out of the way and less important countries (no offense to Iceland, I happen to like that unpronounceable capital of yours) and the key posts are given away as political plums to friends and big donators. I mean, if you just ponied up a million dollars to the campaign to by yourself an embassy, wouldn't you rather have Spain or Greece than a rock in the North Sea?

I seem to remember the list of Bush's ambassador candidates, and the only ones that were career diplomats went to places like Iceland and Malta. It's sad, but with communication what it is these days, it's easier for Bush to pick up the phone and call a foreign leader, than relay messages through a third party. these days, they are just there to politic and try to spin things in our favor. Todays Ambassadors are nothing more than glorified PR men not the international power brokers of yesteryear.

No offence taken
I've been thinking the same thing about why a ambassador here on Iceland is so qualified. Perhaps it has something to do with the ongoing talks about the military presence the US has on Iceland and what to do about it. And I doubt anyone with complete mental health would rally up a million dollars to get to go here

But back on topic(or sort of). It doesn't matter how much a ambassador parties or anything like that, he still represents the US government and everything he says will be viewed as US government policy. Even if they aren't as important as before the ambassadors still are representatives of your nation and should act in a proper manner. If he is interviewed as the US ambassador in Canada he should keep his personal opinions to himself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
If he is interviewed as the US ambassador in Canada he should keep his personal opinions to himself.

I think we may all be getting very confused. Here is my understanding. According to Shmerek, the ambassador to Canada said that the US Administration was "disappointed" that Canada wouldn't support the US over Iraq. Those are not his personal views, he was conveying the views of the Administration. That is person number one, instance number one.

The story that started this thread concerned comments by the US Drug Czar. That is person number two, instance number two. The Drug Czar is not an ambassador. His views are official to the extent that he holds appointed office, but to the extent they could be seen as diplomatic communications, they are his personal views. He has responsibility for US drug policy, not diplomacy. Nothing we have seen here indicates that anything official has been conveyed from the US government to the Canadian government concerning this drug amnesty.

So we are dealing with two people, holding two very different offices, on two different subjects, speaking at two different times, months apart, and with one speaking in Canada, while the other was presumably in Washington. Neither of them have behaved in any way inappropriately given the respective offices they hold. Is this clearer?