US Ambassador is a liar - two strikes!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Dec 26, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Three strikes and you're out...probably not!

    Lie 1. "We don't use WP..."

    Lie 2. "We haven't rendered to Syria..."

    At this rate, he'll be hired by Downing Street. Hasn't he heard of the story of George Washington and the tree? Mind you, he is a used car salesman...Dubya has an eye for talent (like former horse traders).,,3-1959240,00.html

  2. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know the answer when the question was asked. A lot of the US ambassador's are political hacks who get their positions either through donating money to campaigns or from being a party hack. As a result it's quite common for American embassies to have to "clarify" an ambassador's statement.
  3. Hit the nail on the head. Tuttle is a car dealer from Beverly Hills who has raised ridiculous amounts of money. Political appointees are usually sent to embassies that are at the top of the list (London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow etc.) where the embassy staffs are so huge and work so closely with their host government on a wide range of issues that the Ambassador rarely has to do anything important, or to Bumfuckistan where the US doesn't give a rat's arse what happens. In the important places the added value they bring is that a political appointee usually has fairly easy access to the President and can get around the State Dept pretty easily compared to a career Foreign Service officer.

    IIRC, the US has only had one FSO serve as ambassador to the Court of St James' (Ray Seitz- late Bush I, early Clinton period.) and to be honest, it didn't work out very well, especially once Clinton arrived.

    What is starting to bother me (and the FCO) is that the Celestial Navigator is starting to do similar things here by putting his cronies in similar spots.

  4. The substance is widely used in conventional warfare to illuminate enemy positions, but is generally considered to be a chemical weapon if used directly against personnel.

    Which brings us neatly back to any possible 'slant' in the article in the first place.

    However, the 'clarification' appears to say exactly what the ambassador has said. There is no evidence. Unless you categorise a newspaper report as evidence.