Ambassador Becomes Focus of Egyptians’ Mistrust of U.S.

New York Times ^ | July 3, 2013 | Mark Landler

[The Toll]

D*mn it! That WAS very close to what I’m looking for. Thank you very kindly for that link. Unfortunately it appears they covered themselves by providing the training to “all interested parties”.

[kabar]

Professional bureaucrats, especially ones in the State Department, deserve only scorn. So sick of hearing about these pukes who’ve spent their entire adult life suckling on the teat of the American taxpayer. Government should never be a career. Work in the private sector and spend a few years in government service. Then get lost and stay lost.

First as someone who has spent 28 years as an FSO and 8 years as a naval officer, I have put my life on the line for this country and don't deserve anyone's scorn. Whether it was serving in Vietnam during the Tet offensive or being in our embassy in Tehran when it was being overrun, I don't consider myself to be suckling at the teat of the American taxpayer. And I am a taxpayer as well. I don't need pukes like you demeaning my service or that of my colleagues.

We need a professional corps of government bureaucrats whether it is in the military, CIA, NSA, FBI, the Forest Service, etc.

I think your tagline--It must be noon, because I'm drunk somewhere.--says it all.

[kabar]

And who would be the right person for the job?

[montaine]

(1) Only if the career is more important than your principles.
(2)Not Enough.
(3)I remember Hume Horan. Sometimes you have to take one for the team. Like Amb. Patterson needs to do.
(4) There is a way to pursue your government’s objectives
while incurring the least resistance. There is a word for it...Diplomacy.
She needs to resign in order to serve her country. That’s what she signed up to do. And she gets a nice pension, too.

[kabar]

Patterson was appointed by Bush 43 as ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and served admirably there for three years.

[montaine]

Which 3 admirable years were those?

[kabar]

Rant all you want. Anne Patterson is the personal representative of the President of the United States, as are all US ambassadors. Blame Obama, not his messenger.

[kabar]

Translation: You have done nothing.

[Revolting cat!]

Most ambassadors are indeed career diplomats (to my knowledge), but when you realize that the ambassadorships to ALL our most important allies in attractive capitals are ALWAYS filled with POTUSes’ buddies, fundraisers and lobbyists, then you have to ask why we need career diplomats in the first place? Because the likes of Caroline Kennedy would never take up the Burundi post?

[EQAndyBuzz]

I think we need to connect the dots between Anne Patterson and Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. Those two were in Egypt in 2010 stirring up trouble.

Connect them and then Obama can be taken down.

[lbryce]

We know he has, had surreptitious dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood, and having granted them unprecedented access to the White House, which would indicate where his political leanings lie. He encouraged the ouster of the Prime Minister Mubarak, a long time, staunch ally while openly encouraging the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood to seek participation in the Parliament elections. The Muslim Brotherhood were outlawed by Mubarak, in their desire to destroy the current government of Egypt by attempting to destroy the moribund economy which relies on tourism for 30% of their foreign reserves when staging the killing of 58 German tourists several years back.

Do I need a signed, sworn statement from Obama/ glean his political playbook to know that associating with murderous terrorists to make a determination about any repercussions of circumstances he facilitates? The actions he has taken, the political, military support he's provided would seem rather incriminating regarding Obama's political objectives.

[Revolting cat!]

The government workers always “serve”, don’t they, “admirably”, with “great sacrifice”. You should see these pencil pushers living it up in foreign capitals.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The argument for having prime diplomatic posts filled by fundraisers is that having no experience they will defer to the President. This tends to guarantee a consistent message.

Look what's happening with the egotistical boob Kerry. He has what he considers to be a reasonable approximation to "his own mind" and he is constantly stumbling trying to get Obama's message out.

Granted Obama's message is inherently inconsistent and murky, but Kerry is only making it worse ... if that is possible.

[kabar]

I remember Hume Horan. Sometimes you have to take one for the team. Like Amb. Patterson needs to do.

Anne Patterson is taking one for the team. She is the target of the mobs. Her life is in danger.

There is a way to pursue your government’s objectives while incurring the least resistance. There is a word for it...Diplomacy. She needs to resign in order to serve her country. That’s what she signed up to do. And she gets a nice pension, too.

She can be replaced in Cairo and be reassigned to a position in the Department. She is being considered as a possible Assistant Secretary for NEA. Why should she resign from the Foreign Service? She has done nothing wrong.

[Revolting cat!]

The argument for having prime diplomatic posts filled by fundraisers is that having no experience they will defer to the President.

Fair enough. Nevertheless these cushy appointments are nothing other than rewards.

[kabar]

July 31, 2007 – October 5, 2010. And Pakistan was and is a very dangerous place for American diplomats.

[montaine]

Your girl won’t do the right thing. Taking shots at citizens you claim to be serving won’t change that. Thank you for the times you have served our country. But you are wrong. She needs to go to serve Obama (whom she took an oath to serve) and her country from which she has received so very much.

[kabar]

LOL. Tin foil hat time.

[lbryce]

Apparently not. See post #71 of my response to Toll.

[don-o]

FReeper wildbill posted on

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3039051/posts?page=8#6

needs to be shared

Why do the morons in the State department and the politicians continue to send ambassadors to Muslim countries who are almost guaranteed to be ignored and/or disrespected? I refer to women ambassadors of course.

The fact is that women in almost all Muslim countries have a different status in the culture. It is part of their religion and the region seems to be reverting back to a stricter form of Islam which doesn’t bode well for liberation of women.

In our arrogance, we seem to feel that by pushing our women in diplomatic jobs into positions of power that interact with government officials that we will change their culture or that they will ignore their own feelings of superiority in dealing with them.

I often wonder if Muslims don’t privately think we are insulting them and their culture by sending women ambassadors to their countries. We should take into consideration the mores of the culture that represents such a large segment of the world.

This isn’t a misogynist rant. I respect the many talented women in our diplomatic corps, but surely our purpose shouldn’t be to put their careers ahead of the national interest. Why not take the ambassadorships such as England and France that traditionally go to rich male campaign donors off the table as political plums doled out by Presidents to their supporters. Let our most talented women serve there—or in posts in countries which don’t have a religious bias against women. It isn’t our job to change the world to meet our own cultural preferences..