Talk:Craig Roberts Stapleton

Untitled

Does anyone have articles to link to, that will confirm or deny Stapleton foreign language history? --M4bwav 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he "speaks neither French nor Czech fluently" is not surprising, controversial, relevant, or documented. He is a political appointee, not a career Foreign Service Officer. And why would it be controversial if he received the appointments as a result of his connections with Bush? That is exactly what happens in political appointments! The president appoints men whom he knows, trusts, and believes in. --Philautry 02:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's controversial in that the Bush administration is often accused of putting loyalty over talent for the job. Many presidents have sought to appoint people on talent rather than loyalty, thus whether or not you believe it is good or bad, it is at least noteworthy.M4bwav 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard him try to speak French, and he doesn't, but that isn't exactly a source we can cite. Phil - it is in fact extremely common that ambassadors, especially to a country such as France, speak the language. It is also common that they are appointed for reasons having to do with their knowledge and competence in French affairs and not because they were a great co-owner of a professional sports team. You may not find these facts strange but others do. --Aquarelle 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An important point: your argument is with the US system, not the Bush Administration:

It is not controversial (i.e., it is completely consistent with the US Constitution and with the overwhelming weight of historical precedent), nor is it any way at all uniquely characteristic of the Bush Administration, that friends, former colleagues, and political allies of the President are appointed to be ambassadors. American ambassadors are drawn from a mix of political appointees (a minority of US ambassadors) and career Foreign Service Officers (the majority of US ambassadors). Ambassadors are the official emissary of the President and Secretary of State in their countries of residence; ambassadors should not and do not function as independent entities who make or implement policies as they see fit, apart from the ultimate direction of the President and Secretary of State.

So, the US system (some ambassadors= politically appointed, some ambassadors= career Foreign Service Officers) ensures that the ranks of ambassadors will be a balance of bureaucratic expertise and Presidential confidants. If the US political system were a European parliamentary system, then it would be logical for US ambassadors to be made up entirely of career bureaucrats. But, since the US system is a presidential system, the upper echelon of the State Department- including the Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, and some ambassadors- are, by design, political appointees who serve "at the pleasure of the president."

In sum, what you are seeing with Ambassador Stapleton is the U.S. system at work. Based on your comments, your argument about the "controversial" nature of Ambassador Stapleton's appointment should be directed not toward the Bush Administration, but toward the US Constitution and US political system. Philautry 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, some of the political appointees to ambassador positions may indeed have country-specific experience, language skills, or country/area knowledge. Many times, however, a political appointee has had little to no experience, language skill, or area knowledge pertinent to his or her receiving country. Both trends have been true of every US presidential administration's political appointees.

On a related note, a US President's choice for ambassador is often reflective of the President's priorities for bilateral relations between the US and that country. If a President plans to pursue a new or changing policy line with a country, then he is more likely to appoint an ambassador whom he knows well and trusts- rather than a career Foreign Service Officer who possesses deep expertise but little personal connection to (or history with) the President. In the case of France, for example, it is well-known that Franco-American relations cooled significantly after the Iraq invasion. In such an atmosphere of deteriorating relations with an important country (France), the US President has a great need to ensure that there he and his "man on the ground" are entirely on the same page. This kind of harmony is much easier with a political appointee than with a career FSO. (US history is filled with bureaucratic conflict between the White House and career FSO ambassadors.) This may explain why Bush, in 2005, decided that he would rather appoint as US Ambassador to France a close associate with relatively little France-specific expertise over someone who possessed deeper France-specific experience/expertise but was not as close to the President. Philautry 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that certain users believe themselve able to read the minds of the member of the Philadelphia Convention. In any case, the removal of the linguistic and international experience of Mr Stapleton, on the grounds that it is "irrevelant" and somehow sanctionned by the United States Constitution, is absurd. By this thinking, we shall first remove the paragraphes regarding his family and early career before going after the sections which are connected to the important position that Mr Stapleton holds. -- J.-M. Zimmer —86.66.222.102 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reprise

This has caused some to allege that his nominations as ambassador to France and Czech Republic were based more on his personal connections with the Bush family than actual international diplomacy competence and experience.

This is ridiculous. Of course his appointment was based more on his personal connections to the Bush family than his (nonexistent) diplomatic experience. That's how the U.S. foreign service works - ambassadors at cushy posts like Paris and London and Ottawa and Canberra and Luxembourg and so forth are wealthy donors to the president's election campaign. Ambassadors to troubled places like Beijing or Baghdad or Kinshasa are career foreign service types. So this sentence is ridiculous on two fronts. In the first place, it is ridiculous for suggesting that this is only some kind of allegation - as noted, of course it's his personal connections that got him the job. I don't think anyone would deny that. That is, essentially, how U.S. ambassadors to France are chosen these days. This being said, the inclusion of this at all suggests that there's something unseemly about this, but this is also ridiculous - this is perfectly normally operating procedure - Clinton did the same thing, as did Reagan and Bush before him, Carter before them, and Nixon and Ford before him. I'm removing this unless someone can provide specific press reports where Stapleton, in particular, has been criticized. john k (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is rare that the US Ambassador to France does not speak French. Your cavalier approach to nepotism is disturbing. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro Bio-tech/GMO in '07

Interesting wikileaks cables regarding Stapleton and pro-monsanto work in the EU. May be notable.

• articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/12/wikileaks-reveals-us-sought-to-retaliate-against-europe-over-monsanto-gm-crops.aspx US Government to Europe: Give This to Your People Or There Will be "Some Pain"]
• WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Sought to Retaliate Against Europe over Monsanto GM Crops
• WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops

--Travis Thurston+ 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)