Friday, June 09, 2006

Keep your crooks at home

The US Justice Department has cleared one of its top officials of wrongdoing in a government lawsuit against the tobacco industry, which frees him to serve as US ambassador to Australia.



The last US ambassador to Canberra, John Thomas Schieffer, completed his term in February 2005. Schieffer's deputy, William A. Stanton, has been the embassy's charge d'affaires during the 15 months since.



The internal Justice Department review stemmed from complaints about the agency's decision last year to bypass a recommendation by one of its own witnesses and lower the amount it was seeking in remedies from tobacco companies. SMH



It has been 15 months since the US last had an ambassador to its coalition partner, Australia.
At a time when the two countries have been so closely engaged in their war on terror there has been no US representative, at ambassadior level, in Australia.



Through the rough and tumble negotiations over a free trade agreement the ambassador designate was being investigated for his fancy footwork wity the tobacco companies.
It just goes to show we don't really need diplomats.



Schieffer, the last Bush stooge, pissed-off most Australians when he started taking public pot-shots at Australian politicians who annoyed him. That was really bloody diplomatic.
Now George can't find an honest guy to fill the job, so he hangs out till his crook of choice is conveniently cleared.



Funnily enough, the best US ambassador, and frequent visitor, to Australia is good ole 'Billy Bob" Clinton. The Aussies love him, follow him around like adoring puppies.



So there you go George, you can kill two birds with one stone. Get Bill out of your face by sending him somewhere he's loved and appreciated and keep your crook home where he can look after your dirty business.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you take Bill, you have to take Hillary, too. Maybe they'll fix Australia's health care system like they fixed America's.

Cartledge said...

Ah, give Bill a break.

Anonymous said...

I can't. Clinton is the first president of my generation and, theoretically at least, of my political leanings, and he blew it by putting himself and his career (and his wife's career) ahead of the national good.

He was so bright, such a talented politician, had such potential, and he squandered his chances to be another FDR regarding health care.

So you can have Bill down-under if you like, but you have to take Hillary, too. ;-)

Cartledge said...

In all seriousness, I think you are judging the man harshly; harsher than history will.
Put aside his poor taste in women, and runaway libido and look at the legacy he left in place for the current crew to destroy.
Your economy was doing just fine, and the world was a happier and safer place all round. He was, and is, a great ambassador for America, and never puts the country down even when he can see his good efforts going down the drain.
There was a similar feeling about Carter, for different reasons, but history tells a different story there too.
You are right to have lofty ideals about your leaders, but the best of them will still have feet of clay.
Hillary? Give me a day or so to think of something positive…

Anonymous said...

Granted, the economy was booming during his years in office. But I think that had more to do with Bill Gates (and technology in general) that Bill Clinton.