From a Reuters story:<p>But the White House has clearly lost patience with the Chretien government. Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, who has strong ties to the U.S. administration, strongly criticized Ottawa this week for not supporting the United States on Iraq and complained that Chretien was not muzzling Liberals who had made anti-U.S. remarks.<p>***Without further explanation, Reuters tells us that America's ambassador to Canada has strong ties to America's government. Am I missing something?***

<blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
From a Reuters story:<p>But the White House has clearly lost patience with the Chretien government. Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, who has strong ties to the U.S. administration, strongly criticized Ottawa this week for not supporting the United States on Iraq and complained that Chretien was not muzzling Liberals who had made anti-U.S. remarks.<p>***Without further explanation, Reuters tells us that America's ambassador to Canada has strong ties to America's government. Am I missing something?***<hr></blockquote><p>I believe, in another topic, 4Jfan explained that the U.S. administration is only a part of the U.S. government, specifically, the executive branch. It might be more clear to write that the ambassador has strong ties to the Bush administration, a trait not all such people share.

Agreed, "Bush administration" would be more appropriate.
Let me share a column from Ottawa columnist Graham Fraser in The Sunday Star on this subject. It is, I believe, an appropriate response to the hectoring of a so-called diplomat.
Apologies for the length. If I knew how to make a link I would but I don't.<p>Ambassador's comments were a mistake
`We are not part of your (U.S.) family'<p>
GRAHAM FRASER<p>Dear Ambassador Cellucci,<p>First of all, let me say a word of appreciation for your speech last week. Candour is not always a characteristic of diplomats' remarks.<p>Your political experience, and your close personal relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush and his chief of staff, Andrew Card, are valuable. It is useful to hear the president's views reflected so vividly rather than clouded by professional discretion.<p>However, I think it was a mistake.<p>I speak as someone who doesn't think that your president is a moron or that your compatriots are bastards. And I recognize that American nerves will become even more frayed and reactions more bitter as you march through the tar pit of a desert war without the support of your five leading trading partners.<p>But I think you are wrong in a number of important ways. Saying what you said the way you did may make it harder for you to achieve what you really want from Canada.<p>Let's look at your most dramatic statement: "There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you said, adding there would be no debate or hesitation.<p>"We would be there for Canada, part of our family, and that is why so many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now."<p>I think you have misunderstood the nature of the country you have come to. We are not part of your family. We are not even really friends — even though, as individuals, many of us have family and most of us have friends in the United States. <p>And to the extent that nations can be friends, which I doubt, the obligations of friendship are complex. As the old anti-drinking slogan had it, friends don't let friends drive drunk. The same thing applies to invasions. Put another way, friendships can be damaged when people engage in reckless behaviour, and ignore advice from those who care about them.<p>We have different views of security threats. Canada feels its security has been threatened by land mines, war criminals and greenhouse gas emissions.<p>Not to put too fine a point upon it, the United States has not been there, ready, willing and able to help. The United States has rejected the land mines treaty, the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol.<p>You don't consider these to be security issues. Fair enough — but we disagree.<p>There is no doubt the allegiances the United States could traditionally count on have been damaged. Forget about France and Germany — the silence from the rest of the Western Hemisphere has been stunning. Mexico and Chile, both members of the U.N. Security Council — and even more vulnerable to pressure from your president than we are — are not with you on this.<p>This is not the first time our views of international conflict and security threats have differed.<p>By now, you are probably tired of being reminded that the U.S. entered both World War I and World War II more than two years after Canada did — and in 1941 only after being attacked — but you should remember the ensuing conflict with Quebec nearly blew the country apart each time. <p>In the 1960s, Canada thought the Vietnam War was a terrible mistake, and had the temerity to say so. We took in thousands of your draft-age young.<p>In his valuable new book Tolerant Allies: Canada and the United States, 1963-1968, diplomatic historian Greg Donaghy describes the Canada-U.S. relationship during the Vietnam War. The parallels are intriguing. <p>Bush's disappointment with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien over his refusal to join in the war in Iraq is nothing compared to U.S. president Lyndon Johnson's rage at prime minister Lester Pearson's criticisms of U.S. bombing in Vietnam.<p>And the contradictions between foreign and economic policy are similar.<p>"The Pearson government's pursuit of closer economic ties with the United States and its contradictory desire to adopt an increasingly distinct approach to the world reflects the ambiguity that has traditionally characterized continental relations," Donaghy writes.<p>It is worth remembering that relations have been worse in the past, even while our interdependence increased. <p>One big difference: Donaghy found a remarkable degree of tolerance in the U.S. for Canadian dissent on the Vietnam War. There is no sign of that now.<p>I can understand the anger and frustration Americans are feeling. Soldiers are dying in a war that already seems nasty, brutish and long. <p>But anger, as German chancellor Otto von Bismarck said, is a poor adviser. You may have scored points, but gained little ground. In fact, you may have damaged your long-term prospects for improving Canada-U.S. relations and persuading Canada to spend more on the military.<p>Yours sincerely,<p>Graham Fraser<p>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Fraser is a national affairs writer. He can be reached at graham.fraser@sympatico.ca