>While that was perhaps VERY unprofessional behavior on behalf of the ambassador, I think it is not technically interfering--was he representing the govt when he made that statement? If so, he should be relieved of all duties and replaced. If not and it was just poorly chosen words or words taken out of context, perhaps he should still be replaced. Yet, I am of the opinion that figure heads only have the power given to them by those they serve. His words would have meant nothing if voters either chose to ignore them or vote according to their conscience regardless and not for/against any candidate based on his statements. The voters gave his words power.
Well, the general perception here is that the U.S. government does, indeed, have a strong tendency to interfere in other countries' business. This perception may have worsened the situation.
Hilmar.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
