God yes, especially in ambassador posts. Bush's ambassadors represent a very different foreign policy perspective than Obama's will and the sooner the Bush people leave our overseas embassies, the better.

I heard a man in India say on NPR yesterday, "If American can change, so can India"...and it made me smile.

I agree stephly, well said.

Makes sense....

My fantasy job has always been to be a US Ambassador to another country or work in the UN.....just putting it out there Obama.

I don't find this shocking and it doesn't bother me. But then, I don't know much about the ambassador system.

Is it abnormal to do this? I guess I just assumed that this would happen.

yes, it is fair

Of course this sounds fair.

It's fair if he's firing them based on the job their doing, and not just based on who appointed them...

Foxie, I think the two are directly correlated. Bush appointed ambassadors who would promote his worldview and foreign policies, and since Obama's position on said matters will presumably differ greatly, it makes sense (and should be expected) that he would switch those positions.

The US embassy in Paris is not on the Champs Elysées, but at the Place de la Concorde, at the end of the Champs actually Pretty impressive place though, probably one of the safest and most guarded in Paris. The FIA is just next to it, and the Palais de l'Elysée (our "White House") is one block away.

I can't wait to see who Obama will name to those jobs. Sure to be pretty interesting !

That's actually what I expected him to do. Where is the picture from?

this is typical for the changing of the guard so you can't really think that this is out of the blue. i'm sure that they knew that their time in their role was going to come to an end eventually. it does suck that it's in these rough financial times, but what can you do right? all of Bush's supporters should have been sending out their resume for a while.

Isn't this what every President does? You call for the resignations of all "staff" from the previous administration, and then either reappoint those you like, or replace them with someone you do.

From the article:

"Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees."

Can't wait to see who gets France.

smart move

There's some of that change we've been looking forward to.

AI don't have a problem with it as it would have happened eventually. But I agree in these rough times, even having a job for 2 more months would be a help. Not even a month after christmas and you lose you job. Just stinks. I hope Obama will help them find other jobs as most good employers do.

Why are people so heartless? These people were not Bush. Get over you "change we need" slogan. It's lame. These are people just like you and me, and you have to admit losing your job right now stinks. But, you know it's all about change!!!!

Why doesn't Obama allow them to go through "the usual administration transition period"? Gee, what's the rush? Let them serve the rest of their appointed terms like everyone else. He'll have a chance to replace them soon enough.

It's fair if he appointed new ambassadors according to their knowledge of diplomacy and the culture/language of the country they are in, because U.S. diplomats are almost always seriously lacking in those areas.

Seems to me there were a bunch of folks on the left who were up in arms because Bush fired a bunch of Clinton appointed lawyers at the Justice Department. Is it only okay to fire prior appointees if you are the Messiah?

When I was looking at the jobs of the New Administration, the jobs specifically say you will only have the job for the term of the President; I figured most jobs are like this as new administration comes in, the old one moves out and the new one takes control. Yeah, it would be nice for them to keep their jobs a little longer but this is the reality, people get fired and laid off and must move on. Must be horrible for companies that are laying off people now without even helping them find a job and they are trying to network or even apply places.

pequena (sorry, don't know how to do the tilda, but would love to learn) - I *think* the photo is of the US Embassy in London (hideously ugly building, IMO). Looks to me like those might be Amnesty International folks kneeling in front of it... must be protest of the War or something.

I find it kinda shocking that Obama is not allowing ambassadors to stay on during the transition. One of the main jobs of the diplomatica corps is to establish relationships in the countries in which they work. Just because Obama and Bush have different foriegn policies doesn't mean that old and new ambassadors wouldn't work with the same people, and the old ambassadors could help the new transition smoothly. But hey - it's Obama's amdinistration, so he gets to call the shots.

This is what is usually done its not "BO Change" like its some brand newfangled policy made up by him.

bye ambassadors thanks for your service to this country!

What makes ambassadors better than other people who have been fired, if they don't get help finding new jobs why should ambassadors being fired be anymore special??

Why so cynical nyara?

It's the truth people are complaining about ambassadors who have more money than the average man ont he street yet people are being laid off everyday yet noone is asking the companies to keep them on while they transition or to help them get new jobs, people get fired everyday and people need to deal with it.

That's a good point nyara, I don't think it's cynical at all. In my thought though, and I don't know the statistics on this, if it's the general policy for the ambassadors to stay on during the transition, then that's what should happen. I think the unceremonious releasing of these ambassadors just points to Obamas lack of experience. If he really knew what he was doing, he'd have looked at the statistics himself, seen that the team is usually left in tact, then that's what he should have done.

Again, I don't know the statistics, so if it's not "common policy" for them to stay, then he's perfectly fine in doing what he did. If not though, I really question it.

It's not common policy to keep the last president's political appointees - Obama may be moving up their last day, but these guys knew they were going to be out of work as soon as the votes were counted. And none of them are going to be on the streets begging for work.

Sounds fine to me. It makes sense that a drastic change in worldview and international relations philosophy would require a change in our representatives abroad.

I think the picture you posted is unfair... other than that... of course it's fair to have ambassadors that is in line with the change of the tides.

That looks like the photo of Amnesty International's demonstration last January 11, calling for the closure of Guantánamo Bay on the 6th anniversary of the first prisoners arriving. The orange jumpsuits and kneeling position are meant to be representative of the 300+ prisoners still held. They had people dressed as guards, and dogs too.

It's just a peaceful expression of their views. Thousands of people around the world held protests that day, including Rome, Sydney and quite a few on the steps of the US Supreme Court. I didn't see much about it in the US media, but it was a world-wide event directed at the US.