three U.S. diplomats who resigned over the war have no regrets

[G_j]

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10161Conscientious Objectors


Traci Hukill is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C.


While elected leaders come and go, the job of the civil servant requires a certain steadfast patience—a willingness to subjugate personal principles to fulfill a duty to the public. However, when the actions of the nation's leaders fly in the face of personal principles, some civil servants may decide they can no longer be seen as tacitly endorsing those actions by continuing to serve. Such was the case of three U.S. diplomats—Ann Wright, John Brown and John Brady Kiesling—who resigned in protest of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq.

A year after they made national news by stepping down independently from once-satisfying careers in the State Department to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the stories of these three very different people bear remarkable similarities. They all felt that defending the war abroad was unimaginable. Received hundreds of supportive emails flooded in from privately distressed State Department colleagues. Miss the diplomatic life. But insist they have no regrets. For each there came a moment when the rush to war became too noxious to tolerate.

Deciding "It Stinks"

On March 19, 2003, the day before the United States launched air strikes on Baghdad, Ann Wright decided she could no longer represent a government whose foreign policy she found indefensible. She typed a three-page letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell resigning from her post as deputy chief of mission in Mongolia, effective March 31. "All my life I've been a public servant, and with every administration there are things that you personally may have to hold your nose and go, 'Oh, God,'" says Wright, a retired Army colonel who joined the foreign service in 1987.

"But I never felt so strongly about any of them that I felt that I could not figure out how to either divorce myself from the policy so I wouldn't have to do any representing of it or else handle the PR work of whatever that policy was. I felt I could not support this administration's decision to go into Iraq, and when you disagree with a policy that feels like kind of a cornerstone—I morally felt that I could not participate in it."

..more..

[myccrider]

1. Link doesn't work?

I tried cutting & pasting (since the last word wasn't included in the underline) but still got a "doesn't correspond to an article in the database" from tompaine.com. So I did a subject search and got this link for the article. Hope this one works, I've never pasted a link before. :P


http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10161

Good article, btw.

[G_j]

5. oops, thanks for the working link

thanks, it was working, but somehow the title got morphed with the link when I posted it :eyes:

[Eye and Monkey]

2. bump

[patricia92243]

3. They need to be on every talk show they can get on and write books. MAYBE

if enough people keep saying over and over tha thr war was wrong, it might sink into the public's mind.

[sweetheart]

4. For the militarists, the state department is the "enemy"

Civilian relations without war? What is that. Can nations have
international relations without army bases and commanders ordering
other governments to move over or be pushed over?

I'm suprised the pentagon has not fragged the state department in its
bid for global empire. Some folks have resigned who used to work
for the oreo prince himself (colin powell) father of asshole powell
of the FCC and part of the family of losers who hold ranks with
men who, in former times, would have had the powell family flogged
in chains.

Get these folks on TV... The more voices whinge about the credibility
of war without sense, the better... just i fear the state department
is already part of the axis of evil by the PNAC traitors. By that
what point is there in a downsized department speaking up... they'll
simply be written off as redundant employees of a redundant
civilian organism no longer necessary in the new feudal order.

[G_j]

6. I would love to see these people on TV

of course they would be immediately smeared. :-(

[yankeedem]

7. Do me a favor

When you criticize Colin Powell, can you do it without the racism? "Oreo prince"? I hope you know better than that.

[sweetheart]

8. Good propaganda labelling

I think the colin powell race card is one that is played all the time
by the republicans for the very view you represent... no
self-respecting liberal can question it without being maligned
themselves.

The GOP is incredibly racist, and what better way to undermine a
civilian institution you loathe (state department) than to charge
a black military man on to it, and then to make him in to a lying
monkey. Racists secretly laugh... ha ha... look at the monkey.
We send the monkey where we don't give a shit and laugh ha ha ha..
Colin powell is an oreo if ever there was one. He is no hero,
rather a cowardly fool who sweeps the white mans floor.

Michael powell has maligned the poor (read: mostly black people) by
supporting the white mans media-merger adgenda. To question it on
racial boundaries is taboo by his appointment, so the race card is
played but not called. I credit the racists for an excellent job,
and without these stupid oreo scumbags, the GOP would have to
do a more serious job to undermine the public institutions they
are after.

One of the better race cards played in the past year was the british
state visit by the *. The same time, they sent the black man to
the european union to lie and make excuses... whilst the white man
dined with the queen. We send our state dempartment monkey anywhere
and he's well trained...

The black card has been played against us, in a PC world. To not
call them on the game is simply feigning ignorance. I do know
better than that.