State Department delays forcing diplomats to Iraq.
By on Nov 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
State Department delays forcing diplomats to Iraq.
Last month, the State Department announced that it would order “as many as 50 U.S. diplomats to take posts in Iraq next year” in “forced assignments.” The announcement was met with “anger and frustration” by several hundred diplomats, who likened the forced posting to a “potential death sentence.” Personnel were supposed to be chosen by today, but with 25 volunteers already approved in the positions, the department is now delaying the final selection until Friday.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why can’t they just close the embassy?
(Rhetorical question. I know it’s all about appearances and closing it would admit the reality of the situation there. Can’t have that…)
November 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pmDiplomacy always works best before women and children have had their skin melted off by “Shake and Bake” operations in a civilian population area.
After something like that, diplomats tend to be shot in the streets for some reason.
Melting the skin off children never endears a civilian population. Neither does torturing them.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pmAre ‘career diplomats’ immune to danger?
Condi, time to clear the deck. Find some brave personnel. Go to war…
Oh wait, you’re Republicans.
Time to make excuses. Find someone else to go…
November 13th, 2007 at 3:39 pmYou have to forgive the career diplomats for their relcutance to defend the country with their bodies.
They went into the diplomatic service, after all. It must suck to go into the diplomatic service and then have to serve under a president who thinks diplomacy is the same thing as “surrender”.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pmA few dozen boxes of designer shoes from those Diplomats sent to the State Department as gestures of goodwill may have turned the tide.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThey’re bumping it to the Friday news dump. They must be expecting an ugly scene when the names are revealed…
November 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThey are delaying the announcement to match the typical ‘document dump’ which occurs on Friday evenings. Their decisions won’t change, they just want to hide their unpopular issues. Another predictable move by the Bush administration: Good news – trumpet it, bad news – hide it.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pmHell there’s nothing for them to do there anyway!
This administration’s idea of diplomacy is to bully and isolate!
November 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pmIt must suck to go into the diplomatic service and then have to serve under a president who thinks diplomacy is the same thing as “surrenderâ€.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 13, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
dead diplomats walking
November 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pmIf any State personnel are killed in Iraq, Bush can just grant them…
‘retroactive immunity’.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pmHmmm? It makes one wonder what effect it would have if U.S. military personnel started saying, “Hell no, we won’t go”.
And before the trolls start throwing around words like “treason” or “desertion” I ask you to considered that it is accepted, and in some cases required, that soldiers can refuse illegal or irrational orders,
November 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pmWill the ones who have to go be Democrats? Will they be the ones who were known to be non-supportive of the war? Will they be the ones who publicaly objected to being “drafted?”
November 13th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWill the ones who have to go be Democrats? Will they be the ones who were known to be non-supportive of the war? Will they be the ones who publicaly objected to being “drafted?â€
Comment by Marie — November 13, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Probably. I wonder what the wingnuts will think of “anti-Americans” serving in Iraq. I bet they will get the blame for any “lack of progress” as well.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pmWill the ones who have to go be Democrats?
Comment by Marie — November 13, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Your question brings up an interesting dilemma, Marie. On the one hand, BushCo wants no one but BushCo loyalists in pretty much every post on the planet.
On the other hand, they’ve got to be saying to themselves, what an awesome opportunity to punsih some evil America-haters…
Besides, the Chimpy leghumpers they sent over there to open the stock exchange and promote the image of the US haven’t really worked out so well…
November 13th, 2007 at 6:19 pminstead of diplomats just send ATM’s. much more is being accomplished in iraq these days via bribery than via diplomacy..
November 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am