I wonder just how much the American "public masses" press will cover the resignation of a career US diplomat who left because of disputes with the bullheadedness in which we appear to be going to war. I fear it will be heavily underreported. He argues some very good points.
Reportage
pudge on 2003-03-01T23:34:52
What would constitute "underreporting"? I strongly suspect you've never heard of this man before he resigned; why should his resignation be significant news? The United States has thousands of diplomats, many of whom resign each year, some of whom for disagreeing with various U.S. government policies. One of them resigns because he disagrees with the government's policy on Iraq.
It got reported in the NY Times; it probably won't make the nightly network news. I can't say I see a reason why it should. Can you? This is what the journalism business calls a "non-story." He is a virtual nobody who has this week received more press for resigning than he ever received for anything else in his life. Why is what a low-level diplomat thinks newsworthy?
I'll concede that what he thinks is more newsworthy than what Dave Matthews or Jeneane Garofolo thinks
... but it is hardly of significant importance.
As to his points: he doesn't mention, at any point in his letter, the UN's mandate for Iraqi disarmament. It kinda hurts his credibility when he condemns the policy without addressing the main point of it.
