Remembering too, ROve is a great admirer/student/leaner of "social structures" and how influence is wrought...Can see so much applied domestically as well (think the GOp learned the "lessons" quite well and able to APPLY, whereas the Dems come off as so marginalized that is now diruguer to figure THEY have NO plans/ideas/stamina/stregth/resovel..etc.etc,etc and etc...) Not unusual, it is as in the "marketing" game, so why not applied to the NATION's best interest...but do rather object to the domestic manipulation of the citizens mindset/etc...As for Hughes and her present position...That was basically another Texan Fems job...Charlotte Beers think was the name who went befor...she of "advertising/marketing" expertisement and was enlisted early on i the administration to "assist" in winning the minds/hearts/etc of those opposing the various whateverings.

The purpose of the State Department embassies is to have a conversation with other countries of the world -- to identify areas of cooperation, areas of conflict, to explain US policy, and to determine the truth --whether the errors of fact are on our side or are made by other countries.

State Department employees are a major source of information for the US government and White House --arguably more important than the intelligence community, although there is overlap.

If you look at Iraq, Colin Powell's State Department was right far more often than the neocons in the Pentagon -- which is probably why Colin Powell is gone and his Department is being smothered.

The problem is that the State Department employees have loyalty to the American people and to the flag --not to the interests behind the neocons. State Department employees are
also in a position to know that much of the hatred of the USA abroad is caused by malign acts the WHite House commits for the sake of private interests.

The American people are the ultimate sovereign of the United States -- and they have a right to know the truth before they vote. Whoever exerts censorship to hide the truth from them -- for the benefit of an Administration's campaign donors -- is a traitor to this nation.

Cognitive dissonance: A list of Bush appointment to important ambassadorships.

Lugo,

I agree with you on the need for a well-defined 'chain-of command' and that POTUS should assume responsibility for developing and directing foreign policy and its' subsequent initiatives. And, individuals do need to make decisions concerning their level of comfort with a given administration's policies and may find it necessary to resign if they can not, in good conscience, participate in the implementation of those policies (or wait for the next administration to assume office.)

Now here we are, in The United States of America, 2005, and we learn that State Department employees may be under threat of termination if they do not follow policy directives, as defined, by the administration. In other words, "We don't need you to think, or even comment, on the consequences of management's policies because the thinking has already been 'approved', and your (the employees') opinion is well, not important. Just do your job."

Lugo, even restaurants have suggestion boxes.

As you highlighted, Ms. Hughes does not work alone and so one must wonder about the consequences of her message on the morale of the employees whom continued to work while she was away. What were they doing all that time? Do you honestly believe that not one employee of the US State Department has a valid, if not fundamentally brilliant, suggestion/opinion to offer about policy and its' implementation? Are you 'OK' with the idea of blind allegiance to any cause?

REF: "Stroking Other Countries and Making Them Think we Really Care and Really Listen"

Don't bother. Individuals worldwide have already developed opinions with regard to the US' ability to 'listen' (polls.) This represents yet another area in need of change.

Also, 'appeasing/negotiating' with certain individuals/groups is a fallacy, designed I suspect, to intimate that 'negotiating' with groups such as Al-Qa'ida is possible. If one listens to their latest statements (when one can access them), one knows that this is not an option. They are apparently not interested in 'negotiating'. I guess it was the US that wasn't listening. Again.

I know. The 'system' is simply too big to change. Too set in its' own ways. Too regimented, too complicated, it's too hard, in fact, it's impossible isn't it, it's just too (add the adjective of your choice.)

No. This excuse, like the US' ever-present, ever-failing 'message to the rest of the world', has been used for far too long as a 'cover', if you will, for sheer, unadulterated - stupidity - on behalf of both political parties. Sorry, but the status-quo really isn't good enough and no, I can't support the idea that America, or any branch of its' government, is simply too stupid - to change. Stupid. Simple word, simple meaning.

We are witnessing the death of the ideal that is America. Maybe never to be fully realized, maybe too grand in scope, but an ideal that was to be America, nonetheless. I have difficulty watching this process without comment - about the stupidity, the rigidity of thought, the hopelessness of the attitudes inside the beltway that have now permeated American society, and lastly, about the true leaders that we so desperately need to emerge.

Color me stupid.

Lugo,

"Bush is just like Hitler" is your oversimplification, not my analogy.

It is a straw man that allows you to discount any similarity whatsoever on the basis that Bush is not JUST LIKE Hitler.

You are relying on a logical fallacy that allows you to see only black or white. Nothing in between.

Your doublethink is quite revealing, actually. You ...

1. discount any similarity whatsoever between Bush propaganda tactics and Nazi propaganda tactics

Yet you ...

2. Argue that every politician in history must have used the same tactics

Which is it?

You're actually using two opposite rationalizations. And a straw man. And no facts.

The American system of government is based on rational discourse. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're always up to the task ...

Lugo,

"Bush is just like Hitler" is your oversimplification, not my analogy. It is a straw man that allows you to discount any similarity whatsoever on the basis that Bush is not Hitler -- i.e., a genocidal maniac.

Your double-consciousness on this is quite revealing, actually. You

Well, redcat, perhaps Karen Hughes is only doing "half the job of diplomacy" but in case it escaped your attention, there are many other diplomats in the State Department beyond just Karen Hughes. I see no intrinsic reason why there should not be a diplomat whose full-time job is to communicate the US position to others, while presumably other diplomats take care of the "Stroking Other Countries and Making Them Think we Really Care and Really Listen" part.

Why on earth would you think US diplomats should NOT be kept "on message" (with threats of disciplinary action, if necessary)? That is EXACTLY as it should be. They are not supposed to be out there making foreign policy all by themselves. Their function is to implement the policy that the President sets. If they stray from that policy, they should indeed be punished (or they should resign if they don't like it).

I am sure you would be aghast if the CIA decided on covert action programs "all by itself" and resisted doing what the President wanted. I am sure you would be offended if the military decided to take military action "all by itself" and refused to cooperate with the policy set by the President. Why then should State be allowed to design and implement foreign policy "all by itself" and refuse to adhere to Presidential policy? We don't need a rogue elephant State Department any more than we need a rogue CIA or a rogue Pentagon.

Main Entry: di•plo•ma•cy
Pronunciation: d&-'plO-m&-sE
Function: noun
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : TACT

(Source: Merriam-Webster online: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diplomacy&x=14&y=16)

Curious.

Note, if you will, the word 'negotiations between ... ' and the phrase 'without arousing hostility'.

According to this definition, Ms. Hughes mission can not be primarily designed to 'make the US look good' and 'get' the US' 'message across' (in addition to making visas easier to obtain) because accomplishing these two goals exclusively would only account for HALF of a diplomatic effort. That must be why Ms. Hughes tour was promoted as a 'listening tour' versus a 'listen to what the US has to say for itself tour'.

Somehow I doubt that individuals in other parts of the world are confused about the US' position on certain matters and thereby require further clarification. There is, however, a particular group of individuals who could directly profit from further clarification and education about certain issues. That group would include those within the beltway who have failed to realize that their diplomatic efforts to date haven't produced the desired results.

Experience is sometimes relevant to the task at hand but in this case, the employment of 'old' thinking and outdated methods (media-PR campaigns/redundant statements about the US' position that directly conflict with its' actions, etc.) is likely to ensure the initiative's demise or failure. And, while the end-message/final product of this initiative may have already been scripted, the problems that lead up to the initiative's development are likely to continue to thrive, if not mutate into an entirely new set of difficulties.

There is nothing 'new' with regard to Ms. Hughes mission by way of key personnel, methodology, approach, or probable results. What is missing from this initiative's basic outline is a recognition that the people of the world have changed and are indeed waiting for the US to prove that it has changed, as well.

Thanks, Don, for the Buchanan article (and other links here, too.) It is wonderful, just wonderful to know that US diplomats are being kept 'on message' via threat of disciplinary action.

Threats and fear. The power of both are amazing when wielded effectively. The only problem is that American citizens and the world at large are watching this 'show' together and will, inevitably - learn from it.

Rich, by "you guys" I mean "all the countless people who seem to think that the stale, trite, vapid, and inane 'Bush is just like Hitler' trope is actually a meaningful, original, and substantive argument." In fact, that trope is totally boring and overused. We've been hearing it since 2000 and it hasn't gotten any more interesting, true, or relevant in the last five years. Are you even aware that calling Bush Hitler is itself a Hitlerian propaganda technique? "Bush is Hitler" is an appeal to fear, an effort to convince people that "everyone" thinks this is true through constant repetition of an absurd oversimplification, an effort to arouse prejudice by labeling the object (Bush) as something the audience hates (Hitler), and an effort to assign Bush blame for everything bad that happens (because, after all, he is Hitler).

I am at a loss to understand your assertion that when you say "Bush uses the same tactics as Hitler," this somehow does not mean that you're saying, "Bush is Hitler."

Every single politician in the United States, Republican or Democrats, and probably every politician in every country throughout history, has sought to "fool the unthinking listener into agreeing with what you want him to agree with." I bet you anything that back in the 1990s, the Democrats did all the "Nazi-like" things you describe (making scripted phone calls, stacking the crowd with people aggressively clapping, etc.) and yet somehow Clinton wasn't Hitler when this was going on.

Who says our society is fundamentally based on decision making through rational discourse, anyway? Most of our major decisions are based on emotions. Always have been, always will be - one can cite countless examples of decisions based on emotion throughout US history. Of course, that's not peculiar to the United States - it's humans everywhere, that's just the way we're wired.

Marie, her job is "public diplomacy" - i.e. making the US look good, getting our message across (tough job). Seems to me that her 20+ year career in political communications ideally suits her to that job. If you don't agree, that only reflects your ignorance of her previous jobs, and you need to educate yourself.

A Washington Post article on Friday noted an instance in which the White House was found to be illegally using public funds for "covert propaganda". An excerpt from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001019.html
---------
"
By NANCY BENAC
The Associated Press
Friday, September 30, 2005; 6:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" when it paid columnist Armstrong Williams to promote Bush administration policies and when it produced a video that seemed to be a news story, congressional investigators concluded Friday.

The Government Accountability Office said the public relations efforts violated the government's "publicity or propaganda prohibition" because the department did not clearly disclose its role to the public. The department was ordered to report the violations to Congress and the president."

Quite apart from the technical sophistication involved in some IO -- the marrying of sheer data processing power to reams of data files -- much of what passes for "human factors analysis" is old, old wine in new, digitized bottles. There once was a town named Washington,D.C., that employed legions of "Sovietologists" -- and contracted with squadrons of others at RAND and Hoover -- to interpret the nuances of where Vice Premier Whatsisnameski stood on Lenin's Tomb at the annual May Day parades.

In classic Rumsfeldian style, the Pentagon is pimping traditional political psychology (Deborah Larson, Dale Herspring, Jerrold Post, Alex George, etc.) as the latest-and-greatest in whiz-bang-wizardry, attempting to systematize, via Microsoft, that which politicians have done since time immemorial -- handicap each other.

This may seem like strange bedfellows, but Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine (Oct 10 edition ) has the following report re Karen Hughes impact in its Deep Background section (p. 29)
---------------------
"Senior State Department officials working at embassies overseas are becoming increasingly demoralized over restrictions being placed on their public utterances.

In the past, America's overseas representatives were generally trusted to explain American policy reliably to a foreign audience. They were relatively free to appear on television or radio or to make speechs and answer questions.

This is no longer the case. Diplomats are now being managed through guidelines generated by Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes's Office for Public Diplomacy to ensure that all representatives overseas are "on message".

This would not be so bad if the message were credible , but the guidelines are increasingly a defense of the White House rather than an explanation of policy.

One diplomat noted sourly that recent guidance made it clear that the only subjects that could be safely talked about are the "democracy agenda" and the War on Terror.

Problems, as in Iraq, or failures by the federal government, as with hurricane Katrina, are not to be discussed.

Hughes has made it clear that ambassadors will be disciplined if there is any deviation from her instructions.

Some diplomats have complained privately that they are increasingly selling snake oil to an audience that believes little or nothing coming out of Washington. Hughes, nominated in March, took nearly six months to arrive in Washington and assume her position, which had been described as critical to the War on Terror.

---Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates "

--------------------

Note: Cannistraro Associates is a corporate consulting company started up by former CIA counter-terrorism chief and 27 year CIA veteran, Vincent M. Cannistraro . See,e.g, http://intelligencebrief.net/

During a roundtable discussion of Ms. Hughes' 'listening tour' on a prominent Sunday morning cable news network program, it was mentioned that Ms. Hughes' close relationship with Mr. Bush may have 'opened doors' for her with regard to her ability to meet with leaders in foreign countries. While the comment may be true, it is not necessarily positive in that it is indicative of the power of cronyism as it exists at the international level. If more 'work' would have been required to open those doors to a different, unknown individual, that work could and should have been done. In addition, proposing that Ms. Hughes' relationship with Mr. Bush enables her to have his 'ear' intimates that another individual would not have the same level of access to Mr. Bush and accordingly, the same level of influence. Again, that idea is not particularly positive with regard to Mr. Bush's overall willingness to 'listen'.

Limited, closed 'circles of power and influence' exist in the US and within the beltway, as they do abroad. Closed circles leave little room for the reception of truly new and innovative ideas that could eventually serve to change the status quo with regard to US policy and hence, the way in which the US is viewed abroad. Experience within the beltway or within circles of power is likely to have at least some influence on the way in which an individual thinks, in general terms as well as about the US government and US policy. Even individuals whom are aware of this influence may have a difficult time reconciling their experiences/mindset with the task of creating new and innovative ideas about that which they already 'know'. Is prior experience within the US government required for this position? For once, the answer may actually be 'no'. (Extensive experience developing slick, 'successful' PR/media campaigns didn't seem to be required either. Why was that again?)

I suspect that audiences abroad (whether pre-selected or not) would remain willing to express their views about the US and the effects of its' policies, despite whatever 'face' is receiving them, providing that they believe that those comments would be seriously considered by Mr. Bush and his administration. The effort to collect and document those views for Mr. Bush's/the administration's consideration was, after all, one of the goals of the trip? Now that Ms. Hughes has returned to the US, it will be interesting to see how Mr. Bush responds to the information that will be forwarded to him. Audiences, in the US and abroad, are likely to be waiting, watching, and 'listening', for/to his response.

iggy: Considering the number of people who'd have to sign off on any action like releasing a live biotoxin into a crowd of American citizens (even dissenting ones) as part of an exercize in disaster preparedness, I just don't see it slipping through without somebody throwing up a red flag on it. It's just too thumb-fingered & obvious, even for our beknighted government. I know it has been done before, decades ago, but things were a lot more free-wheeling back then. My vote is for some rogue agency, extremist group or independant party like the Anthrax terrorist. Somebody who doesn't need to fill out a lot of paperwork or run his ideas past a committee of his superiors to filter out the bad ones.

max: No, General Boykin is a hardcore Christian. I'm assuming you aren't a troll & just don't read very well, it was mentioned in the article - "Boykin, famous for...his own Christian faith".

Tim

Boykin is a satanist isn't he? An Aquino underling?

http://kaygriggstalks.com

Hey Will,
What do you make of the bio agent that was released on Sept. 24th in DC? Sounds very suspicious to me... Part of "Granite Shadow" perhaps?

Tularemia is not spread from person to person. It can be contracted by direct contact with the bacteria that cause it -- by swallowing them or, if they have been suspended in air, through inhalation.

The germ that causes tularemia is considered a biohazard because it is highly infectious and was tested in the 1960s by the United States as a biological weapon. The disease is treatable with antibiotics but, if left untreated, can be fatal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001775.html

Thanks,Tim for the links to Col. Gardiner's work. Kim, you're correct. An appropriate study of belief systems requires a suspicion, if you will, of one's own values/belief systems to add a certain legitimacy to that which is studied. One cannot study another culture or belief system with preconceived notions of even what is correct, right or wrong. Otherwise, the result of such a study would be extremely bias or, what so frequently described as, "ethnocentric." Obviously, then, such "intelligence" operations are a farce in the best sense of the word. They are, indeed, only new expressions of the US propaganda machine - actually a quite old apparatus.

Excellent piece, Bill. This highlights what I've seen as the single most important shift in US Military doctrine of the last 40 years, from C4I as the governing theory to something called D5E. C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence) is about winning by having your own forces be more flexible & coordinated than your opponent can manage. D5E (Destruction, Degradation, Denial, Disruption, Deceit and Exploitation - see JOINT POLICY FOR MILITARY DECEPTION: CJCSI 3211.01C) is about winning by limiting your opponent's ability or will to fight effectively.

D5E was behind "shock and awe". It was behind the pre-war bombing campaign, the leaflets dropped over Iraq telling soldiers to give up & it was behind the selling of the war to the American public. That's the problem with deception: you can't just use it on your enemies, at some point you have to start using it against your own people too.

The definitive study of the use of D5E by the Bush administration against the American public was written by Colonel Sam Gardiner, USAF (Ret), an expert in strategy who lectured on it at the National War College. His paper, "Truth from These Podia. Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II", was published by US News & World Report & is available here (in 6 parts):

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_1.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_2.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_3.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_4.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_5.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_6.pdf

It's a stunning work, explaining in detail in theory & practice exactly how the Bush administration used Information Operations methods to influence the American people into supporting the war against Iraq. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself & judge if you think the author's just a wackjob on the fringe or the real thing, exposing what I think amounts to treason (conducting warfare against the American people) at the highest levels of government.

Tim

I was surprised to note in your Karen Hughes post the role of arch-villain and ultrapsycho nutjob Lt. Gen. Boykin; who, along with Steven Cambone and Gen. Miller, is a "Copper Green" veteran of the whole Abu Ghraib gulag architecture, and notable for his equating of Islam with Satanism. "The scum also rises." In another time and another place, these vile examples of human filth would be shot and dragged through the streets. Yet, in the Bush mafia, these psychopaths are handsomely rewarded for their crimes against humanity. It's another happy day in the court of mad Emperor Chimp.

To Lugo.....ANSWER MY QUESTION ??? How is she qualified to do the job that was given to her?? What is it...Deputy ??? Reporter, Hostess, what??

I'm just jealous, I would have had to be qualified...What IS her job?? Got a PD??

Ah, Bill, you made all this up, didn't you? Great satire. Of course, you might get in trouble for throwing a little ridicule at the Pentagon, so I hope you don't get in trouble with the brass hats!

How can I say it better! Wonderful satire! I like this part where you say,

The cognitive is called "the most important of the three," and "the mind of the "decision maker" and the "target audience (TA)," formerly called the populace, is called the objective of all information information.

That's a great line, Bill. How do you get these wicked ideas? Old Russ Baker columns? Art Buchwald? Anyway I like the humor. Keep it coming!

Despite Ms. Hughes extensive resume, she is/was a poor choice for this position precisely because she is a long-time employee/confidant of Mr. Bush. Accordingly, she may experience great difficulty in trying to convince people throughout the world that she is now the 'face' of a 'new', able-to-be-enlightened, US administration. While it is good that the administration has finally realized the need to change its' tone when addressing the rest of the world, this mission, if it is to be successful in any sense of the word, must truly be different - in every aspect of the word.

The administration's interest in delivering/shaping ideas about how the rest of the world views the US is curious, at best. I would submit that because attitudes about the US have already been formed, the starting point for any initiative directed toward changing said attitudes should include both RESPECT and recognition of those attitudes as being legitimate for/to the individual, even if the US does not agree with them. Agreement with other's positions is not required in order to respect said positions. What is required by the US is a willingness to understand, and clearly admit, that differences not only exist, but must be reconciled, to everyone's satisfaction. This means that in certain instances the US may not always WIN and may not always be on TOP.

I am NOT suggesting that the US dismiss its' armed forces, disband its' government, or ask its' citizens to begin hugging trees. The US can be both strong and flexible, versus strong and arrogant. There has been, to date, a lot of 'take' (the world should think according to the US' message). Where in the US' policy (and propaganda) is the 'give'? If the idea is truly to change people's minds, the US' behavior must also change. One entity is directly related to the other.

Secondly, even in situations where audiences have not been exposed to information which has been 'spun' on a regular basis, people are wise enough to know when their direct experiences are in conflict with that which they are being told - by anyone. The US may claim that a given situation is due to 'factor X', but individuals both in the US and abroad are likely to give their personal experience more credence, and that is as it should be. The conflict is, and has been, between actual US policy on the ground (within the US and abroad) and the statements made by US officials. In too many instances, the US government's actions defy its' own words. Credibility, at home and abroad, has been eroded, and for good reason. No 'message' from a US administration is going to be blindly accepted by any individual in the US or in the world, nor should it be. In fact, the US may have difficulty gaining the 'ear' of the majority of the world's people for what are to them, obvious reasons. Spin the message, polish it, deliver it in the format of one's choice; if the message is in conflict with the audience's personal experience, it is likely to be rejected.

A large portion of the administration's target audience is - as 'intelligent' as they are, if not more so. Even without the ability to read, people still retain the ability to think, analyze, and learn from their own experiences. The US has somehow managed to consistently dictate the same, tired 'better than everyone else' message to the people of the world. What the US has failed to do is recognize that people in the rest of the world never believed this to be true in the first place. They are still waiting for the US to understand, and demonstrate through actions - that we are all equal. New thinking required, indeed.

karen hughes, the woman who put"one nation, under god", into the constitution. couple days ago in egypt.
as for "belief systems", if there'd been even a slight clue about iraqi belief systems we could have avoided the whole mess over there.
but the full list and chronology sounds like the typical bureaucracy throwing around slogans with no concept of the concept.

Lugo,

Not sure what you mean by "you guys".

I never suggested that "Bush=Nazi". That's your shortcut.

I wrote that Bush is using a great many of the same tactics that Hitler and Goebbels used. That's a fact.

You call this "effective public speaking."

You have a point.

But there is a difference between "effective public speaking" -- having a clear thesis supported with evidence, for example -- and having attendees of speeches sign loyalty oaths, make phone calls conveying your message from a script (inducing self-generated persuasion), then stacking the crowd with your pre-persuaded audience so it looks to the folks at home like an infomercial, with everyone aggressively clapping at every word (triggering the social consensus heuristic).

Those are tricks designed to fool the unthinking listener into agreeing with what you want him to agree with.

Regardless of what other "leaders" have used these tactics, they pose a serious threat to a society that is fundamentally based on decision-making through rational discourse.

She will need some help from the Administration, i. e. USA will stop being the «gendarme» of the world and start being itself a good world citizen, namely by signing Tokyo Accords.

She will need some help from the Administration, i. e. USA will stop being the «gendarme» of the world and start being itself a good world citizen, namely by signing Tokyo Accords.

According to the Financial Times, Ms. Hughes would be better served with more...basic information.

'However, on her tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey she has repeatedly puzzled her audiences with her or the administration's own interpretation of history and current events.'

http://tinyurl.com/atyfn

Karen Hughes chief attribute: loyalty to Bubble Boy. Here's what Mr. Bowtie had to say about her:

Then I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying.
And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she
laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd
never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.
I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she
knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2003/09/13/carlson/

Yawn... Bush = Nazi... don't you guys ever get tired of that nonsense? Doesn't every speech, by pretty much every President, use the same "propaganda" techniques (aka "effective public speaking")? Yet somehow only Bush is Hitler.

Marie, Karen Hughes has been a reporter, a press communicator for a political campaign, director of communications for a state governor, and a counselor to the President. Hard to see how she's "unqualified" to do the job she's been hired to do.

We have been doing pretty thorough analysis of Bush's last couple of speeches and a White House briefing in a college propaganda class I teach. My students have been astounded (so have I) that Bush's techniques are right out of the textbook.

There is one chapter that is a case study on the Third Reich and, literally, nearly every major tactic therein described is something the Bushists do.

I had a student yesterday -- a Bush supporter, a member of the campus Christian prayer group, a Vietnamese immigrant and a good, smart kid -- pretty much have a meltdown. I had asked what the authors' purpose was in writing the book (Age of Propaganda, Pratkanis and Aronson, BTW). He answered: "because they don't like President Bush."

A few in the class chuckled. I asked them when the book had been published. They flipped to the title page. It had been initially published in 1992.

Then the student's face scrunched up, and he looked very confused. It was as good an illustration of cognitive dissonance as could be. I pointed this out, and asked him if that was the discomfort he was feeling. He said yes. I asked him what two opposite cognitions he was having. He said because he thought the book was written in response to Bush, and that it was written when Bush's father was president. I suggested that his competing cognitions were that 1. he liked and supported president Bush and that 2. President Bush's tactics are right out of our Propaganda textbook. He nodded.

I felt bad for him -- and for putting him on the spot -- but it was actually incredible. One of those lifechanging moments for him, and probably for the class.

He had to leave early, so I didn't get to talk to him about it, but the look on his face was that of someone whose belief system had just been smoked.

Powerful, powerful stuff.

What are Karen Hughes' qualifications?? What is her job??? Is she as qualified as Ms. Rice??? Blacks have to be qualified...White Females...Qualifiable ??? Is that a word...Mr. Bush ???? DUH!!

Not sure what most of the article has to do with Bush's favorite fromp, Karen Hughes. Maybe it is supposed to resemble Bush's picks - cronies rather than competent individuals. I have served under eight presidents and never have I seen so many unqualified appointees. One Brownie is one too many, but there are hundreds and hundreds of these people hanging on to GW's coat tails.

Never in my life did I vote for a democrat until the last election. Seeing up close what GW really brought to American government was simply too disheartening. Supposedly this boy was sent to college, maybe George the elder should ask for a refund.

After reading that article, I have no idea what the hell they are talking about. I suspect that the boys/girls over at the Pentegon don't either. When it was all said and done, the final definition still seemed to mean everything and nothing! In another era perhaps the word "propaganda" might have covered it.

America's War on Terror is a noble cause, but some of the "detours" are absolutely incredible.

Amazingly, I am not talking about Iraq.

I speak of the President signing off on Saudi Arabia...

President George Bush has affirmed that oil-rich Saudi Arabia is cooperating in the "war on terrorism." This certification has cleared the way for aid that would otherwise have been not allowed under U.S. law."

This initiative was announced in a memorandum by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort," wrote President Bush.

The White House released the document as Karen Hughes, the new undersecretary for public diplomacy, prepared for meetings with Saudi Arabia's newly crowned King Abdullah.

Previously, under a 2005 spending bill, direct United States aid to Saudi Arabia was forbidden unless the president certified the country is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the money will help that campaign."

The unasked question is that why would Saudi Arabia, with massive oil reserves need money from the United States to fight terrorism.

www.theinfozone.net

And these are the same people who routinely deliver into my mailbox ads for Sojourners and Imprimis, for the RNC and the DNC, but with one added advantage: military efficiency.

Somehow I am do not feel more secure, especially if they are involved in spying on American citizens.