Karen Hughes Catches Flak

In her first foreign trip to improve the image of the United States, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes impressed international online media commentators with her message discipline -- and her naivete.

Hughes found her message greeted politely but skeptically in Egypt, even by audiences selected and controlled by U.S. officials. Today, she meets with college students and journalists as the Saudi Gazette headlines doubts about her "cosmetic" approach. (Note: The Gazette's links don't always work.) "If Hughes hopes to win the hearts and minds of Saudis, she has a tough nut to crack," said the Riyadh daily.

The U.S problem, virtually every commentator said, is not its "image" but its policies, especially  toward Iraq and the Palestinians.

Hughes met Saturday with an audience that had reason to be friendly: 30 Egyptian high school graduates who have won U.S. scholarships to attend college. She received "angry queries over the US war on terror, Iraq, aggressive stance on Syria and Iran, in addition to meddling in the affairs of developing countries," according to Islam Online.

Hughes also faced criticism of abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and allegations of abuse at Guantanamo  Bay.  "Her replies were, for the most part, a repetition of US positions that seemed incapable of changing a growingly deteriorating image in the Arab and Muslim worlds," Islam Online said.

A State Department transcript shows the "angry" questions, while pointed, were phrased respectfully and that Hughes also received some friendly questions, along the lines of "What do Americans think of Egyptian women?"

Hughes also visited al-Azhar, an ancient Egyptian university, where she stayed "relentlessly on message," according to the Financial Times. She said she had a "wonderful meeting" with the school's leader, Dr. Mohammad Sayed Tantawi, and praised him for condemning Islamic terrorism.

"In a sign of the problem Hughes faces in trying to put a positive face on US policy in the region," Arabic News noted that Hughes's meeting with Tantawi coincided with an Israeli attack on Hamas militants who had been firing home-made rockets at Israel. On Saturday, al-Azhar issued a statement in Tantawi's name condemning "the violence and assassination operations carried out by Israeli occupation forces against defenseless Palestinians." A U.S. State Department spokesman defended the action citing "Israel's right to defend itself."

In short,  Hughes's meeting may have been "wonderful" but it did little to address, much less resolve, clear differences about the meaning of the word "terrorism."

Hughes did frequently remind her audiences that "President Bush is the first president in American history to publicly call for a Palestinian state."   

That endorsement made in 2002 impressed Abdul Rahman Rashed, general manager of the Arab television network, al-Arabiya, less than the U.S. record in Egypt over the past quarter-century. Rashed notes that since 1980, Egypt "has received $50 billion in US aid, an astronomical amount not matched by another, with the exception of Israel.

"Generous US handouts have bolstered Egypt's regional status and the close relationship with Cairo has brought Uncle Sam a valuable friend. Yet, throughout Egypt, citizens continue to vehemently dislike the US," Rashed says.

More U.S. aid is unlikely to buy affection  and more prodding of the Egyptian government to democratize is not practical, he adds. Like the Daily Star in Lebanon, Rashed credits the Bush administration's pressure for  bringing about "important results" in Egypt, including constitutional change and greater civil liberties. But he adds that U.S. pressure has reached its limit.

Hughes, says Rashed, "is deluding herself if she thinks anyone will believe her or show interest in the good deeds she will enumerate.

"All those she will meet are sure to repeat one word, 'Occupation, occupation, occupation.' Her planned meetings will end as they started. Hughes will face an important decision: repair the US's reputation, which is nearly impossible, or modify the country's policies, also almost unfeasible."

Ironically, the best press Hughes got overseas concerned her meetings with American Muslims  before she left the United States. In an appearance at an Islamic convention in Chicago earlier this month, Hughes engaged her audience "in a frank and open discussion and won many allies in the Muslim community," said Muqtedar Khan, a University of Delaware assistant professor writing in the British-based Middle East Online.

"She was not deterred by Islamophobic critics who seek to subvert all endeavors at building an effective alliance against extremism, between American Muslims and American government," he wrote.

Khan, however, saw "one fundamental philosophical problem" in Hughes's message.

"She seems to think that at some level just countering the geopolitical ideology and radical rhetoric of the extremists will result in winning the hearts and minds of Muslims and reducing the anti-Americanism that is swelling the ranks of Jihadis everywhere. This assumption is a recipe for failure.

"Just because the Jihadis are wrong in claiming that Islam teaches violence and demands that every Muslim wage Jihad against all non-Muslims; it does not necessarily mean that US policies of supporting dictators (in Pakistan and Uzbekistan), maintaining close ties with monarchs and emirs, attacking countries on false assumptions, bringing death and devastations to entire nations and practicing torture, are right."

After Saudi Arabia, Hughes goes to Turkey, where the Turkish Daily News reports the Bush administration is seeking to "breathe new life" in U.S-Turkish relations damaged by Turkey's refusal in 2003 to allow the U.S. troops to use its territory for the purposes of invading Iraq.

In an interview with reporters as she flew to Cairo, Hughes "appeared to set a relatively low bar for judging the success of her mission."

"Many of the differences and many of the concerns are deep-seated, and I'm probably not going to change many minds," Hughes said. "But if I make a connection with a person or two who I can keep following up with after I leave here on my trip, I would consider it a success."

That's the good news so far from Hughes's trip. Expectations are low -- and they're being met.

By Jefferson Morley |  September 27, 2005; 10:50 AM ET  | Category:  Mideast
Previous: Dylan From Afar | Next: Thinking About Chavez

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



In tea shops and in street plays all through out Iran, people still vilify Alexander for humiliating and defeating Darius. This happened over 2000 years ago!

In tea shops all through out the ME, people still vilify Ghengis Khan for invading sacred Babylon. This happened over 700 years ago!

With the illegal and injust invasion/occupation of Iraq, as well as Abu Ghraib in mind, how long does this most inept WH think it will take for Muslims through out the world to forget about what is going on in Iraq?

Bush has screwed the USA for generations.

Posted by: Abhinavagupta | September 27, 2005 12:16 PM

Your article describes Karen Hughes' difficulties on her Middle East "attempting-to-win-hearts-and-minds" junket. However, her cool welcome was made more than evidently clear by Jon Karl's wonderful reporting on Hughes' trip on last night's "ABC World News Tonight." In the case of the television footage on last night's program, the images were worth more than a thousand words.

Before Hughes was appointed to this post, did anyone research her credentials for this position, other than being inside Bush's inner circle and a former TV reporter in Texas? How much has Hughes traveled abroad? Does she speak any foreign languages? What is her diplomatic experience? Has she traveled extensively to the Middle East before? Is she a scholar of Middle East history? How widely read is she on the Middle East? How mich does she know or not know? How successful or unsuccessful, Jeff, do you think this gambit and junket of hers may be? How much of the feedback from her trip do you think she will realistically convey to President Bush?

Posted by: Linda Loomis | September 27, 2005 12:28 PM

Karen Hugh's audiences are selected and controlled!

Assinine! What purpose does that serve.

Posted by: Carolyn Miller | September 27, 2005 12:29 PM

I find it laughable (if it weren't so pitiful)that when asked if she was gooing to meet with the Islamic Brotherhood while in Egypt, she really had no clue as to who they were and what they represented.

Just another clueless Bush appointee who has obviously never read a newspaper and is about to go stumbling around trying to project a positive image of the US.

Posted by: Matthew Kuhl | September 27, 2005 12:44 PM

The citizens of the rest of the world are not nearly as complacent as most Americans have been lately and they are far more educated on the extent of America's policies than we are here in the U.S. For Ms. Hughes to believe that the same relentless "on-message" tactics employed to such (sadly) great success in America over the past few years will also reap similar rewards in the rest of the world merely highlights the jingoistic obliviousness of the Bush Administration. I hope the rest of the world continues to rightfully push Ms. Hughes to answer the hard questions in a way that we Americans have not. Spin is not policy...or, at least, it shouldn't be.

Posted by: Tracy Leigh | September 27, 2005 12:48 PM

When will the American people admit that this administration lies to get out of every situation - Karl Rove should have been fired, but they need him for his non-christian like stance on everything - the rest of the administration is laughable - if this had been a democrat - they would have tried to impeach him/her long ago.

Posted by: Cleo B Fast | September 27, 2005 12:53 PM

Could it be that U.S-Turkish relations are not damaged by Turkey's refusal in 2003 to allow the U.S. troops to use its territory for the purposes of invading Iraq but by the US invasion of Iraq?

Posted by: Ubique | September 27, 2005 12:54 PM

When will the American people admit that this administration lies to get out of every situation - Karl Rove should have been fired, but they need him for his non-christian like stance on everything - the rest of the administration is laughable - if this had been a democrat - they would have tried to impeach him/her long ago.

Posted by: Cleo B Fast | September 27, 2005 01:06 PM

Although taking exception to US policies, Middle Easterners, particularly the youth, enjoy and admire American entertainment. Surely, a show-business approach might be more effective than Ms. Hughes' current emphasis on diologue.

To further this concept, I'd like to suggest she and Dr. Rice sieze the moment by doing a song-and-dance routine in key countries and making the tape available generally to Arab and Muslim-world electronic media.

For the greatest impact and to identify immediately with the various audiences, it would be best if Dr. Rice and Ms. Hughes were clothed in burkas.

Posted by: Ulrich D. Sender | September 27, 2005 01:10 PM

Ms. Hughes is a spin doctor for political campaigns. Foreign policy is not an American political campaign. You are not dealing with Americans, but people who may see, hear, or experience violence every day. These are not children. These are adults, and often highly educated adults. This condescending toward other cultures and societies only exposes the ignorance of the Bush Administration. Treat people with respect, and you will get respect.

Posted by: P. J. Casey | September 27, 2005 01:26 PM

Audiences are selected and controlled for the same reason they are here in the US; for appearances sake. News is just a side show to to main course: consumers being delivered to advertisers for money, lots of money. As comsumers are most useful when compliant, little is offered to shake them from their torpor.

Karen Hugh, and indeed the great majority of Americans, seems to think that creating a "media reality" is sufficient to alter Actual Reality. This is indeed the case where propaganda can toss elections and justify any sort of fraudulent activity. But Hey, it's business as usual; now compliant consumers are sold to political, in addition to commercial, interests. Anyway, aren't they the same thing?

Although this may suit the US consumer culture, few other places in the world have developed such a simplistic, cavalier and ultimatedly, delusional approach towards Reality.

We do so at our extreme risk.

Posted by: Sempronius | September 27, 2005 01:38 PM

The criticism of U. S. government, including Bush, Hughes, Rice is well deserved.

Too many Americans seem to believe Bush's war can be rationalized by the statement that he has a "..mission from God...."

I do not accept that God delegates to the president or anyone else to invade, occupy, kill, torture another country.

Posted by: Judy Smith | September 27, 2005 01:41 PM

Karen Hughes should catch a lot more flak due to her 100% incompetence in the languages and the histories of the countries in the ME.

Compare her BIO to Juan Cole's:

Juan Cole
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/jcpers.htm

Karen Hughes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Hughes

Cole on the Middle East


This absolute lack of skills reminds me of Pat Robertson et al. who claim to be knowers of the Bible without ever having mastered the rudiments of Arabic, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, etc.

Posted by: Abhinavagupta | September 27, 2005 01:53 PM

Just another case of the Bush administation appointing the exact wrong person for the job. This should surprise no one. Why should an administration hostile to government be expected to try to practice good government? I have finally come to terms with the Bush administration's constant attempts to destroy this country as we know it. I just pray we can outlast W and his inept, incompetent, destructive cronies.

Posted by: Maggie | September 27, 2005 02:13 PM

This silly and naive effort to propagandize foreigners with PR shows the shallowness and superficiality of the "professionals" in the Bush Cabal.

We will all pay dearly for our experiment in Fascist politics.

Posted by: george kamburoff | September 27, 2005 02:22 PM

I have a friend in the State Department who told me an anecdote from the early days of Ms. Hughes Middle East PR campaign. Around a year ago, Hughes met with several ME experts at State and layed out some of her PR proposals. All were shot down instantly by the experts, mostly because they reflected Hughes' staggering ignorance of ME and Islamic culture. Stories of the meeting circulated in the State Department and Hughes became a legendary laughing-stock overnite. Perfect qualifications for a top job in the Bush administration.

Posted by: james | September 27, 2005 04:11 PM

Karen Hughes is just another crony cast into the miserable mess that has become the American Federal Government. Thanks to a majority of idiot American voters she's the new face of America today. Maybe she's the remnant of the government that Grover Norquest can drown in the bathtub upon her return and we can begin rebuilding America (again).

Posted by: James Rose | September 27, 2005 04:19 PM

This is yet another shameless attempt to put lipstick on a pig, the pig being the administration's foreign policy, and the lipstick being the incompetent, utterly under-qualified for the task Ms. Hughes.

A journalist once compared the US foreign policy to other countries' as a game of checkers and a game of chess, respectively. I am afraid that is too flattering of the current administration: it's more like playing tic-tac-toe when everyone else is playing chess!

And it gets worse by the day. We are the butt of the world's joke: last week at the U.N. Bush delivered a speech in front of a smirking crowd that lost every bit of trust in American leadership. How deep in the hole are these guys going to get us all in eight years of office before the decades-long process of digging ourselves out will begin? How far removed from reality and how oblivious to the real pains of the nation are these retarded corporate whores? (can you tell I am fuming?)

Posted by: angry in San Francisco | September 27, 2005 04:19 PM

Bush has greatly empowered Iran by way of the seizing of control of Iraq by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the al' Dawa.

Why is she and Bush not being hailed by some in the ME?

This is odd.

On Iran as the chief beneiciary of Bush's actions see the following:

Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

The Iranian nightmare
By Michael Schwartz
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

Posted by: Abhinavagupta | September 27, 2005 04:20 PM

I am glad Karen Hughes is out verifying the shallow carnival hucksterism of US foreign policy. That's the level of these people - just absolutely insulting to ordinary intelligence. Every smooth word she speaks drives home the reality of the Pack of Lies propaganda about what the US and Israel have been doing for years to the struggling Palestinian farmers and disease-ridden Iraqi children.

Karen: We all know it's about Palestine and Iraq and US/Jewish State military occupation, occupation, occupation (with soldier bestiality and check-point sadism thrown in for kicks).

Hush hush hush, here in America people have been made afraid (terrorized?) to talk about that! The big lesson from her mission is to see that public discourse about US/Israeli primitiveness is not taboo in other lands.

Posted by: Timothy L | September 27, 2005 06:22 PM

Karen Hughes and Michael Brown should have swapped positions. He could talk about arab horses all day long, meanwhile Karen, the former tv reporter, would be a reasonable first responder to catastrophies. Unfortunately, FEMA arrived in New Orleans three days after CNN & co, but on the other hand, there have been no reports of drowned thoroughbreds. Go figure.

Posted by: Almi | September 27, 2005 06:55 PM

In the comments thus far I didn't see anything supportive of Pres. Bush, Ms. Hughes and his Government. In spite of the generalized criticism, Mr. Sender made the only recommendation I saw, that of turning the current dialogue approach into one of show business. Well, Americans are very good at that.

No matter how good or bad the Administration's performance may be, does anyone believe seriously the Democrats could do a better job? All they and much of the media seem to be doing is hitting the President with a nonstop barrage of what I call post-Soviet propaganda.

Mr. Bush and his people definitely don't suffer by comparison with this crowd. They ought to wake up before becoming totally irrelevant.

Posted by: Lou Riggio | September 27, 2005 08:26 PM

Now, I'm detecting on this board that you all are somewhat critical of Karen's appointment. Now, I've said before, I mean, someone in the administration has said before, you are either with us, or again us. Ah think Karen should be given the benefit of the doubt before we call this hound back to the kennel. For people to be saying negative nasty things while she's only just hitched up her skirt and waded into the water is like a torpedo that makes a dang-blamed u-turn. Let's all stop this unAmericanism. Else, I might just have to investigate something here.

Posted by: Dave | September 27, 2005 08:43 PM

I can't believe that out of 535 grown elected individuals in the Congress there is hardly anyone courageous enough to counter (KING)George and his minions.

Posted by: Gerry Cartier | September 27, 2005 08:57 PM

glad you looked at foreign opinion on something important, like bob dylan, even though you spent more space on karen hughes' misguided, doomed, and irrelevant PR junket. she only matters to the bushies, and they don't matter in real life any more. i am intrigued you ignored the IRA weapons decommissioning and the subsequent protestant intransigeance. the IRA is a model for the intifada and their (collective) history is far more important than the latest PR out of washington...

Posted by: slangist | September 27, 2005 09:00 PM

Karen Hughes could do a much more effective job if she would realize, as her predecessors so stubbornly refused to do, that the 3 million U.S. citizens living and working abroad are a wonderfully rich and capable resource of ideas, knowledge and friendships with the peoples of the world that is available to help her. Relying on her own internal resources and her politically fixed agenda will probably only exacerbate the problems America's image faces today rather than contribute to solving them. There was a time when all Americans looked forward to working together. Let's turn back the clock and start talking to each other again first before lecturing others.

Posted by: Andy Sundberg | September 27, 2005 10:32 PM

'Member when the colonists got sufficiently pissed off to start dumping tea in the harbor and shooting their way out of debilitating domination by a pernicious regime?

I sometimes wonder what it would take to motivate fat, stupid Americans to march on Washington in sufficient numbers to make that imbecile resign. GOD. Can we really survive THREE MORE YEARS OF THIS GUY? Whimper...]

Posted by: patriot | September 27, 2005 10:33 PM

Im an American and let me say I hate George Bush and everything he stands for. He has done more harm to this country than any man in the history of this country. People in the US are easily mislead and uneducated. The news media uses networks like Fox to spew propaganda, telling them how great the Bush adminstration is. People like me are villified when we speak the truth . Radio is constant non stop telling the US how great Bush is. Its all they hear. I hear the World but I wonder if they hear me.

Posted by: Keith Miller | September 28, 2005 04:44 AM

Well you all seem to hate her, and anything to do with President Bush. Well thats your right, but sometimes looking from another point of view can help. What if the seemingly intractable age old hatreds in the ME, "people still vilify Alexander" means that the reasons for any one been "screwed" lies in the ME, not in Washington. Claiming and granting victim status all the time avoids problems which could be solved.

Posted by: Matthew | September 28, 2005 07:15 AM

Absolutely disgusting. Is there not one honest official in government to tell Bush he's off his rocker appointing a WOMAN to improve our image in Islamic countries? The most of which REQUIRE WOMEN to be completely covered?
This is not about hating Katie Hughes or GW Bush v2.0, this is about blindly assigning someone a task they are woefully ill-equipped and under qualified to perform. Why not send a street bum? At least they would have had a better sense of reality.

Posted by: s.e.t.i. | September 28, 2005 08:46 AM

Saudi Arabia is buying arms from Russia, Iran is headed for full nuclear capabilities, Korea is fully nuclear, Pakistan is nuclear, Venezuala is making a lot of anti american noise, there are major problems in Israel/Palestine and on and on.....in response the U.S. sends Karen Hughes to a little cheerleading.

Posted by: Stan | September 28, 2005 09:11 AM

I liked the showbiz strategy suggested yesterday by Ulrich Sender.

In addition to Condi and Ms. Hughes doing a duet in Burkas in the Muslim world, I feel the same type of routine, sans burkas, would help us get our message on AIDS across to the long-suffering African populations.

I'm sure the audiences would respond immediately if the theme were "Just Say No."

Posted by: Eleanor Sztyk | September 28, 2005 09:53 AM

I'm glad Ms. Hughes raised the women-driving question while barnstorming through Saudi Arabia. Enough is enough, isn't it?

I hope she and Dr. Rice go further and show the Saudi ladies and authorities how to drive while dressed head to toe in a black shroud.

As for me, cancel my reservations!

Posted by: Frieda Prinz Caamaño | September 28, 2005 10:07 AM

I would like to to find out Timothy L address so I can send him a copy of the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion I have little doubt he would greatly enjoy it.

Posted by: Greg | September 28, 2005 12:55 PM

I think the song-and-dance proposal makes sense however Secretary Rice and Under Secretary Hughes definitely shouldn't be outfitted in burkhas. I fell they have to seen to be be believed or, at least, appreciated.

Strong security will be required in order to keep dissidents from hurling unwelcome items. Camel parking should be controlled strictly and kept distant from performance sites.

If possible, it would be best to restrict attendance to known Muslim moderates. This appears to be the current policy.

Posted by: Ali-Ali al-Akhbar | September 28, 2005 12:59 PM

The Hughes Middle-East mission is a bold step but, as the old proverb says, one must watch where one places one's foot!

I'm puzzled that Dr. Rice and Ms. Hughes didn't try out the proposed duet performance here in Detroit. Many, many people would have turned out, for sure.

Posted by: Franklin D. Abboud | September 28, 2005 01:10 PM

Most of the "commentary" here on the Hughes Mission reads like it was created by the Hillaroids and Michael Morons dominating the media and academe and infesting our country.

Ms. Hughes is a "Can-do/Let's-roll" person who will create a greater impact than these people think on the Moslem World's negativity toward us.

Finally, the idea of her doing a duo in burkhas with Dr. Rice is the most ridiculous thing I've seen since the Louisiana Congressional Delegation's demand for $250 billion.

Posted by: Robert J. O'Reilly | September 28, 2005 01:59 PM

To Greg who wrote: "I would like to find out Timothy L address so I can send him a copy of the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion I have little doubt he would greatly enjoy it."
Hm, Greg, I have read the debate about authenticity or lack thereof of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To me, that debate is irrelevant, since the book - whether fact, fiction or some of both - is over a century outdated. It couldn't and doesn't consider Israel, Jabotinsky, AIPAC, the Zionist Organization of America, and many other thousands of details relevant to today's world.
About Zionism as practiced and applied by Israel and our home-grown Zionists, what I commend to others to read for its indisputedly authentic insight into today's Zionism is Jabotinsky's essay "The Iron Wall" written in the 1920's. Jabotinsky is the Jewish State's Thomas Jefferson - the definer of the historic Zionist mission. He promulgated the Zionist conquest program for the genocide of the indigenous Arabs - the theme of Jewish State "lebensraum" aggression since at least 1967. Maybe you have read it. One must read Jabotinsky to see Israel's official prejudice toward Israeli Arabs, its murder, inhumanity and sadism toward the indigenous Palestinians in the course of its "Jabotinsky's take their land" program. Then it all falls into place. Zionism unmasked. No soft candlelight. Rather the photo of an IDF footsoldier with "Born to Kill" emblazoned a few inches from the Star of David insignia on his uniform.
Among what I do read, Greg, are the writings of Amira Haas, Gideon Levy, Avraham Burg, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein, and the writings in Deir Yassin Remembered, Jewish Voice for Peace, Not in My Name, B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Areas), Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel, Helena Cobban and many others who are not afraid to detail the facts of Jabotinsky's contemporary real-life horror-show in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't know or care if this is the Zionism in that old book you mention. I do know that it is the Zionism of today, Jabotinsky's Zionism, "pro-Israel's" Zionism, practiced by the Jewish State and grandly supported financially and "spiritually" by many here in the US.
Most unfortunate, and one can draw one's own conclusions from this, I have never seen a report of the BRUTAL FACTS of Israel's Jabotinsky conquest program - as observed first-hand and detailed by Haas and Levy in Ha'aretz - ever, ever, ever mentioned in the New York Times or the Washington Post, which I regularly read. I admit, Greg, I do wonder why not......................

Posted by: Timothy L | September 28, 2005 02:40 PM

May Mr. O'Reilly please to be advise "Hillarrhoid" & "michaelmoron" [

Posted by: Y. T. Hu | September 28, 2005 02:56 PM

May Mr. O'Reilly please to be kindly advise "Hillarrhoid" & "michaelmoron" [note OK spelling] not his but rather from Mr. U.D. Sender family, good known in East Side.
Answering to article, if Mrs. Hughes go further down Nile maybe she look at wrong end of hippopotamus gun; also would like know why M.E. expert Mr. Sender wrong spelling "dialogue" & "burqa," which wear thing make both Rice & Hughes look good?

Posted by: Y. T. Hu | September 28, 2005 03:09 PM

Who's this "Hu?" A proof reader hiding as a commentator? Been on the dole for some time? While I'm leery of the show business approach, it might be a little more believable should Tony Blair join the troupe.

Posted by: Monte Trevelyan | September 28, 2005 03:42 PM

"Hillaroids" and "Michael Morons?" What are you, 12? Have you hit puberty yet? I mean jeez O'Reilly, if you're going to insult someone do it right.

Still, we all have to admit that having pre-screened audiences allows our leaders and their servants to not have to deal with the embarassment of not only being asked unscripted questions but possibly having to engage the public on issues the public is interested in as opposed to force feeding us whatever they want us to hear. Perhaps if we were all unquestioning fools then these "can do/let's roll (right over people)" type of folks would be of some use. Unfortunately, a large segment of the human race seems to be relatively thoughtful.

Posted by: Rob M | September 28, 2005 03:50 PM

Timothy L., your wishy washy statement about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and your irresponsible use of the term "genocide", alone, says pretty much all that needs to be said. Your reading list further discredits you. Nut.

Posted by: Fred | September 29, 2005 12:02 AM

Karen Hughes is laughable. She left Washington once to "spend more time with her family!".... she should have stayed there, but she had to come back to promote her book that she wrote while "spending more time with her family!".... I guess Bush missed her so much he decided to find a job for her as an ambassador of good will....trying to restore the wonderful image the world had of us on Sept. 11, 2001. Sending Karen Hughes to change the minds of Muslims after our invasion and debacle in Iraq is like naming a homeless person to head HUD! We all can see only too clearly now the cronysm in Washington and why we get people like Brownie to do important jobs!! Well, when you consider the ineptness of our head honcho, Bush, no wonder we get people like Brownie and Hughes! Now we are getting Gen. Richard Myers' niece as head of Immigration! She is a small time attorney! Someone asked if the Democrats could do a better job, and let me say this.... I am a senior citizen, a life-long Republican, who did NOT vote for Bush because I DID think Gore could do a better job! I positively KNOW we would not be in this Iraq war fighting it alone if Gore had been allowed his rightful win in the 2000 election!

Posted by: Amanda | September 29, 2005 12:45 PM

I like assure Mr. Trevelyan I get with program like Marine Corps. Mr. Sender odd show biz idea seem to cause comment. OK I suggest Mrs. Hughes & Dr. Rice do Arabic, Farsi, Turkic (take pick), Urdu, Tamil & Bahasa(s) TV rerun as Hyacinth & Sapphire. Danny Thomas rerun no good no more as background for big fish to Turn People diplomacy.

Posted by: Y.T. Hu | September 29, 2005 01:17 PM

In spite of all the criticism and Lord knows what else being thrown at Ms. Hughes, it's clear she represented faithfully the views on the Middle East of most Americans.

Isn't it important the target audiences be aware of what we think? I believe she really did a job and hope she's considering a similar performance in Latin America.

Posted by: Harry H. Allen | September 30, 2005 02:57 PM

Harry H. Allen: [It is] clear she represented faithfully the views on the Middle East of most Americans

You have to mean `most 6th-8th generation Americans that are not holding advanced degrees, that are bilingual, that are untraveled, that see Bush as an instrument of God, that live in the south east central part of the USA which is subsided by federal tax dollars from Blue states'.

Posted by: | September 30, 2005 04:03 PM

Bin Laden's little helper

US administration lectures about God delivered to Muslims are a dangerous folly

Sidney Blumenthal
Friday September 30, 2005

[snip]
With these well-meaning arguments, Hughes has provided the exact proofs for Bin Laden's claims about American motives. "It is stunning to the extent Hughes is helping bin Laden," says Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist who has conducted extensive research into the motives of suicide terrorists and is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. "If you set out to help bin Laden," he says, "you could not have done it better than Hughes."

Pape's research debunks the view that suicide terrorism is the natural byproduct of Islamic fundamentalism or some "Islamo-fascist" ideological strain, independent of certain highly specific circumstances.

"Of the key conditions that lead to suicide terrorism in particular, there first must be the presence of foreign combat forces on the territory that the terrorists prize. The second condition is a religious difference between the combat forces and the local community. The religious difference matters in that it enables terrorist leaders to paint foreign forces as being driven by religious goals.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1581335,00.html

Posted by: Thru ignorance Hughes helps UBL | September 30, 2005 04:07 PM

I'm stunned someone made reference to my comments; must have touched a nerve!

Yes, there are a lot of "Can-do/let's roll/drop-a-bomb-on-'em" Americans out there whose views Ms. Hughes conveyed faithfully. Most of my confrères at my golf club's 19th Hole are in agreement on that; I thought the toasts and shouting wouldn't stop! No doubt the Commander-in-chief selected her for the job with her solid all-American qualities in mind.

To digress a bit, even though I'm sure it's taxing to drive a car in a black burqa with just an eye slit, can anyone seriously doubt Ms. Hughes' on-message effectiveness?

Finally, one unnamed writer seems to have an item or two confused in his/her text. Should that person be aware of this, I hope he/she will clarify the wording.

Posted by: Harry H. Allen | September 30, 2005 04:57 PM

Does this subject continue forever?!

I've just heard Washington is so satisfied that another such mission is under discussion for Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela and Ecuador.

Wouldn't be a real breakthrough to include Cuba on the itinerary? As potentially revolutionary as the Nixon-China matter, I'd say.

Posted by: Vincent P. Szlibowycz | September 30, 2005 05:35 PM

To Vincent....Yes, isn't it amazing that anyone would even CARE what Karen Hughes says or thinks? She is a Bush yes-man, and I think it ludicrous to think that she in any way could change the image that the rest of the world has of our president and his policies, especially the Iraq war. President Bush has squandered all of the political capital he had after 9/11 because of his arrogance and poor leadership. Karen Hughes is wasting her time, she should go back to Texas and save our money, we could put it to better use, like helping the poor in the Hurricane stricken areas! She was a laughing stock in Turkey, those women there put her in her place!

Posted by: Amanda | October 1, 2005 12:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company