Karen Hughes?

23 thoughts on “Karen Hughes?”

1. Karen Hughes is a PR flack with no foreign policy experience or understanding. That she is being hurried back into power is striking testimony of the Bush Administration’s policy failures and its political tactic of a constant snow-job on the American public.
   When will Americans demand that Bush hold REAL “town-hall” meetings with randomly-chosen citizens, not the canned propaganda mills he is running at taxpayers’ expense?

2. Do we care enough about good, positive, progressive things happening in the world to let go of instinctive aversion to all things Bush?

3. Kudos to Helena on that insight — totally blows the doors off MSM media commentary (but what doesn’t) in explaining the Hughes appointment. I look for any good news I can find. Hughes as diplomatic PR flack, on the face of it, makes no sense — and has nothing to do with trying to convince “them furrners” of anything. It does make sense as giving Condi balast against the crazies, however. I’m glad somebody there has an agenda that doesn’t involve invasion. Of course, that won’t avert any tsunamis we may stirring up in the mid-east or give Condi any stature around the globe. They are still the same old incompetent, arrogant bunglers they were in the first four years.

4. Helena – did you just censor my last post here?
   I guess that is how much freedom of thought is worth to you pro-Islamic dictatorship people.

5. Helena – So you agree that Hezbolla has only 9 Shiite seats (in the 128 seat parliament).
   What a sorry representation of the claimed 50% of Lebanon Shiite community!!! This only amounts to a miserly 7%…
   [the rest of this off-topic and actually fallacious rant, and all the ones that followed it from the same source, have been snipped ~HC]

6. the point is not whether Karen Hughes has sufficient foreign policy expertise or not…Helena was merely offering a very plausible theory to explain some recent shifts – at least in tone and atmospherics – in the Administration’s approach to some volatile foreign policy issues.

7. Razavipour, isn’t your tone of voice very rude to Helena? Do you really need that tone of voice to disagree with her?
   I seriously doubt that anyone who’d dismiss the faith of a billion people, many of them decent human beings, as “a pedo’s deranged views” would be much help in resolving these ongoing world crises.
   And I’m not sure, but I thought that Hezbollah had been holding itself back in running for seats, that it has just a few seats because it hasn’t really contested for many. Is that right?

8. rj wrote:
   “It does make sense as giving Condi balast against the crazies, however”
   But isn’t Condi herself not one of the crazies? When Colin Powell had her job, he was supposed to be the barrier that held crazies like her at bay. Now she herself seems to have been promoted to official Bush-dove.
   I don’t believe it. I don’t know what the appointment of Karen Hughes means, but it could be just a PR exercise; the counterweight to the appointment of superhawk Bolten to the post of UN ambassador.

9. Just so everyone–including Mr. Razavipour– understands, this blog has guidelines for commenters that he has repeatedly breached. The full guidelines are easily accessible through the hyperlink on “courteous” in the box about comment-submission, and the abbreviated guidelines are posted right there in the box.
   I am under no obligation whatever to continue to host his hostile comments, many of which have zero to do with the subject of the main post, on my bandwidth. This is not an infringement of anyone’s free-speech rights. Mr. R. is quite free to buy some of his own bandwidth and express himself himself there.

10. I had the impression Karen Hughes fell out of favor (into disgrace?)_during or right after the election. It was striking how she suddenly disappeared from Bush’s side. I remember reading somewhere she told him the night before the election to prepare himself for defeat. If so, he probably had little patience with the message (messanger). Who knows what’s true anymore. Then someone may have interceded for her, and Bush decided to return her from exile, giving her a respectable job. I’m pretty sure she has never been in a position where she could get any job (within reason) for the asking. I’m absolutely sure she is not up this job. What a superficial idea: U.S. standing in the world is simply a matter of public relations rather than one of substance.

11. It’s to counter the “American Republican/corporate elite are fascists” meme that is fast-spreading throughout the world. She pulled off or helped pull off a product placement scheme in front of one very large audience, who’s to say the same percentage of easy marks doesn’t exist everywhere? Guess what is global and what these guys make a specialty of manipulating and at least one answer is religion. In the Middle East religious leaders are equivalent to global statesmen similar to large regions of North America [/my own product placement snark].

12. Karen Hughes is strictly window-dressing.

13. Given the depth of some of your other posts I’m a little uncomfortable with this reading of decision making structure.
    First of all there was a dramatic shift a bit less than a year ago with the spring uprising in Iraq. Spurred by Limbaug and others the adminstration (in this case very likely the president) went into Falluja despite the preferance of Marine commanders to develop the situation slowly. Some clueless planner (probably Bremer) also thought it would be wise to take Sadr down at the same time without any preparation to face a rather large militia.
    The often muted voices of complaint from the military (especially retired) rose and the British commander in Basra let fire a warning which expressed the dissatisfaction the British establishment felt, saying that he couldn’t mantain the place in response to major protests (possibly also a bit of warning to the Shia leadership who probably didn’t want to be alone and responsible.) then of course the Iraqi leadership reacted. The Falluja attack stopped, an odd use of Baathist officers occured, shifts in approach, compromises, agreement to elections, though conditions were worse than when Garner was relieved for proposing them, a set of back and forths to the point where even Sadr can be a legitimate player. I believe we’ve even stopped letting the 20 somethings who sent resumes to the Heritage foundation stop running the place, it appalls me that this which is probably one of the greatest scandals was ignored. Kids with resumes like ice cream truck driver or “tried to start cooking school” (a certain Ms. Ledeen with a somewhat famous daddy) were running the place for a while. They made decisions like, “well Iraa can produce conscrete but the plants are government owned which is double plus ungood so let’s import it” when indeed they did make decsions, for the most part allocations remained blocked, which is sadly the case.
    My main point is that there are all kinds of factors and a complex back and forth flow. Also Cheney and Rumsfeld have made some questionable choices, but they are not “neo conservatives” they come from a cold war tradition, also many of the “neo conservatives” (eg. weekly standard and probably even Wolfowitz) can see flaws and dangers, the only froup that really believes all is going well is what one might call the “new right,” the groupies worshipping the president. These people are so gone from reality that recently they celebrated (and this is a fair term) their misreading of a NYT article (last Sunday)so that they could believe that WMD existed and had been spiritied all over, the idea that Syria and maybe Iran and Saudi nuts all had the stuff and would give it to terrorist is a cause for rejoicing vbecause this would prove the “president right” and justify the invasion, the idea that spreading this stuff all across the world might not be a military victory is beyond them.
    Sorry for the aside, but I do get a thrill from US politics and sometimes must relive it’s more thrilling expressions.
    However the long and short of it is: we have land forces pushed towards fatigue. Cheney and Bush will remember the late sixties and early seventies and the demoralization, the hundreds of fraggings, the disobedience and the mutinies. They alredy face limits of power in Korea, common sense in Iran would avoid confrotation because first Iranian oil could be pulled (big price jumps) then threats to the strait of Hormuz (big big price jumps) then threats to troops and supply lines in Iraq. Lebanon is a mess and a dangerous one, so common sense says avoid the hornets.
    I realize there are contradictory pictures going on such as the selection of the UN ambassador. But this came right after hopeful first steps were confused with journeys, but already in all these things and places potential problems emerge. I think it is wrong to believe that the adminisdtration with or without Ms. Hughes is so reality impaired as not to see and sense these things, though realizations are sporadic.
    There is a near rebellion in parts of Congress with the new right accusing not just McCain and Hagel (both war heroes) but Lugar of being closet Democrats; there is “grave concern” in the rightist regions of the establishment, including the military and corporate powers. My only reading on cheney is that he is creepy, but Rumsfeld is brilliant with all that implies, but even he (using a different terms) has recently talked of “soft power” a development that the new right has taken up to show that this guy thinks of stuff no one else would have (I mean there’s problems you can’t solve with a gun? I’ll be darned! It’s a bit complicated for me, but I’m sure our SOD is on top of it, we don’t call him Rumstud for nothing! I get all hot thinking just thinking about it!)
    This is disjointed, but as imperfect and flawed as it can be we do have a cybernetic control structure with various flows running back and forth and as much as he might like to, our president is unable to be as isolated from reality as Saddam.
    So while I would be unsure of specifics i think it may be more complex than the gal from Texas and that Rumsfeld and Cheney may have a part. Overall the reality is exceedingly sober for the president.
    The foriegn situation is risky and even with good leaderhship it’s unclear what to do, nor is it clear if our various bureacracies could carry out a good plan. Economically we’re only half way out of recession, the dollar threatens to fall, this and other factors threaten to topple the debt pyrimid, and rip down the price of (historically overpriced) equities and real estate.
    Quite simply we face a crisis like we haven’t seen since the seventies and possibly worse than that. This is fairly serious stuff with demographics, resource shortages and rising competitive powers.
    I will say quite frankly that we should all hope that are fears our wrong. That despite blunders, a bumbling policy will somehow bring Iraq and other Islamic societies into a situation were they can reform and build; that tax cuts and easy Al “bubbles” GreenSpan policy will create a new economy, in other words we should sincerely hope that our president will go down as one of history’s greatests.
    But I suspect this is less believed even in the white house and only in the virtual reality of talk radio do they live in the greatest of times with the most perfect of wars and perpetual abundance through tax cuts. Remember this is a president who recently vowed to spend his “political capital” and is finding it might not even buy social security private accounts. One suspects some not admitted humility might be brewing. And one hopes, really hopes that he learns from his errors because rejoicing in his failures is like the new right celebrating because now they think there is “proof” (the NYT supposedly admitted it) that tons upon tons of WMD and the eqipment for making it has been distributed to our enemies.
    It’s putting partisan spite over real interests.

14. Interest take on Karen Hughes…. Your theory re. her access to the presumed President makes sense, yet I wonder just what her new role will be…. Ostensibly, isn’t she more responsible for spin control of America’s message abroad? That is, the reason “they” don’t like us supposedly is lousy messengers, not the message, and she’s in an awful spot, even if she had a clue. But how much will she be a conduit of bad news back to the President? One can hope, but….
    Ok, now how about that really awful appointment – John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN? And just why did John Danforth resign after barely a half year on the job? Simply to go home with his wife? Pique over not getting the SOS spot? Or something else.? In any case, can anyone think of a worse choice for Bush Ambassador to the UN?

15. “can anyone think of a worse choice for Bush Ambassador to the UN?”
    On the contrary, it is difficult to think of one more appropriate to represent the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

16. “Cheney and Rumsfeld have made some questionable choices…”
    That is certainly a very interesting euphemism.
    “but they are not “neo conservatives””
    Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that they are both signatories to the Project for the New American Century “Statement of Standards”, PNAC being THE premier neo conservative “think tank”.

17. For another take on recent administrative moves that seem “reasonable” see this article in Counterpunch. This new role for KH is intriguing but I find it hard to see her as anything more than a PR flak

18. It’s impossible to divine the rationale behind decisions of this or any administration. My gut sense (because I don’t have any inside knowledge) tells me that Bush is still very much driven by “domestic policy.” I use scare quotes because the Administration’s governing actions appear to be more a hodge-podge of initiatives for supporters and ideologically friendly interest groups than any real governing philosphy, save for perhaps power for power’s sake. The international actions in this crony capitalist governing framework consitute foreign policy.
    That said, our dear President just might have been suprised to be given a second term by the American people and therefore might only now be embarking on foreign policy for foreign policy’s sake. If global events go his way, look for the commentariat to tout the on-the-job learning afforded by a second term.
    As evidenced by the formal national security strategy document, it is clear that foreign policy for this administration is still thought of in terms of national interest and not systemic challenges. There is still a combative, contentious view of the world. Only a major crisis/catastrophe will be able to shock the US into realizing that we are part of an interconnected system, and not just the biggest player on a field. More troubling, maybe even a crisis won’t be enough to snap us out of our collective hubris and navel gazing.
    By the way, the whole “public diplomacy” as policy angle is a bit too simplistic and doesn’t give enough credit to the thinking, feeling human beings that make up the other countries out there. US policies have consequences and until our policies change in ways to the liking of elites and general publics around the world, favorable PR might make us feel better in international company but won’t really alter foreign perceptions. It’s also not clear how the bandaid of improved PR can be applied to the trauma of real foreign policy challenges, those challenges being competition for increasingly scarce resources, the rise of new global powers, and nuclear proliferation, among others. (A “clash of civilizations” is intentionally and emphatically absent from that list!)

19. Helena – So you agree that Hezbolla has only 9 Shiite seats (in the 128 seat parliament).
    What a sorry representation of the claimed 50% of Lebanon Shiite community!!! This only amounts to a miserly 7%…
    [the rest of this off-topic and actually fallacious rant, and all the ones that followed it from the same source, have been snipped ~HC]
    As suspected, if you can’t reason against criticism of your favorite (Islamist) grouping, then just label it as “fallacious” and use your powers to snip it.
    Helena, you should allow your readers to decide for themselves how a post reads, and stop insulting their intelligence.
    I guess when Juan Cole refuses to have a discussion board on his blog, then we cannot expect much better from Helena.

20. Inkan writes: “I seriously doubt that anyone who’d dismiss the faith of a billion people, many of them decent human beings, as “a pedo’s deranged views” would be much help in resolving these ongoing world crises.”
    Not only I will dismiss their faith in a pedophile megalomania who raped Iran and numerous other nations by the blade of their swords, but I will equally dismiss their and other’s faith in a senseless and cruel God of the “great monotheistic religions”. Is there a problem?
    Just because 1 bilion people decide to put their brains on retirement and believe in such higher superstition as Mohammad flying on an angel’s behind, or epileptic Mohammad having one-way communication with a non-existant entity, does not make them right. It could be 2 bilion people, and they are equally wrong. And this applies to all religious drivel of any religion equally.
    If you think this 1 billion people are speaking the truth on such drivel then I dare you to bring forth the truth. Otherwise, pls. reserve your self-righteous rude tone, undoubtedly extremely insulting to any atheist or agnostic on this planet, for seances of AshurA blood letting, Koranic child brainwashing, and other such intellectual degeneracy.

21. Razavipour, I send your words directly back to you:
    “pls. reserve your self-righteous rude tone along with your bloody vicious ingorance and bigotry for those who are interested in it. If I owned this blog I would have banned you before now, but Helena is a kinder and gentler soul than I am.

22. Shirin – please do not rant off-topic as you will meet the knife of the resident censor. However, I have no choice but to answer your off-topic comment.
    I am not sure why you blow up and call it bigotry to express a historical fact that Mohammad enjoyed sleeping with an 8 year old? In any society this would be classified as child rape and pedophilia.
    Repeating historical facts is not bigotry and I hereby object to your name calling, and request the censor to read you your obligation to be couteous.
    Yes I agree with you that statistical analysis of moslems behaviour as a class shows that they have no problem wielding the knife and censoring historical facts regarding Mohammad or the Koran that they disagree with.

23. Razavipour– I gave you every chance. But you came back here to hog the discourse here with your very hostile, sectarian, off-topic commentary.
    You want bandwidth to fill? Buy your own.

Comments are closed.