Reply
Sat 12 Mar, 2005 07:21 am
March 12, 2005
Bush Picks Adviser to Repair Tarnished U.S. Image Abroad
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
ASHINGTON, March 11 - President Bush will nominate one of his closest confidantes, Karen P. Hughes, to lead an effort at the State Department to repair the image of the United States overseas, particularly in the Arab world, administration officials said Friday.
She will also be a leader in publicizing the president's campaign for democracy in the Middle East.
Ms. Hughes, 48, is to be named next week as Mr. Bush's choice to be under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, a position that requires Senate confirmation. Ms. Hughes, who has been a major influence in producing the message Mr. Bush presents to the public, will now tackle what administration officials say is the extremely difficult job of selling the United States and its policies to the world after the anger over the American-led invasion of Iraq.
Two previous under secretaries for public diplomacy have resigned, and the job has been vacant since last summer. A series of reports by government experts, including the independent commission on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and by outside foundations have harshly criticized the administration's attempts to improve America's image overseas.
The new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has said that public diplomacy - a term that encompasses press and public relations, cultural exchanges and information programs - is an urgent concern.
Ms. Hughes, the former counselor to the president who left the White House in the summer of 2002 to move her homesick family back to Texas, is a former Texas television reporter who is not known for her expertise in foreign affairs. But she is personally close to Ms. Rice, has the full confidence of Mr. Bush, and was the driving force behind an American campaign during the war in Afghanistan that publicized the plight of Afghan women.
That campaign was part of her larger responsibility at the time as the coordinator of wartime public relations, an assignment Mr. Bush gave her 24 hours after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. "When he called me that morning, he told me that this will be an ongoing process of educating the public," Ms. Hughes said in an interview in November 2001. "He said, 'O.K., go for it.' "
Since then, Ms. Hughes has made several trips to Afghanistan to highlight American assistance to Afghan women, who were kept out of schools, offices and public life under the rule of the Taliban. "A society cannot be peaceful and harmonious if one-half of its members are imprisoned in their homes," Ms. Hughes said in another interview in November 2001, in comments that reflected the thrust of her information campaign.
Ms. Hughes, who has continued to advise Mr. Bush on speechwriting and communications from her home in Austin, Tex., declined Friday to comment on her nomination.
In leaving the White House in 2002, Ms. Hughes cited the unhappiness of her son, Robert, in Washington as a major reason. But Robert is to enter Stanford University this fall.
Still, friends say, she will not give up her home in Austin, where she lives with her husband, Jerry, and she has plans to commute to Washington.
Ms. Hughes, a tall, commanding presence who is known for putting a positive spin on the most dire events, will have an onerous task ahead of her at the State Department.
Although spreading demands for self-determination and elections in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan have appeared to bolster Mr. Bush's calls for democracy in the Middle East, Ms. Hughes will still face changing the perceptions of a region where many view the United States with contempt. She is also expected to revamp many of the public relations efforts that were criticized in Mr. Bush's first term.
In the fall of 2003, for example, a special report prepared by a panel led by Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria and now director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, urged a complete overhaul of American public relations efforts in the Muslim and Arab worlds.
"Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels," the report said. "What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic and radical transformation."
Last September, a Defense Science Board task force reporting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld came to a similar conclusion and called for a "swift and sustained presidential direction" to solve the problem.
But some senior State Department officials say that the problem is American policy, not inadequate public relations, and that no amount of marketing will changes minds in the Muslim world about the war in Iraq or American support of Israel.
Now have a look at the last five paragraphs of that article again:
emphasis mine.
Although spreading demands for self-determination and elections in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan have appeared to bolster Mr. Bush's calls for democracy in the Middle East, Ms. Hughes will still face changing the perceptions of a region where many view the United States with contempt. She is also expected to revamp many of the public relations efforts that were criticized in Mr. Bush's first term.
In the fall of 2003, for example, a special report prepared by a panel led by Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria and now director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, urged a complete overhaul of American public relations efforts in the Muslim and Arab worlds.
"Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels," the report said. "What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic and radical transformation."
Last September, a Defense Science Board task force reporting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld came to a similar conclusion and called for a "swift and sustained presidential direction" to solve the problem.
But some senior State Department officials say that the problem is American policy, not inadequate public relations, and that no amount of marketing will changes minds in the Muslim world about the war in Iraq or American support of Israel.
Ms. Hughes is a marketer par excellent., but is this nomination an indication of any change in thinking by the administration with regard to policy?
Joe(beating swords into golfclubs)Nation
Well, putting some lipstick on the pig is at least an idea.
Joe Nation wrote:...But some senior State Department officials say that the problem is American policy, not inadequate public relations, and that no amount of marketing will changes minds in the Muslim world about the war in Iraq or American support of Israel....
Interesting. Just to be clear, you oppose American support of Israel?
Just to be clear, what makes you think that supporting a change in policy equates to opposing American support of Israel? Unlike some thinkers, I don't have an either/or sense of the world, ie, either you follow our lead blindly or you are with the terrorists. Such talk would be likely to be mis-interpreted by many around the world, don't you think?
It's been said not a few times on these threads that opposition to the US is founded not upon who we purport ourselves to be but on our words and actions on the world's stage.
Joe(there is always the possibility of change for the better.) Nation
Hughes's Return Is a Blow for Rove
Hughes's Return Is a Blow for Rove
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 11, 2005; 12:39 PM
In the three years since Karen Hughes left the White House and her job as counselor to the president, political strategist Karl Rove has increasingly had the run of the place.
The news today that Hughes is coming back means there'll be someone to keep him in check again.
It's not like Hughes and Rove don't agree about a lot of things; they do. They've both been among Bush's top advisers since long before he came to Washington, and they are both ruthlessly effective in pursuing their boss's agenda.
But while Hughes is utterly devoted to Bush, Rove is utterly devoted to building a lasting Republican majority.
And to the extent that there are some areas where those two goals don't entirely overlap, no one in the White House lately has been able to counterbalance Rove like Hughes used to.
The Baker Scoop
Peter Baker broke the story in this morning's Washington Post: "Karen P. Hughes, the longtime adviser to President Bush often described as the most powerful woman ever to work in the White House, plans to return to Washington soon to rejoin the president's team as he sets forth on an ambitious second-term agenda, according to White House officials and outside Republican advisers.
"Seen as a virtual alter ego for Bush who understands how he thinks better than any other adviser, Hughes helped the president build his administration as his counselor in the first term before her surprise resignation in April 2002 to return to Texas with her family. Her forceful presence and physical stature helped cement her position as a key player in any policy decision."
Baker writes that "the decision is not scheduled to be announced until next week. The sources said Hughes will not be a formal member of the White House staff but will take on a specific and particularly important assignment involving international affairs, but they would not identify it."
Does that mean her first job is Iraq? Global democracy? Washington wonks wait with bated breath to find out.
Suskind on Hughes v. Rove
As I wrote in my Feb. 9 column, Rove's recent promotion to deputy chief of staff made him, officially, in charge of pretty much everything at the White House.
That promotion was also in some ways Chief of Staff Andy Card's admission that, without Hughes around, there was no stopping him.
In a seminal 2002 Esquire story, Ron Suskind wrote about how Card, in a rare moment of candor, explained the relative balance of power that existed before Hughes's departure.
" 'The key balance around here,' he says, 'has been between Karen and Karl Rove,' the president's right hand and his left. Rove is much more the ideologue, a darling of the Right, who often swings a sharp sword of partisanship on matters of policy and politics. Hughes, always more pragmatic, mindful of how to draw the most support across a balkanized political terrain, somehow figures how to beat that sword into a plowshare. That is at the core of what has worked so well politically for the president. Both have been with Bush for many years -- Rove first met Bush twenty-nine years ago -- and are ferocious personalities. . . .
" 'That's what I've been doing from the start of this administration. Standing on the middle of the seesaw, with Karen on one side, Karl on the other, trying to keep it in balance. One of them just jumped off.' . . .
Rove himself spoke to Suskind about Hughes: " 'For every ten battles we've had, she's won nine of them. I defer to her completely; she's the best, best ever,' he says. I asked him about whether Hughes's day-to-day absence will mean his more conservative agenda will now have free rein. He paused. 'Well, I certainly hope not,' he said after a moment. 'I certainly hope not,' and then he howled with laughter.
"I tell Card a bit about this. He waves me off. He knows Rove is giddy about the real estate that's now vacant with Hughes's leaving. And as chief of staff, he's clearly girding himself for battles he already sees on the horizon. 'Karl will miss Karen. He may not want to admit it to the level he should, but he'll miss Karen a lot. . . . It's like she's a beauty to Karl's beast.' "
Card told Suskind: "I'll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. . . . They are going to have to really step up, but it won't be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary."
Last March, after Hughes announced she would make a brief return to a more full-time role for the last several months of the presidential campaign, she did several interviews.
NPR's Terry Gross asked Hughes about Suskind's story: "Karen Hughes, do you think -- would you agree that you're returning to serve as a counterweight to Karl Rove and do you think, in your absence, that the Bush administration veered more to the right?
"Ms. HUGHES: No, Terry. You know, Ron's a very creative guy, and I think a lot of people at the White House feel that that was a quite embellished story."
As for Rove, she said: "Now, sure, we have differences. We're both strong-willed personalities. Anyone who's ever been in a room with the two of us knows that we're both tough and outspoken and strong-willed people and we have different perspectives, partly because we have different jobs. My job is the big-picture message. Karl's job -- one of his many jobs -- he has a lot of jobs; he's a great policy thinker as well. But one of his jobs from the political side is to stitch together coalitions to help pass the president's initiatives in Congress or to help re-elect the president or elect the president."
And what about her charge that Suskind's story was embellished? Well, it's worth noting that not long after the story appeared, PBS's Margaret Warner gave Card ample chance to dispute any of his quotes.
"MARGARET WARNER: I mean, is this what you said?
"ANDREW CARD: If I were to go back and forth over every alleged quote in that article, it wouldn't be appropriate.
"The important thing is the White House is working very well. Karen Hughes has been a major contributor to the successes of this president, as has the rest of the White House team, and we work very, very well together. And our job is to serve the president. And he is serving the American people well, because his staff does a good job for him --
"MARGARET WARNER: Somehow I don't feel you're really answering my question. I mean, if --
"ANDREW CARD: It's an irrelevant question because it's not about me; it's about the president and how he performs, and he does a great job. And my job is to make sure the staff does a good for the president, and he has all the tools that he needs to make a decision."
More About Hughes
At the same time that she announced her return to the campaign, Hughes came out with an autobiographical book, "Ten Minutes From Normal."
Hanna Rosin wrote: "The president is described as a 'man of honor,' 'spiritual,' 'wonderful,' 'engaging,' 'humble,' 'in command,' 'possessing a laser-like ability to distill an issue to its core.' He says things in private conversation such as: 'We're sending juveniles the wrong signal by giving them a slap on the wrist when they commit serious crimes.' Hughes says, 'I love the President,' or 'I love the President and Laura Bush,' dozens of times, without blushing."
James Carney wrote in Time in April: "Before she left Washington, it often fell to Hughes to charge 'into the propeller,' as media adviser Mark McKinnon describes the experience of confronting Bush with an unpleasant topic. That is what some Republicans worry has been lacking since Hughes left Bush's side."
Carney wrote: "Within a circle of advisers dominated by conservatives, Hughes ended up the de facto moderate on domestic policy. She was the guardian of Bush's 'compassionate conservative' image and was constantly pushing to have the President focus and speak out on issues like health care and education.
"She pestered him so often about the environment that Bush dubbed her a 'lima green bean.' His other nicknames for her: High Prophet (a play on her maiden name Parfitt) and Hurricane Karen."
In Newsweek's epic post-election post-mortem, Evan Thomas explained Hughes's impact: "Over 6 feet tall, with frosted hair and a strong, flat Texas accent, Hughes had been the chief message maker and enforcer in the 2000 campaign and for the first two years of the Bush presidency. Then she had retreated to Texas to be able to spend more time with her teenage son, who had loathed living in Washington. Hughes had a knack for parroting Bush's tone and voice, for 'channeling' him. She also softened his hard edges. In 2000 Hughes had gently prodded Bush to play the 'compassionate conservative.'
"After she left, the Bush watchers detected a hardening in the Bush line, which they attributed to Rove, who was always reaching out to the party's true believers. Hughes had jockeyed some with Rove for power, but by and large the two forceful figures had produced a consistent message (helped by a boss who insisted on staying 'on message'). Hughes had policed the wayward and zipped loose lips. When she was communications director, talking out of line would earn you 'a size 11 shoe up your [expletive],' according to a former White House official. Journalists were awed by her industrial-strength spin and no-prisoners approach to the chaos of the White House press room. They had nicknamed her Nurse Ratched, after the iron woman who ran the psycho ward in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.'
"From her home in Austin, Hughes still weighed in on key speeches and decisions, but there was no one with quite her clout running the White House communications operation. . . . Rove was thought by some White House staffers to have a bit of a tin ear, to lean too hard, to reach too far to cater to his prized right-wing base. (Even Bush would crack, 'That idea's so [expletive] bad it sounds like something Rove came up with.')"
Don't Underestimate Her
Early on in my career as White House Briefing columnist, I learned first-hand the perils of underestimating Hughes.
I was doing my very first Live Online and opened the discussion by saying: "Against my self-interest, I should tell you that I'm up against Karen Hughes, who is taking (I'll bet softball) questions over on the White House Web site."
Meanwhile, Hughes was choosing to take -- and easily handling -- questions like: "Where are the WMD?" and "Did you approve of the President's gay-bashing?"
By contrast, Karl Rove has never taken any questions from Web site users, and Card just posts joking answers.
I can't think of a better way to further the cause of getting these people (and those that think like them to follow) out of office than for Karen Hughes to come back in limelight. Ugh, I can still remember her from before the 2000 election was even officially over giving those little press conferences of Bush's schedule.
btw-bumblebee, missed your articles lately.
revel
revel, I thought everyone was tired of and annoyed with my "articles."
BBB
Karen Hughes couldn't sell a doorknob to anyone but a suburban Republican.
And because she was so successful at that in 2000 and 2004, that's where she should stay, and what she should do. After all, there are oodles of those sheople who are going to need doorknobs as pacifiers when the terrorists strike again (scheduled for shortly before Election 2006, so the GOP can continue its Borg-like assimilation of the planet Earth).
BBB: Please list anyone who complains about your participation here.
Joe(Gets ready to punch somebody in the nose.) Nation
Re: revel
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:revel, I thought everyone was tired of and annoyed with my "articles."
BBB
I don't know if I will go so far to as to punch anyone in the nose :wink: but you were the one of the reasons I stayed around when I first came. (probably just virtually killed you around here with that confession) I got caught up twice as much on the news reading your articles than I did watching the news.
Judging by what I read this morning about pre packaged news, it's a good thing people are searching out alternative sources for news than depending on tv.
http://www.hooverdigest.org/051/diamond.html
Interesting (or at least I think so)
<big snip>
<big snip>
Quote:But, along with the above, a certain type of environment in the region is necessary to help foster democratic change. Crucially important are a
sustained commitment to political reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a more coherent and effective strategy to deal with Iran. But the highest priority in this regard is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The West cannot wave a magic wand to bring an end to this conflict. Nor can we allow aspirations for democratic change in the region to be held hostage by this conflict. But many in the Arab world today see a Western (and especially American) commitment to renew the role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations as a litmus test of Western intentions and credibility. It is vital that the United States resume this role. Advancing the peace process is not a precondition for being able to foster the democratic process, but if the two proceed on parallel tracks, each effort is likely to be more credible and effective.
Whadda they say? A change is as good as a kick in the pants.
Yeah, that's it.
When the Bush administration abandoned the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis while waiting for Arrafat to die, they gained a large portion of admiring glances from the sheiks in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and even a few grugding smiles from the powers that be in Syria and Iran. None of the Arab countries, not Jordan, not Egypt and certainly not Lebanon, gain anything from the continious conflict in Israel, instead that conflict has engendered a generation schooled in the art of making terror and if terror is useful against Irael, it can be just as useful against repressive governments anywhere, as the governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt have found out.
After 9-11 this administration had the best chance in history to gain favor in the Arab world and they blew it for a chance to knock off Saddam. So nows comes the democracy movement pushed by the Americans so they can have a sheltering harbor in the Middle East, but, as Ive oftern asked before, what other Middle Eastern powers want democracy?
What we have set up now is a bunch of radicals fighting to keep the ME in the fifteenth century and a bunch of folks screaming for democracy without really knowing how or what it is and a tiny bunch of very powerful leaders trapped in the middle.
What bookie wants to place the odds?
Joe(I gotta go lie down)Nation
Nice summary, Joe.
(I miss your articles too, bbb - Osso)
I don't know what kind of democracy will emerge; whether it will be more like the canyons of Chicago with it's ward heelers and party bosses or the gerrymandered spread-out acres of Texas recently re-drawn more to the likes of the likes of Tom Delay.
Do we explain our present situation where the members of the Senate representing the majority of people in the USA are in the minority? That despite the crowing after the recent election and the red, red maps of victory, it is still the number of people that is important and not the number of acres they inhabit?
Is it possible to explain trading your vote or getting your vote traded? For example, voting for a candidate on moral values grounds, but getting hugh tax cuts on capital gains. Did you trade your vote or get traded?
We should brief them on democracy otherwise they are likely to be as disappointed with their political leaders as we are. We know it's our own fault, they don't that yet.
Joe(Remember to vote early and often)Nation
Well, democracy is seen as an anti-terrorist weapon. Shrugs. The US was happy enough to support extremely anti-democratic leaders in the ME (and elsewhere) when it saw that as being in its best interests.
But - nonetheless, let us hope this new analysis of US interests leads to great good.
I would hope that what is happening will lead to a real voice for ordinary citizens (especially women) in the Middle East - not what Joe describes. Though I guess it is part of the whole machinery...
Am I too cynical? It took 125 years to get this democracy to allow women to vote, they at least started off on the right foot, but there are going to have to be really strong rules in place to prevent majority rule from running roughshod over the many minorities in Iraq.
Joe(Any chance they can form a coalition from 169 Parties)Nation
Look no further than the calls by some on the extreme right to "Nuke France" to see how they would react to a democracy in the Mideast that disagreed with them.
Democracy is fine as long as they follow orders.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace