Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of State, in charge of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs,
gave an interview on NPR tonight. After the steaming pile she horked up, I'm glad I wasn't in the booth with her. Ewwww! Keep in mind that her mission is to convince the Muslims to like Murkans. And she, well,
sucks at it. Michele Norris reports that "Polls show a growing number of Arabs and Muslims across the world sympathize with the insurgents fighting the Us in Iraq."
Gee, really? Huh. Whodathunkit?
Interview excerpts below the flip.
But to be fair, who would want Hughes's job? I mean, I salute the woman's nerve because she's able to say with a straight face that Iraq is better off. Wait, no I don't. I think she's (fill in your favorite adjective here).
You know, on second thought, why bother with this diary? There's certainly nothing unique about a Bush official lying through her teeth about, oh, to pick a random example, the lead up to war:
Michele: Did the Administration paint itself into a corner by tying its case to war so closely to the search for WMD, a search which has so far turned up empty?
Hughes: Thanks, Michele, for that softpitch, just like we agreed. [Ahab translation]. As you know, I was involved in some of the discussions, I left the White House in the fall of 2002, and I recall the case at the time as being based first of all on the best facts, the best information, and the best intelligence that we had at the time. But I remember we also made the argument that Saddam Hussein was a unique threat and not just for one reason. I remember saying over and over again, "Not for just one reason but for a confluence of reasons." That he was the only place in the world that was shooting on a regular basis at our military men and women as they were enforcing the no fly zone, enforcing the world sanctions against Iraq. That he was, he had a history of having used WMD in the past, that he had a history of aggression against his own neighbors. And so I think that, while there's been some revisionist history, uh, that case was made in full and on a variety of reasons, although clearly we all thought at the time, "we" being not only the Bush administration, but before us the Clinton Administration and countries across the world and the consensus of the intelligence community was that we all thought based on all the facts and information and intelligence at the time that he did in fact have WMD.
Let me translate for the viewers at home:
"countries across the world" means "The Republic of Palau."
"Intelligence community" means "a small cabal of neocons."
"All the facts and information and intelligence" should be continued with "that we wanted to see."
Is it even interesting anymore when they do things like this:
Michele: Why is public support for the war so low? What does the White House have to do to improve it? [a paraphrase]
Hughes: I think it's important that the White House continue to clearly articulate the strategy called "Clear, Hold, and Build."
Oh, that's right! I forgot about that clear strategy that has for some time now been clearly articulated.
We're clearing out areas of insurgency, we have now trained and equipped enough Iraqi troops that they are now able to come in behind the American military and preserve the peace, then we are working to build the institutions of a democratic state.
I'm sure she means Fallujah. Why, we cleared that place twice. Course, there's a fair amount of rebuildin' to be done there now.
There's nothing remarkable about a Bush crony being so out of touch that every prounouncement shows a curious talent for overstating the obvious:
I'm not sure that in the short term we will change the way the world views us. We've obviously had to do some things and take some actions that much of the world has disagreed with. For example, many in the Arab and Muslim world disagreed with our decision to go into Iraq.
SHUT! UP! Well I dint hear nobody disagreein, less it was that Al Jeezer fella, but he's a diaper head anyway.
Here's the rest of the above answer, taking up immediately after "into Iraq:"
Uh, but now that we're there I think that most in the world will agree that it's in all of our interests to make sure that a stable and free and democratic
Iraq emerges, even if there's not one brick left on top of another [sorry, couldn't resist]. And as that happens, as people elect their leaders, adopt a constitution, go back for elections in December, I believe that as that happens, the rest of the world, gradually, will begin to look at the situation in a more favorable light.
Hell, is it even news anymore when they give such a rosy version of reality that I can smell the cheap perfume clear down here in Arizona??
Michele: Do you think that people in that region look at Iraq and see improvement? See progress?
Hughes: That's an intersting observation.[sic] I think the Iraqi people have a much more favorable impression of what's going on in Iraq than do some people in the region. As I look at public opinion polls, as I meet with people in Iraq, the vast majority of Iraqis themselves believe that Iraq is far better off with Saddam Hussein no longer in power, yet I think the people in the region,[snip] in an ironic way, are somewhat more concerned about what's happening in Iraq then people in Iraq itself. They obviously abhor the horrible acts of violence that are taking place in their country, but they by and large feel that they are much better off with Saddam Hussein no longer in power and having greater freedom.
Now here's the little detour Hughes took and which I snipped from the above circumlocution. Oh yeah, and why should I even bother noting that this administration has the sense of irony of a goldfish?
No one likes war. As people look at the situation in Iraq, as people look at the horror of daily bombings of terrorists targeting innocent civilians, which is what's happening in Iraq today, people are worried about the situation.
But I skipped the great opening to the interview! Michele outlines Hughes's job, saying we need to find better ways to "communicate and cooperate with Arabs and Muslims." [Ok, like, you mean, stop dropping bombs on them?] Hughes replied:
We have to realize that [snip] my voice as an American government official who happens to be a Christian woman is not necessarily the most powerful. Sometimes the voice of a mainstream Muslim leader is much much more all the time is much more powerful than my voice in speaking out to condemn violence that's being committed in the name of Islam.
Hm. Let's see, you're not a mainstream Muslim leader, so you're saying what, exactly? You want Farakhan to come to Iraq with you to distribute lollipops?
Nah, nothing to see here. I guess I won't post it after all.