“a privileged people’s utter disregard or outright contempt for others.’

[splat@14]

Article from "The Week" magazine regarding the opinions from the Mid East on Karen Hughes visit. The tragedy of it all is that this administration will think the trip was a great success. Its bad enough they lie to us but its truly disturbing that they lie to themselves.
Splat




U.S.’s new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy does little to help America’s reputation.
10/7/2005

If she weren’t so arrogant, we’d feel sorry for Karen Hughes, said Ibrahim Karagul in Istanbul’s Yeni Safak. America’s new image czar bumbled through her first visit to the Middle East, leaving a very embarrassing first impression. President Bush has given Hughes, a longtime confidante and public relations aide, the rather formidable mission of persuading Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey that the U.S. is really a benevolent country and not a Great Satan after all. Her attitude, though, left much to be desired. “Like a stereotypical colonialist character,” Hughes seemed to think that the countries she was visiting were backward, and the people ignorant—particularly the women. How shocking to her, then, to hear from Saudi women doctors that they felt better respected in Riyadh than in Washington, or to hear from Turkish women that they would rather see the U.S. stop dropping bombs on Iraqi mothers than give money to women’s rights. What ultimately doomed her mission, though, was “the belief that she could improve Bush’s image in Turkey by buying head scarves and blue beads and taking a child in her arms.” Turks respond to facts, not fluff. If, today, they are less than enamored with America, it is not because of poor marketing, but “because of U.S. actions in the Islamic world.”

The stain on America can’t be wiped away by a bureaucratic jaunt, said Abdel-Rahman Rashid in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat. The disgusting, humiliating pictures of chained, hooded Afghans in Guantánamo Bay or of naked, leashed Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison destroyed American’s reputation. Yet still, the U.S. continues its support of Israel, its tolerance of Arab dictators, and its inept wars in two Muslim countries. Hughes “has only two options: to repair the U.S.’s reputation, which is nearly impossible, or modify the country’s policies, also almost unfeasible.”

Even if the task weren’t so daunting, said Abdel-Bari Atwan in the pan-Arab Al Quds al Arabi, Hughes is the wrong person to attempt it. This is the spin doctor who was personally responsible for peppering those early Bush speeches with biblical verses and references to God, “making it look as if the president were waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq out of religious duty.” The resulting perception of the U.S. as a nation on a crusade did incalculable harm to America’s image. And she’s only making things worse. Hughes lacks the most basic knowledge of the Arab world, an ignorance so obvious as to be insulting. She’s simply a crony of Bush. But soon she will learn that “beautifying the face of President Bush to the American citizen is one thing, and marketing his bloody foreign policies to the Arabs and Muslims is a totally different thing.”

It can get still worse, said the Beirut Daily Star in an editorial. While Hughes was smiling her way across the region, American commentators back home were calling for the coalition forces to withdraw from Iraq. After “cajoling the international community into accepting this war and then transforming Iraq into a horrific scene of terrorist violence and sectarian strife,” the U.S. is now prepared to abandon the Iraqis to chaos. It has “the luxury of being fickle while Iraqis are left to suffer.” Such a move would only confirm Arab suspicions that Americans have “a privileged people’s utter disregard or outright contempt for ‘others.’”

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.asp?id=1149

[NMDemDist2]

1. kicked and nominated n/t

[zalinda]

2. John Kerry was right

"the U.S. is now prepared to abandon the Iraqis to chaos. It has “the luxury of being fickle while Iraqis are left to suffer.” Such a move would only confirm Arab suspicions that Americans have “a privileged people’s utter disregard or outright contempt for ‘others.’”

If we withdraw with out restoring order, the muslim world will forever hate us. And we can be sure, that the hatred will last through many generations. The only way to get out of this is to send in more troops and do this thing right.

zalinda

[ret5hd]

4. Have you enlisted?

just askin'.

[splat@14]

5. Edited out - entered in error

[Martin Eden]

12. Send in more troops?

The military solution so far has succeeded in radicalizing legions of angry young Muslims and transforming Iraq into breeding and training ground for terrorists. Kerry's argument isn't so much that the misssion was wrong to begin with, but that we just haven't done it right.

I would certainly agree that Bush has done just about everything wrong, but I sincerely doubt that we can now do things right by escalating our military presence there. And in my opinion, the mission was rotten to begin with.

Trying pacify Iraq with more troops while empowering its nascent government (leading toward our withdrawal) is a strategy at cross-purposes with itself -- excpecting to foster independence while increasing their dependence on our military. But even if such a strategy could possibly work, one essential requirement is lacking: the committment of the American people to increase their investment and sacrifice in Iraq. They would have to believe that a military escalation will turn the nightmare of Iraq into a success story, but polls indicate that public opinion has been steadily going in the opposite direction.

If Bush asked for another 100 or 200 thousand troops (probably necessitating a draft), what would be the response? Is Kerry, or the Democratic leadership in general, capable of convincing the American people of the wisdom of increasing our military presence in Iraq, and of increasing our investment and sacrifice there? Would the Republicans embrace that strategy? What about the Democratic base?

I don't embrace it, because I don't think it is either politically or militarily feasible to fix Iraq by throwing more troops at it.

Yes, we have made ourselves responsible for Iraq, and are morally obligated to do whatever we can to save the Iraqi people from the violence and chaos that we ourselves unleashed. But we have to operate in the realm of the possible. To a large extent, our military presence IS the problem in Iraq. Declaring victory and pulling out after an Iraqi constitution is established and the next elections are held may be better for the Iraqi people than continuing to attract and do battle with jihadis in the streets of their cities.

The best thing we can do may be to stop what we have been doing, rather than doing more of it.

[ret5hd]

13. Paging zalinda...Paging zalinda

[zalinda]

14. What do you want?

I stand by what I said. It doesn't have to be our troops, but it has to be some sort of peace keeping organization. If we are going to "win" back the respect of the muslim countries, we must do more than "cut and run". While many people don't like this, it is a fact. We broke it and now we have to do something to fix it. It would be just as wrong to leave it in the mess it's in, as it was to go in there in the first place. It has to be done right, though, just throwing more troops will not solve the problem.

zalinda

[ret5hd]

15. so can i take it the answer is "no"?

[zalinda]

16. They wouldn't take me

But you could go. You're such a smart guy!

zalinda

[ret5hd]

17. i thought not.

[zalinda]

18. So you would leave a mess?

We went over there destroyed the place, killed tens of thousands of their people, and you want to just leave?

Are you sure you're not a Republican?

zalinda

[ret5hd]

19. what I am sure of is...

that YOU want the troops to stay...as long as those troops don't include YOU.

on edit: and if anything sounds republican...that does.

[zalinda]

21. No, I didn't say that

I said it had to be fixed. And the only way to do that is to send more troops. It doesn't mean that the troops are going there to kill. That's where YOUR head is at. Troops do more things than kill. Kerry said he wanted more troops so that we could do the job right, like providing security, so that the locals could be trained and so the rebuilding could begin. Of course some people want to stop that, so the troops are needed, not just contractors.

You apparently want us to just leave and leave the big mess for them to clean up. Yeah, great. You want to act just like the big polluting companies. Make a mess, and let the locals clean it up. No responsibility here, just like a Republican.

And, no I didn't want them there in the first place, but since America made this mess, it's up to us to clean it up. The Bush group won't do it, so it's up to the dems.

zalinda

[ret5hd]

22. All i'm hearin' is send more troops...but not me.

People trained to kill kill. People whose job it is to kill kill. Maybe you would be different. maybe you would make a good security/trainer/rebuilder. here's a link:
http://tinyurl.com/9ux9e

[Union Thug]

24. I agree. "Provide Security" is a euphemism for

kill any raghead bastard that looks at us the wrong way.

Americans already believe they are superior to everyone else in the world. Playing big daddy to the Iraqis is not the answer.

[Union Thug]

23. The presence of US troops is fueling the insurgency and anti-americanism

Sending more troops or "Staying the course" will do absolutely nothing to create peace. What has to happen is an about face turn around of American arrogance (including military and corporate presence) - meaning we need rethink our foriegn policy and stop butting in where we are not wanted, supporting useful tyrants and then whining like spoiled, hypocritical children when the useful tyrant flips the 1 fingered salute at us.

[ret5hd]

3. "Hughes lacks the most basic knowledge of the Arab world..."

Hell, she lacks the most basic knowledge of the United States...

Karen "One nation under God is cited in our constitution" Hughes. Ha!

[splat@14]

7. More "yes men" that Bush surrounds himself with...

[cassiepriam]

26. Bush likes to appoint people with the same IQ that he has.

[teryang]

6. As a propagandist Hughes doesn't need to know anything

...the notion that Islamic or Arab peoples will accept what she has to say is based upon the mistaken assumption that they are as stupid and ignorant as the American public has been for the last five years.

[splat@14]

8. Well said, the bush philosophy is based on fear mongering and slight of

hand. He's no more than a bad used car salesman if people would stop believing him (with apologies to those in used car sales).

[cassiepriam]

27. Yah, but genocide, rape, murder, torture is a tough sell to the victims.

Bush should have picked someone with a few more IQ points.

[tanyev]

9. Losing hearts and minds, the one thing they're good at.

[Union Thug]

10. a privileged people’s utter disregard or outright contempt for ‘others.

What's saddest of all is that the American PEOPLE generally exhibit this 'better than thou' arrogance and look condescendingly down their noses at other cultures. Karen Hughes is an extension of what America has become, a selfish, greedy compilation of the corrupt and the stupid.

[Tesla]

11. She would be the LAST person to send over there!!!

She is a man in drag to those women.

[Skittles]

20. that is true

it is tiring and embarassing

[cassiepriam]

25. The rest of the world is not as stupid as Americans?

The crap we buy here won't work overseas?

[agincourt]

28. Bush is a pariah outside the US,

His "business wife" is just not up to the task of redemming his image. They can't "swift boat" the middle east, it's too obvious over there.

[tom_paine]

29. Yes, it is much easier for Busheviks to lie to the Imperial Subjects of

Amerika than it is for her to lie to the rest of the world.

It isn't that the rest of the world is smarter or better, but like the 1930s Germans, the 2005 Imperial Subjects if Amerika are caught in the vortex of the Greatest Propaganda Machine in Human History.

We are so completely detetached from reality that the other nations of the world, even those not in the Free World, in general have more connection the the real world than the Imperial Subjects of Amerika ever could.

For we gave up our Free Press shortly before we gave up our right to select national leaders.

We, like the 1930s Germans, are at the center of the world's largets shit machine, and like the 1930s Germans, close to 50% of the people are subjugated mentally by The Leader, and will support him and his cronies no matter how criminal the enterprise nor how openly practiced.

I enjoy seeing the traits of freedom in the Turks and the other educated Muslims who see so clearly through the Bushevik lies.

Would that we had enough of their like in Amerika...we migth still be free.