from an email I recieved today:
----- Original Message -----
From: American Progress Action Fund
To: xxxx
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Progress Report: Bush's Mouth
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=901099Bush's Mouth
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up the nomination of Karen Hughes to become Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Dating back to her days as director of communications for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, Hughes has been a mainstay of Bush's career in elected office. If Karl Rove is Bush's brain, then Karen Hughes is Bush's mouth. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (8/15/04) reported, "The Bush-Hughes connection became the stuff of legend as reporters noted her penchant for mouthing words as Bush said them." USA Today noted that her influence often extended "beyond just the message." Because she has been so intimately involved in White House communications strategies, despite her formal departure from the White House in late 2002 (she was a key adviser during the president's reelection campaign), the Senate should pay keen attention to her role in very questionable ethical practices by the White House message machine over the past four years. At a time when the U.S.'s reputation around the globe is "spiraling downwards," it is vital that our public diplomacy efforts meet the highest levels of credibility. Here are a few areas that deserve careful consideration by the Senate committee:
WHY THE NOMINATION IS IMPORTANT: A British poll released earlier this year indicated majorities in seven leading countries "thought less of Americans because of Mr. Bush." Thus, Hughes' relationship with the president is not necessarily an advantage in the eyes of the world community, despite claims to the contrary. Late last year, a Pew poll indicated two-thirds of Americans were worried about a loss of U.S. respect internationally and saw it as a major problem. Next week, the Center for American Progress will be holding a panel discussion, moderated by former White House spokesman Mike McCurry, to discuss improving relations with the public in the Muslim world.
HUGHES SHOULD BE ASKED ABOUT PLAMEGATE: The New York Times reports this morning that Hughes has been interviewed by the federal prosecutor investigating the leak of former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. That revelation is not altogether surprising given that Hughes was "a member of the White House Iraq Group, an internal body that coordinated for, among other things, selling the war here at home." At least two members of that group, Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, have been confirmed to be leakers of the agent's name. In her book, Ten Minutes From Normal, Hughes discussed the leak, calling it "wrong" and "unfair" to Bush. Hughes earlier said the leak was "disruptive to democracy." In her book, she said whoever conducted the leak "should come forward and not hide behind journalistic ethics for his or her self-protection." She added, "The use of unnamed sources has become a convenient way for too many political operatives to hide and avoid accountability for their statements." Will she stand by her previous statements and call for Rove and Libby to come forward and take accountability for their actions? And how does Hughes respond to her previous comments that she knew Rove wasn't involved in the leak because "Karl has said he was not involved"?
HUGHES MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MANIPULATION OF IRAQ INTELLIGENCE: The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was specifically formed to sell the war in Iraq. Even Bush chief of staff Andy Card conceded WHIG's purpose: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." The Washington Post reported that the "escalation of nuclear rhetoric" during the pre-war stage, "including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it." Hughes took a leading role in crafting Bush's statements to convince the American public of the Iraqi threat. Besides the deceptive use of "mushroom cloud," Bush made a number of false and misleading pre-war statements including the idea that Saddam wanted to "use al-Qaeda as a forward army" and his assertion that Iraq "has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States." Hughes should be asked about her role in formulating these statements, what intelligence she saw to indicate these statements were true, and whether she concedes that these statements were exaggerations.
HUGHES' ROLE IN FALSE URANIUM CLAIM: Among the false statements Bush made prior to the war in Iraq were his famous sixteen words in the 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Houston Chronicle (1/27/03) reported that Hughes was "involved in drafting the speech." She said her primary goal in the process was to answer: "Why is Saddam Hussein's continued defiance a threat to our country and to peace in the world?" In making the sale, the Bush team was overzealous in including a false statement for which Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, Ari Fleischer, and George Tenet later had to apologize. Intelligence from the CIA and the State Department at that time indicated Iraq was not attempting to acquire uranium from Niger. So why did the Bush team ignore the conclusions of our own intelligence sources and instead cite the British? Was it an effort to include a statement known not to be true? Instead of addressing the allegations at the time they were made, Hughes defended the false intelligence and devised a communications strategy that questioned the motives of those who criticized the president (like Joe Wilson).
HUGHES HAD ROLE IN SMEARING RICHARD CLARKE: The New York Times (3/28/04) reported that Hughes "was an advocate of the howitzer treatment" of the former Bush counter-terrorism chief who made the mistake of criticizing the White House about its counter-terrorism strategies. In an attempt to attack and smear the character of Richard Clarke, the White House released numerous pieces of information that were previously classified, including an email from Clarke to Condi Rice shortly after 9-11 and Clarke's resignation letter. The White House also revealed Clarke to be the source of an anonymous background briefing he had done on behalf of the president. However, the White House refused Clarke's request to declassify his correspondence with Rice prior to 9-11 about the threats that were being ignored. Hughes admitted on ABC's 20/20 that she was involved in these efforts against Clarke: "I'm involved in White House discussions about those issues... I think, from personal knowledge, that many of the things he said are not true."........
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
