Posted on 09/07/2005 10:26:29 AM PDT by johnqueuepublic
Bush Administration Censors Hughes' Speech To Islamist Group September 7, 2005 - PipeLineNews.org - On Friday September 2, Karen Hughes, State Department Undersecretary for Public Relations addressed the Islamist group, ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] at their 42nd convention in Chicago, Illinois.
In the wake of a firestorm of criticism over her appearance before the organization, the State Department is now refusing to release the text of the speech, on the grounds that it was not a public event.
In advance of the address we were advised that the full text would be made available at the appropriate location on State's website, where other Hughes speeches appear.
Not finding it there and making a series of inquiries, we were informed that it had been determined that the event was "private" and the text thereof a non-public document - a classification that we were assured was a long-established option by the department.
However when asked by us to provide a single instance in which such censorship had previously been invoked, the State Department public affairs officer became audibly upset and referred us to another department functionary whom as we go to press, has not returned our calls.
Such behavior is especially hard to fathom since Ms. Hughes speech was heavily promoted in advance as being the opening salvo by the administration in a public relations effort to establish “meaningful" dialogue with “moderate" Muslims.
In a piece published by PipeLineNews on August 30 Letters From The Home Front War On Terror - The Bush Administration's Serious Missteps Regarding ISNA we advised that Ms. Hughes’ appearance would prove to be a damaging misstep by an administration increasingly seen as being hamstrung by multiculturalism:
“Given the previous analysis, we consider it outrageous that the Bush administration has apparently made the decision to send top aid and newly appointed State Dept public relations chief Karen Hughes - hat in hand - to the ISNA convention.If this plays out it will be an incredibly damaging move that will have a lasting and negative impact on the President's war on terror. It sends the message that this administration really has no conception of what it is fighting and how the Islamist movement is being advanced in North America.
Actions like this prove that despite assurances that the flow of vital information between various governmental agencies has improved, that little progress has been made.
Apparently this administration is unaware of what ISNA represents, that it is engaged in a vicious campaign to crush Islamic moderates and that the organization's IRS records have been requested by Senator Grass ley’s Finance Committee because of concern over the group's possible ties to terror funding."
The question arises as to what is going on at the State Department and moreover, why is the Bush administration censoring a major speech by Ms. Hughes?
Is the administration now reconsidering the fact that it permitted Ms. Hughes to address an Islamist organization that is currently under Congressional investigation as a possible conduit of terrorist funding, and which has an unenviable track record of crushing the very moderate Muslims the administration has stated it seeks to bolster?
If so, it can't say that it wasn't adequately informed, we submitted a pre-publication copy of our article and were told that it and a number of others of the same tenor had been reviewed by members of Ms. Hughes' staff.
Absent the actual text of the speech it's impossible to assess how damaging Ms. Hughes appearance before ISNA was, the snippets which have leaked out indicate that neither Ms. Hughes nor the State Dept. really have much understanding of the organizations or the dynamics operating within the American Muslim community.
Already ISNA on its website is suggesting that the purpose of Hughes' appearance was to atone for rampant anti-Islamism, caused by Bush administration policies - "ISNA Meeting Opens, Bush Aide Slams Anti-Muslim Hatred."
"Hughes, asked by Bush to help restore the US public image abroad badly shaken after the invasion of Iraq...Policies of the Bush administration, coupled with some media campaigns, are widely blamed for increasing hatred toward the Muslim minority in the US, following the 9/11 attacks." - "ISNA Meeting Opens, Bush Aide Slams Anti-Muslim Hatred" - By Abdullah Abdur Rahman, IOL Correspondent The ISNA websight also features a picture of a very servile looking Hughes greeting ISNA Vice President Dr. Ingrid Mattson. Hughes is probably unaware that Dr. Mattson denies the existence of Wahhabism and has made the ridiculous assertion that the media should not use the term "Islamic terrorism" as if that phrase has no validity.
That the Bush administration can't seem to separate the Islamist radicals from the moderates is troubling, but no less so than its decision to now conduct their dhimi-plomacy on this matter in secret.
That sends an exceedingly bad message, one which compounds the mistake of sending Ms. Hughes to Chicago in the first place by several orders of magnitude.
©1999-2005 PipeLineNews.org, all right reserved.
Bill Bennett was all over this this morning. They are going to try and get a copy too.
Why is this admin so confused as to who the domestic bad guys are????
-----
I don't think they are -- but they are far more afraid of the MSM and the whining, hate-filled Dims, including their twisted PC crowd. Therein lies the issue -- POLITICAL FORTITUDE OF THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION.
The author doesn't understand the word "censor". Had the Bush administration prevented her from speaking, or prohited her from making certain statements at the speech, that would be censoring the speech.
The ISNA could be contributing to terrorism without even knowing.
Even Christian based non-profit groups have mistakenly given money to an organization that then gave the money to other organizations with suspicious ties.
But, it would make sense that if an organization made a mistake in where their money was being filtered chances are the funds are being dispersed in third world countries like the African nations and the Middle East nations. Primarily the regions that the ISNA would be working with.
Good God! They're out today, aren't they? The libs I mean.
...That the Bush administration can't seem to separate the Islamist radicals from the moderates is troubling,...
That anyone doesn't realize that there is no radical fundamentalist Islam, only Islam, is far more troubling.
"but will be used by the president's opponents to make all sort of degrading and insinuating remarks."
You're likely right. If it is tough at all on the Islamic cutthroats and fellow travelers, the Islamists will squeal and if it panders to them, those of us who are concerned about protecting America from the Muslims will protest.
Should read "edits" or "redacts".
"Its time for you fanatical animals to step up to a civilized level or you will be cleared off!"....wow..did she really say that?
The left would find political incorrectness to rail about. Anything sensible can be turned into lunacy by the left. Look at all the brouhaha over the Valarie Plame deal.
"The left would find political incorrectness to rail about. Anything sensible can be turned into lunacy by the left. Look at all the brouhaha over the Valarie Plame deal."
You're right. All too predictably, the zany left would try to score some type of political advantage by yelling that the administration was not being sensitive, diverse, and inclusive by going after jihadists. My view is that it's way past time to quit playing nice guy with the religion of hate and let the leftwingers make whatever political hay they can. I thing the big majority of Americans would support tough warnings to domestic Islamists (not to mention limiting Muslim immigration here).
This is not good.
We will have to disagree on that, preventing the public from knowing what an important admin official said to a group of Islamists is censorship in my book.
five days ago ,... I sense behind the sceens scrambling
Could you reference the Bennett comments, I understand he has a talk show but I cant get it in the Bay Area here, or I am not looking in the right place.
My feeling is that is exactly the reason the admin wanted to "deep six" the speech, from what has filtered out Hughes was in full dhimmi mode.
This isnt the first time this admin has screwed up re ISNA, earlier this year the WH office of faith based education invited ISNA to a number of events and even asked them to submit a list of "worthy" organizations so they could receive fed largesse.
ISNA crushes moderates, such as they are, they operate as the left hand of the Saudi government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.