Jesus, this was dumb. This is what happens when Condi's campaign person actually tries to act as if she knows something about Muslim/non-Muslim relations. This was just freaking stupid.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
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.
What about attorney-client privilege? Is that also censorship in your book? Censorship is prohibiting speech or restricting someone from expressing something. Examples of censorship would include banning books, plays, music, etc from public (as long as it is the government doing the restricting) or preventing someone from having a forum to speak. Based on the information in the story, nobody was restricted from having a forum. What has happened is that the administration has taken the position that her speech was not a public (or official) event but rather at a private function and as such they are not obligated to make the speech available to the public. You can call it concealment or whatever, but it is not censorship.
>>Why is this admin so confused as to who the domestic bad guys are????
Psst, they ain't confused, they're well aware that our ally is the ideological and financial fount of jihad. Makes for a slight cognitive dissonance, no?
Hence the tin ear concerning saudi fifth column elements in the USA.
Not sure why you are trying to pick a [losing] fight with me.
Hughes is a State Dept official, she has been charged with improving the PR position of the US, her speech to ISNA was widely touted as being a definitive statement on non Muslim/Muslim relations, her staff had stated that the speech would appear on the State Dept website, but as news of her ridiculous dhimmitude of a speech started leaking out, as evidenced by ISNA's take on it claiming that it was an apology for anti-Muslim actions taken by the WH like the war in Iraq, and then everyone clammed up.
Yes friend, I call that censorship, why dont you look elsewhere for a fight ok? because you seem to have overlooked the entire context of the action in your desire to, i guess defend the Bush administration, something you really don't seem to have the skill to do.
Yes, that might be part of their take on it, the problem however is that their action embolden groups like ISNA and CAIR and the rest of the jihad lobby which is underwritten by the Saudis.
They are not alone however, and that is what cause me at least to believe that multiculuralism is at the root of this, many Christian churches including the Catholics and many Jewish organizations have done the faith exchange program type stuff, what they dont realize is that Muslims arent interested in interfaith dialogue except as a means of conversion.
Muslims who convert to Christianity are considered apostates the penalty for which is death.
If disagreeing over the meaning of a word is considered "picking a fight" then I guess "censor" isn't the only word that has a different meaning in your lexicon than mine. I simply pointed out that the traditional meaning of the active word (i.e. the "verb") in the article title -- and a word that was used repeatedly in the article by the way -- is different from what happened here. My guess is that the word "censor" or "censorship" is more of an emotionally charged term than "withheld" or "refused to release" and thus it is more likely to evoke the desired emotional response.
I have not offered an opinion as to whether or not the administration was correct in withholding the content of the speech from public perusal, nor whether Hughes should have been addressing this muslim group in the first place. I have not followed the events closely enough nor reviewed any other information apart from this obviously hostile article in order to have an informed opinion on the matter. However, I was able to glean enough from the article to conclude that regarding the word "censorship" in the words of Indigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nearly all of us agree with you. Unfortunately the places most available to us are talk radio and the internet and we are already using those pretty well.
The other thing we can do, and this may be what you are talking about, is to try to get our Representatives in Washington to fight this battle like we grunts are.
They know too well how the MSM will treat anything they say. If they know they are pleasing their folks at home they won't care, unless they have presidential aspirations. We need to let them know what we want from them.
Well, as they say, what'd she say that she's ashamed about so much that they won't release the text.
Yup, an assumption, but usually you don't hide something you don't want the world to know about, especially as a senior presidential appointment of the diplomatic branch.
You seem to get hung up on ephemer, which certainly is your ritht.
First the use of the word censorship, which the Oxford English dictionary defines as "suppression" which is EXACTLY what the Bush admin or the State Dept, take your pick, has done.
Now you object to my use of the phrase "pick a fight" which I used simply because you seem to want to engage in argumentation that is not germain to the subject.
If I have mischaracterized your statement, then I certainly apologize, however you seem to have studiously avoided even dealing with the gist of the piece so I am quite at a loss to adduce just what the heck your point is aside from a quibble over the use of a couple of terms which most English speakers seem to understand.
Yes, they don't have any. None.
Yep.
..................
Bush confidante Karen Hughes meets with American Muslim group at its convention
All I can say is that I'm (sad to say) not one bit surprised.
Is burning books censorship?
"State's Hughes To Attend Gathering of North American Muslims"
http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Sep/01-755657.html
This was taken from State's wbsite. Doesn't look like a private act to me.
Here are some of her comments taken from the ISNA web site.
http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=315
Why is this admin so confused as to who the domestic bad guys are????
Oh, I think they know, the problem is there are just too
many of them.
I suppose that would depend on the context. If authorities gathered up all available copies of a book (or group of books) and burned them to prevent their distribution -- then yes. If the members of a group such as a church or social club collected copies of a book or group of books that they had legally obtained and burned them as a symbolic act of protest against content they deemed objectionable, then that would not be censorship.
Jesus, this was dumb. This is what happens when Condi's campaign person actually tries to act as if she knows something about Muslim/non-Muslim relations. This was just freaking stupid.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Jesus, this was dumb. This is what happens when Condi's campaign person actually tries to act as if she knows something about Muslim/non-Muslim relations. This was just freaking stupid.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
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.