Via a diary on Kos
Undersecretary of State, Karen Hughes, is empowering Islamic women. Just not in the direction she’s paid to.
A group of Turkish female activists confronted Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes Wednesday with heated complaints about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, turning a session designed to highlight the empowering of women into a raw display of the anger at U.S. policy in the region.
"This war is really, really bringing your positive efforts to the level of zero," said Hidayet Sefkatli Tuksal, an activist with the Capital City Women’s Forum. She said it was difficult to talk about cooperation between women in the United States and Turkey as long as Iraq was under occupation.[…]
"War makes the rights of women completely erased and poverty comes after war — and women pay the price," said Fatma Nevin Vargun, a Kurdish women’s rights activist. Vargun denounced the arrest of Cindy Sheehan, the activist mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, in front of the White House Monday at an antiwar protest.
Hughes, looking increasingly pained, defended the decision to invade Iraq as a difficult and wrenching moment for President Bush, but necessary to protect America.
"You’re concerned about war, and no one likes war," she said. But, she said, "to preserve the peace sometimes my country believes war is necessary." She also asserted that women are faring much better in Iraq than under the rule of deposed president Saddam Hussein.
"War is not necessary for peace," shot back Feray Salman, a human rights advocate. She said countries should not try to impose democracy through war, adding that "we can never, ever export democracy and freedom from one country to another."
The Turkish women I know are all very outspoken, and none of them are activists, so Hughes should have been prepped on what to expect better than she apparently was. Why she wasn’t might be explained by this part of the report:
Hughes, a longtime confidant of President Bush tasked with burnishing the U.S. image overseas, has generally met with polite audiences — many of whom received U.S. funding or consisted of former exchange students — during a tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey this week.
In this case the U.S. Embassy asked Kader, an umbrella group that supports woman candidates, to assemble the guest list. None of the activists currently receive U.S. funds and the guests apparently had little desire to mince words. Six of the eight women who spoke at the session, held in Ankara, the capital, focused on the Iraq war.
Now, I think credit should be given where it’s due. Hughes seems to be one of the few people in the world W will carefully listen to, and sending her into that setting to get honest feedback deserves applause. Furthermore, should this experience prompt Hughes to tell her boss that the sense outside the US (where technology and weapons are nowhere near as advanced) is that war is still seen as a bad thing, always, he might begin to push back against the neo-cons (and I include Albright and even to some degree Clinton in this grouping) who think advances in technology have changed that and that war is now a tool of diplomacy.
But that’s a topic for another post. Today, let it be known, that we’re getting what we wished for: we’re empowering Islamic women to speak their minds. Someone somewhere might have wanted to give a bit more thought to the exact wording of that wish, but….
Or not. 😉
She also asserted that women are faring much better in Iraq than under the rule of deposed president Saddam Hussein.
Feh.
Edward: Hughes seems to be one of the few people in the world W will carefully listen to, and sending her into that setting to get honest feedback deserves applause.
Only if it was intentional. It’s entirely possible that neither Hughes nor Bush realized that outspoken Islamic women with no financial connection to Bush the administration would not provide polite flattery: it’s possible that Hughes actually believed that the US is broadly popular among Islamic women for the things Bush & Co says it has done to “liberate” them. (And it’s more than possible that Bush actually believes this: it’s likely.)
So, if it happens again, it deserves applause. If it never happens again and Hughes makes sure she is never again in a position where she’s likely to get honest feedback, we can assume that the one time it happened, it was an unwanted accident.
She also asserted that women are faring much better in Iraq than under the rule of deposed president Saddam Hussein.
Feh.
Oh, now, the reporter couldn’t read his notes for that statement, which is why he paraphrased rather than offer a direct quote…in doing so he left out the essential qualifiers Hughes made sure to include, i.e., those women still living and able to avoid the marading rapists in the streets are faring much better in Iraq than under the rule of deposed president Saddam Hussein
True enough, Jes, I stand corrected.
And this is charming too:
“You’re concerned about war, and no one likes war,” [Hughes] said. But, she said, “to preserve the peace sometimes my country believes war is necessary.”
Much more peace around here now that war has preserved it. Look, peace over there next to the White House, oops it was just arrested. But wait, peace just appeared in Baghdad, no wait just saw a female suicide bomber smiti that bit of peace. Perhaps it has been “preserved” in the cellar next to the canned peaches, let me go look….nope, all spoiled.
But wait, perhaps peace has been turned into war by the magic peace fairies who inhabit the White House. Yes that’s it! Look at the peace spewing out all over Iraq, isn’t it pretty? You can see the wonderful results of the magic White House peace fairies at the site linked to here
[sorry, I’m a bit tired and p’od]
Oh, now, the reporter couldn’t read his notes for that statement, which is why he paraphrased rather than offer a direct quote…in doing so he left out the essential qualifiers Hughes made sure to include
Good one. Sadly, the AP reporter could read her notes:
“It is impossible to say that the plight of women was better under Saddam Hussein. Women were tortured, they had their children tortured in front of them.”
Women tortured by the United States after we deposed Saddam? Check. Children tortured in front of their mothers by the United States? Not that I’ve heard of. So there you go, women must be better off after Saddam left because while they may have been tortured, at least their children weren’t tortured in front of them (maybe), and otherwise their days are filled with milk, honey, joy and a pony.
I HOPE it was intentional. Getting diverse points of view from their source is a virtue, reactionary thugs notwithstanding…
If it was intentional, it might be the beginning of a reform of this administration that allows it to become successful because it is willing to learn rather than the failure it has been up to this point because it was so committed to dogmatism.
To me, though, the most indicative part of the article was this bit:
Hughes, a longtime confidant of President Bush tasked with burnishing the U.S. image overseas, has generally met with polite audiences — many of whom received U.S. funding or consisted of former exchange students — during a tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey this week.
Sound familiar? IMHO, this is reminiscent of nothing so much as Dubya’s ill-fated Social Security-“reform” travelling-circus of earlier this year: a big hoo-ha roadshow to showcase and pitch some policy or other of the Administration’s – consisting mainly of stock speeches given to pre-vetted – and presumably sympathetic audiences – with any possible dissenters rigorously excluded so as to provide a nice, positive media image.
Unfortunately, as far as Karen Hughes’ latest tour seems to prove, she has not quite gotten the reception she expected ,and not just in Turkey.
If this is the best the Bush Administration can do to sell its Middle East policy to the people of the region most directly effected – well, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
But then, that’s the Bush Adminstration all over – if it all wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable.
If this is the best the Bush Administration can do to sell its Middle East policy to the people of the region most directly effected – well, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs
Please. What’s not to like about 2,000 pound JDAMs and torture from the U.S. and mass executions and suicide bombs from the insurgents? The insight, merit, and genius of these policies speak for themselves. If the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan can’t get on board the Peace Train after Karen Hughes is kind enough to explain it to them, what good are they?
Ungrateful whelps.
OT – This interview with the soldier who accuses members of his unit of ‘abusing’ (boy, do I ever want to use the ‘T’ word…) Iraqi detainees might be something to shed some more patented ObWi illumination upon, since Hilzoy already posted on the initial HRW report (my apologies if someone has already brought this up in comments):
The New York Times
Worth considering on this story: self-described “scummy ex-pat businessman” Collounsbury. link–if simply for the cynically non-partisan prose and the local color.
I read that the US has “plus” popularity rating in very few countries (topped by Israel —at $4b aid per annum).
I sense nothing is goin to persuade hard-liners who still argue that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, but even they cannot deny that the Bush Administration has done a poor job making its case. Karen Hughes is agile and slick, but this (like Katrina) is too big a problem to cloak with fast talk and coat-hanger smiles.
War is peace.
Bad is good.
Evil is righteous.
Killing is life affirming.
OT – Judge Hellerstein orders the Abu Ghraib pictures released, again.
Maybe the pentagon will give up this time.