March 20, 2003
HACKWORTHY:
Hughes's New Role In Shaping Bush's Message Questioned: Ethics, Politicization Concerns Cited (Dana Milbank, March 20, 2003, Washington Post)Former White House aide Karen P. Hughes, now a $15,000-a-month consultant to the Republican National Committee, has been playing a key role in advising President Bush and the administration on a communications strategy for the Iraq war.Hughes flew with Bush on Air Force One to the Azores on Sunday and helped to draft his speech to the nation delivered Monday night. Hughes briefed reporters in the White House on Monday in advance of Bush's speech, saying he would offer exile as the only option to avoid an attack. And Hughes, who officials say has worked from the White House for the past week, has played a key role in developing the administration's plan for a coordinated communications strategy during the Iraq war.
The arrangement has prompted accusations from Democrats and government watchdog groups that the role of Hughes improperly blends politics and government business. Democrats complain that the presence of Hughes gives an inherently political tinge to the war effort. "George Bush should be focused on winning this war and making sure our troops are safe, not on how his partisan campaign hacks are going to score political points in the aftermath," said David Sirota, [partisan campaign hack] for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee.
What's wrong with politicizing the war, as Tom Daschle did in his vile floor speech? Democrats oppose the war and support Saddam. Republicans support it and oppose Saddam. Take the issue to the people and let them decide who they want to govern them. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 20, 2003 12:18 PM
I know you don't like him, but I consider Harry Hopkins one of the great Americans of the 20th century. And his official position was exactly as Hughes's. So, fair's fair, is Milbank going to retrospectively read the riot act to FDR?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 20, 2003 3:06 PMHarry:
Are you saying that Karen Hughes is an agent of a foreign enemy government?
One should keep in mind that Hughes
is the daughter of General Hugh Parfitt, Gov of the Panama Canal
Zone, and as such has some awareness of the military and re-construction efforts required
No, and you should stop saying that about Hopkins, unless you've got some evidence.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 20, 2003 6:25 PMI don't know if he was a paid agent, but he was a functionary of the Soviet Union:
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/november_2000_4.html
I keep getting this feeling that the US is destined to always have a "Stupid Party." As the Republicans finally begin to show that they don't want that position, the Democrats seem eager to take over.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 20, 2003 7:14 PMI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and
universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
-John Stuart Mill
Actually, oj, Mill was wrong. Stupid people just generally think they are conservative, but being stupid they're wrong. Mill, who was not stupid, took the stupid people at their word. Go figure.
Posted by: Mike Petrik the Gentleman at March 20, 2003 7:57 PMThat's pretty funny. So they lost contact with their key agent?
Venona was a damp squib. All those names were known to me as commies a long time ago.
Wanting a satisfactory-to-USSR government in Poland was, if not exactly heroic, practical sense. If that makes you a Kremlin agent, there were as many Kremlin agents as there were conspirators who killed Kennedy -- tens of thousands.
Not impressed.
Harry:
Of course they were known, but they were denied. Venona merely proved the Right's wildest allegations true.
For almost all of them, there was plenty of proof anyway. Surely you read Weinstein's "Witness"?
And actually, the Right's wildest allegations were not true. Well, maybe, in Britain they were.