Karen Hughes Teaches Constitutional Law

[Stephen Maturin]

This is old news, but I just found out about it so I'm posting now. Any of you bitches have a problem with that? I didn't think so.

Karen Hughes is Bush's undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. She's also a nasty ol' Rebitchlifuck heffa and all-around pig-eyed sack of shit.

Hughes recently returned from a five-day "listening tour" to Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As she tells the story, a member of the Egyptian opposition party asked her during lunch why Bush mentions God so often in public speeches. Hughes responded as follows:

And I asked whether he was aware that previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our Constitution cites "one nation under God." (Emphasis added.)

There are only two explanations for this lunacy, both of which are very bad for Hughes. First, she might simply be a bedwetting idiot who actually believes that "our Constitution cites 'one nation under God.'" In that event, she's too stupid and/or misinformed to hold public office and should resign forthwith.

Second, she might know full well that the Constitution doesn't cite, quote, mention, imply, suggest or even hint "one nation under God" but she simply doesn't care. After all, her experience in the Bush administration has likely taught her that no lie is too ridiculous or easily debunked to refrain from telling. In that event, she's too big a dissembler to hold public office and should resign forthwith.

And the "under God" fuck-up wasn't the only problem that cropped up on Karen's little tour. Click here for a synopsis of the whole fiasco with plenty of links to check out.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Third option: she is a bed-wetting idiot who just doesn't care.

I'm putting my money on that one.

I liked her repeated "Saddam gassed 300,000 of his own people" claims the best.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ms_ann_thrope

Third option: she is a bed-wetting idiot who just doesn't care.

I'm putting my money on that one.

I liked her repeated "Saddam gassed 300,000 of his own people" claims the best.

Does she mention that the United States provided him the poison gas?

[Cool Hand]

Ahem. Excuse me, have you ever been questioned live, by television reporters, on camera?

Do you have any idea how many IQ points you lose when that camera light comes on while it's pointing in your face, even if you're a pro at it?

Yeah, so our Constitution does not contain those words. Our pledge of allegiance does, however, so it doesn't take too much imagination to suppose how even a very bright, otherwise well-spoken person could make the mistake under pressure. Any of us could.

*******************

Godfry, why do you hate our country so much? You seem to miss few opportunities to bash it.

CH

[D. Scarlatti]

Call me crazy, but I'd expect a somewhat enhanced comprehension of the U.S. Constitution from an Undersecretary of State, particularly one on a diplomatic mission to the Middle East in this day and age. Then again, Harriet Miers thinks there's a "proportional representation" requirement in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and she stands a good chance of sitting on the Supreme Court. Surely it can't be too much to ask for either to actually read the document before engaging it.

[Raging_Storms]

Pardon my bad spelling but Condelica Rice isn't very safe either is she? I don't live in America but watching her speeches on British TV reminds me of a Prototype ED 209 gone very very wrong... I'm also not sure how to message other people or recieve messages from other people so I'd really...REALLY.... appreciate the help...someone...?Anyone?....helloo.....<whine><so b><sniff>

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Ahem. Excuse me, have you ever been questioned live, by television reporters, on camera?

Do you have any idea how many IQ points you lose when that camera light comes on while it's pointing in your face, even if you're a pro at it?

Yeah, so our Constitution does not contain those words. Our pledge of allegiance does, however, so it doesn't take too much imagination to suppose how even a very bright, otherwise well-spoken person could make the mistake under pressure. Any of us could.

*******************

Godfry, why do you hate our country so much? You seem to miss few opportunities to bash it.

CH

Umm.... I actually love this country. I have severe difficulties with those who would make themselves authorities in this country, particularly the current administration, which is clueless and illicit, in my opinion.

That this administration can lie about our involvement in Iraq, send our citizens on extended stays in a war zone where they are placed in harm's way...on a pretense...despite several credible sources telling us that we shouldn't undertake it (including the current president's father, the former president), and then claim we've got it under control...

I love my country and want it to stop making egregious diplomatic and military mistakes. I love the US Constitution and would like to see it actually observed, even by the Supreme Court, which currrently has four members who should, in my opinion, be impeached and stand trial for crimes against the state. Same with Bush and Cheney.

What I want to know, Cool Hand, is why you hate your fellow Americans that you want them to be killed in a senseless and illicit conflict? Do you have an appointment in the Bush administration, or are you just a compulsive brown-noser?

And, yes, I have been interviewed in front of television cameras. I didn't say anything even half as stupid as the Undersecretary of State.

Also, if she doesn't know that the "Under God" portion was added during the witchhunt period of the 1950s, and should have been promptly discarded by the Supreme Court as an "official support of government for specific religious belief" in violation of the tenets of the separation of church and state, then she is indeed a moron and needs to resign immediately.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Call me crazy, but I'd expect a somewhat enhanced comprehension of the U.S. Constitution from an Undersecretary of State, particularly one on a diplomatic mission to the Middle East in this day and age. Then again, Harriet Miers thinks there's a "proportional representation" requirement in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and she stands a good chance of sitting on the Supreme Court. Surely it can't be too much to ask for either to actually read the document before engaging it.

Not my point and you know it. Get on live TV with reporters jockeying to ask you questions and then try to recite the alphabet without pausing.

CH

[Cool Hand]

Yeah, Godfry, take any strawman that supports whatever devil notion you have that I am, and I support it, lock, stock, and barrel. Hell, I even wanted Bambi's mom to die.

I just can't stand your brand of self-serving, gamesaying nonsense. It's ugly rhetoric without a shred of thought behind it.

CH

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Not my point and you know it.

What is your point then? That, of all people, Karen Hughes got a little tongue-tied and misspoke in a reporters' scrum? Come on.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

What is your point then? That, of all people, Karen Hughes got a little tongue-tied and misspoke in a reporters' scrum? Come on.

Possible. It happens, and virtually every politician (and news reporter) who has spoken on TV enough times has said something on the stupid side.

I'm sick of the automatic knee-jerk bullshit here that makes out any conservative to be an idiot. That's all the two possible reasons given allowed for. That's my point.

CH

[D. Scarlatti]

Well I don't need to speak for Maturin, but it's a pretty damn idiotic thing to assert for anyone of any political stripe, let alone an Undersecretary of State on a diplomatic mission to the Middle East. If you don't mind that sort of national representation abroad on your behalf, that's fine. But I can see some people finding it pretty offensive.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Yeah, Godfry, take any strawman that supports whatever devil notion you have that I am, and I support it, lock, stock, and barrel. Hell, I even wanted Bambi's mom to die.

I just can't stand your brand of self-serving, gamesaying nonsense. It's ugly rhetoric without a shred of thought behind it.

CH

Well, Fool Hand, then put me on "ignore".

How are my comments "self-serving, gamesaying nonsense" and yours are not? Typically Republican. The United States did provide poison gas to Iraq. Indeed, right up the the invasion of Kuwait (which was approved in a conversation between Sadat Hussein and the United States ambassador to Iraq), the United States was the largest supplier of armaments and munitions to Iraq. Sadam Hussein was one of our groomed puppet dictators.

If you want to wave the flag and push your nose back up between Dubious George's buttcheeks, then fine, but you're doing a piss-poor job trying to spin Republican fuckhead propaganda into something believable.

And, you started this with your dumb-assed strawman. Take responsibility for your own actions, dickhead.

[ms_ann_thrope]

It's not just that Karen Hughes said one dumb thing during one tongue-tied instance of camera-fright. She's been making moronic statements throughout her little tour of the Middle East. And the thing is... she seems not to learn from her experiences! After being challenged by some women in her Saudi Arabian audiences, I would've expected that she would redouble her efforts to speak more accurately and sensitively for the rest of her junket. But no. Based on this, I think it's a fair guess that she is moronic, doesn't care, or both.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Well I don't need to speak for Maturin, but it's a pretty damn idiotic thing to assert for anyone of any political stripe, let alone an Undersecretary of State on a diplomatic mission to the Middle East. If you don't mind that sort of national representation abroad on your behalf, that's fine. But I can see some people finding it pretty offensive.

It must be nice to be so privileged and infallible that you never make a mistake or gaff.

CH

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

It must be nice to be so privileged and infallible that you never make a mistake or gaff.

I wouldn't know, since I'm none of those things. Neither do I know why your defense of Ms. Hughes is so adamant. As I said, I don't purport to speak for the OP, and since your quarrel seems to be with him for providing only two explanatory options for the Undersecretary of State's laughable characterization of the Constitution, you should probably take it up with him.

However, I think it's fairly safe to say that if the speaker had been a liberal or a Democrat, the criticism would have been every bit as pointed, and every bit as richly deserved.

[Godless Dave]

I make mistakes and gaffes frequently, but I have not been appointed to a high level diplomatic position that requires public speaking.

[Clutch Munny]

One misstatement does not a pattern make.

But if the pattern of sloppiness or incompetence is supposed to be obvious, pointing out one more instance is reasonable.

The transcript reads fairly clearly to me. It is hard to speak precisely on camera, under pressure, when you're jet-lagged, but aside from grammatical awkwardness here and there if "Constitution" was just a misstatement it seems to have been the only one. (Though it's possible she was saying "Egyptian" when she meant "Saudi" and so forth.) CH's case would be more plausible if SM's example was only one of many, including some that were politically and legally irrelevant.

[Godless Dave]

You know what? I'm getting sick of conservatives getting defensive whenever someone criticizes a member of the Bush administration.

First of all, we're not criticizing you. We are criticizing people with a documented track record of lying, incompetence, and cronyism.

Second, George W. Bush is not a conservative. Bush supports big government. Bush opposes some civil liberties. Bush opposes balanced federal budgets. Bush supports using the military for things other than national security. Increasing government spending while pushing the tax burden onto states and municipalities does not meet any definition of conservative I am familiar with.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Yeah, so our Constitution does not contain those words. Our pledge of allegiance does, however, so it doesn't take too much imagination to suppose how even a very bright, otherwise well-spoken person could make the mistake under pressure. Any of us could.

You know, I completely sympathize with that. Camera lights or no, I'm the guy who says Argentina when I mean Algeria, who stumbles over phonetically similar words, who stutters and gets flummoxed at even the simplest thing. I cannot think on my feet when faced with a pointed question, much less a pointed camera.

But that's not what happened.

That wasn't simply a slip of the tongue. That was a substantive argument. Did she mean to say that "under God" was in the Pledge of Allegiance? What kind of argument is that? The PoA doesn't have the force of law. It's not a legal principle. It's a silly, stupid little oath of fealty, which is, IMO, fundamentally Unamerican.

To confuse THAT with the Constitution would be a fairly heinous Freudian slip, indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding and appreciation of the guiding principles on which this nation was founded.

"Pledge of Allegiance" and "Constitution" are neither phonetically nor theoretically similar. They're very, very different things. Had she meant to say "Pledge of Allegiance" and said, "Pledge Furniture Polish" had she called the Constitution the Conflagration, I'd sympathize. Had she misquoted something, stumbled, or even just lost her train of thought, I might even wince in solidarity.

But that's not what happened. She was making a very fundamental argument that indicates that, in one way or another, she doesn't have much of a grasp of even the most elementary principles the nation was founded on.

She could have argued that although Bush is the president, he is also a private citizen with deeply held beliefs, and that he feels strongly about conveying them. She could have argued that the Constitution protects every American's right to express his or her beliefs. She could have said that the US has a long tradition of recognizing religion, and that it is not in fact unusual for a president to invoke a higher power.

She didn't, though. And she wasn't trying to say anything like that, either, unless that was a gaffe on the order of the monkeys and typewriters thing.

It's pretty clear that at some level or another, she conflates the Constitution and the Pledge. What that particular level is isn't of much import, as far as I'm concerned.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Yeah, Godfry, take any strawman that supports whatever devil notion you have that I am, and I support it, lock, stock, and barrel. Hell, I even wanted Bambi's mom to die.

I take it you have no answer to what godfry actually said?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Ahem.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Excuse me, have you ever been questioned live, by television reporters, on camera?

Yes. Not nearly as many times as Karen Hughes, but yes.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Do you have any idea how many IQ points you lose when that camera light comes on while it's pointing in your face, even if you're a pro at it?

Zero. Extreme nervousness is a distinct possibility for most folks (though not for Karen Hughes, whose sole "qualification" for her current job appears to be a stint as a tee vee reporter in Dallas), but you don't lose IQ points.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Yeah, so our Constitution does not contain those words. Our pledge of allegiance does, however, so it doesn't take too much imagination to suppose how even a very bright, otherwise well-spoken person could make the mistake under pressure. Any of us could.

Oh, come on, man. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the event at issue was in fact a videotaped press conference.* I, for one, wouldn't make that particular "mistake" with a thousand cameras pointing at me. Neither would you. The chances that a highly experienced media whore like Hughes simply committed a slip of the tongue here are infinitesimally remote.

Then again, it's possible that Hughes is every bit as Jesus-addled as President Bush. If that's the case, she likely wants the Constitution and the Pledge all melded together and one could reasonably call the statement in question a Freudian "mistake."

So yes, you're correct; there are more than two possibilities.

*The trancript describes the event as a "Briefing En Route to Ankara, Turkey." That description is perfectly consistent with an audiotaped sit-down on a plane.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh, come on, man. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the event at issue was in fact a videotaped press conference.* I, for one, wouldn't make that particular "mistake" with a thousand cameras pointing at me. Neither would you. The chances that a highly experienced media whore like Hughes simply committed a slip of the tongue here are infinitesimally remote.

Then again, it's possible that Hughes is every bit as Jesus-addled as President Bush. If that's the case, she likely wants the Constitution and the Pledge all melded together and one could reasonably call the statement in question a Freudian "mistake."

So yes, you're correct; there are more than two possibilities.

*The trancript describes the event as a "Briefing En Route to Ankara, Turkey." That description is perfectly consistent with an audiotaped sit-down on a plane.

OK, I'm willing to go with that. It's reasoned, and not a knee-jerk response. I wish more political criticism here would look like yours immediately above, and not like your OP and the mutual back-slapping "aren't we superior?" bullshit responses that tended to follow it (not all of them were, and in particular I think Clutch Munny and lisarea gave thoughtful and funny responses).

I've mentioned it here before -- although it's been quite some time -- but I think too often the posters here are not aware of just how hostile an atmosphere we create here at FF to expressing ideas which might be dissenting from our own politically. This board is very skewed to the left. There's nothing wrong with that by itself, but the vitriol so many of us display towards anyone associated with the right, or even sometimes the center, is disproportionate, unwarranted, and not very critical. I don't like it one bit.

CH

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

OK, I'm willing to go with that. It's reasoned, and not a knee-jerk response. I wish more political criticism here would look like yours immediately above, and not like your OP and the mutual back-slapping "aren't we superior?" bullshit responses that tended to follow it (not all of them were, and in particular I think Clutch Munny and lisarea gave thoughtful and funny responses).

I've mentioned it here before -- although it's been quite some time -- but I think too often the posters here are not aware of just how hostile an atmosphere we create here at FF to expressing ideas which might be dissenting from our own politically. This board is very skewed to the left. There's nothing wrong with that by itself, but the vitriol so many of us display towards anyone associated with the right, or even sometimes the center, is disproportionate, unwarranted, and not very critical. I don't like it one bit.

CH

Well, isn't that just too fuckin' bad?

If you object to this kind of stuff, you should separate yourself from all claims of being a "conservative" or "Republican", because their ideologues have been doing it and worse for over ten years.

I'll bet Hughes never said a thing about selling poison gases to Sadam....They like to sweep that crap under the rug and prance around on the world stage like they're some kind of saint. Fuckin' hypocrites.

And, I had the courtesy to answer your question, yet you have yet to answer mine. To repeat: Why do you hate your fellow Americans that you want them to be killed in a senseless and illicit conflict?

[wei yau]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

OK, I'm willing to go with that. It's reasoned, and not a knee-jerk response. I wish more political criticism here would look like yours immediately above, and not like your OP and the mutual back-slapping "aren't we superior?" bullshit responses that tended to follow it (not all of them were, and in particular I think Clutch Munny and lisarea gave thoughtful and funny responses).

However, your first post in this thread was only the fourth post. Aside from the OP, there were only two other posts. Now, the OP was fairly tame as far vitriol is concerned. I've seen much worse, as have you in this very forum. The second post was more of an offhand commentary, though certainly not flattering towards Ms. Hughes. The third post did little more than echo the second post.

And then here's come your post. Did you elevate the level of political criticsm? Did you try to steer the conversation into more nuanced areas of discussion?

I don't think so. Instead, you offered up a flimsy line of reasoning that I doubt you fully believe. You must know Karen Hughes is a masterful PR person and is very unlikely to commit such mistakes under any type of media scrutiny.

Even now, do you further the conversation with some insightful and critical discussion on how politicians use language to play to any given audience? Or perhaps on how best it would be for any political to discuss the influence of religion on their politics? Or maybe even, talk about how Arab nations are inordinately concerned with the Christian beliefs of most mainstream American politicians?

Nope. You don't.

Instead, you elect to take another unwarranted and unsubstantiated potshot at this forum.

I've mentioned it here before -- although it's been quite some time -- but I think too often the posters here are not aware of just how hostile an atmosphere we create here at FF to expressing ideas which might be dissenting from our own politically. This board is very skewed to the left. There's nothing wrong with that by itself, but the vitriol so many of us display towards anyone associated with the right, or even sometimes the center, is disproportionate, unwarranted, and not very critical. I don't like it one bit.

And you're right, I still don't see what you're talking about. To cast this board as far left is ridiculous. To say that this board shuts down dissenting opinion is bullshit. There are some here who may be very left. There are some who are very vitriolic. But, to say that the entire board is the same is just as much bullshit as Sweetie's attempt to cast the entire board as enabling harassment and verbal abuse.

Look at alphamale, nothing is slowing him down. And I'd say his opinion qualifies as dissenting. You may be skewed to the right, there's nothing wrong with that by itself. But, I've not seen you speak out against the vitriol he displays against anything associated with the left. His vitriol is decidedly unwarranted and not very critical. But, you don't seem to mind it one bit.

We're all adults. You don't like someone's specific brand of bullshit, call them on it (as you did with godfry). But, please, stop with this "the whole board is against me and keeps me from speaking". You're an adult. Most of us are adult. Would it be possible to act like one and just simply take responsibility for your own actions and act responsibly?

Just like then, I'll say the same thing. It's up to you to elevate the conversation, it's up to you do to more than simply shout "I'm being repressed!" It's also up to you to realize that there are some of us who discuss politics and feel strongly about it, there are some of those who don't discuss politics at all and sometimes if harsh words are cast at certain conservative elements in current American politics...and this one might be tough to believe....IT'S. NOT. ABOUT. YOU.