By PHK
A twofur for State and all in one week?
Would someone please tell me why the October 18 dinner at the State Department during Ramadan suddenly became not only such a big deal, but was also turned into yet another press opportunity for Karen Hughes to use to fawn over the importance of Muslim women?
In her presumably after-dinner Iftar speech, Hughes highlighted three Muslim women from the 7th century: one was Khadija, Mohammed’s first wife, the second Fatima, his daughter and the third from the same period – one of many female, largely unknown Islamic jurists named Amara bin Al-Rahman who Hughes practically diefied as “a boundless ocean of knowledge.”
Paul Kretkowski at Beacon points out that the tale Hughes told about Al-Rahman uncannily resembles the same story highlighted in UCLA Law Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl’s essay “In Recognition of Women.” Not just the story, but the description and some of the language about Al-Rahman has an all too familiar ring. Now Hughes’ repeating the story of Al-Rahman’s “boundless ocean of knowledge” which men sought out could have been kosher. But with no attribution? Isn’t that just a bit - well something? Or worse?
But why didn’t Hughes honor a single female Muslim who lived in more contemporary times? Does that mean she doesn’t think there are any worthy of note? It’s as if Ahmadinejad’s press spokesman gave a speech in honor of Betsy Ross, Martha Washington and Abigail Adams on – well - Flag Day and conveniently forgot that we have many contemporary American women who are equally important to our society.
Or am I being unkind?
No, really, what did I miss? Is there some kind of special relationship between Iftar (which means a meal - one of 27 or so during Ramadan - that breaks the fast each evening when the sun goes down) and three smart women who also happened to become three of the world’s early Muslims? Or what about Iftar and Muslim women in general? What’s the special relationship? If there is one. It’s not like Iftar is International Muslim Women’s Day or something.
Regardless, State Public Affairs went out of its way to publicize this eighth floor dinner – but to what avail? Iftar dinners, as I understand it, are celebratory – but they're not exactly Eid-ul-Fitr – the major feast that signifies the end of Ramadan and which is more comparable to Christmas dinner for Christians. And tying Iftar to a special recognition of Muslim women really stretches credulity.
Seems to me, then, the Department’s much hyped Iftar dinner last week had all too much in common with this administration’s first post 9/11 video – the brainchild of one of Hughes’ predecessors, the Kentucky Fried Chicken queen - which most Muslim governments fortunately refused to allow airing on their home turf it was so bad. But if you really want a treat, take a look at Ms. Hughes shrouded in an oversized headscarf at this year’s Eid dinner this evening in Fairfax, Virginia. This is as good as any of Princess Sparkle Pony’s photos of Condi.
Moreover, I don’t know who wrote Hughes’ Iftar speech, but putting aside the possible plagiarism issue, to compare Condi, as Hughes did, with an early Muslim religious heroine who was capable of explaining jurisprudence to men is, in my view, poor taste.
And exactly where was Condi last week anyway? Nick Burns and Karen Hughes were left to tend to this media op eighth floor dinner.
Apparently Condi was in Asia trying to patch up the Bush administration’s counterproductive policies towards North Korea. A legitimate excuse for her absence, but this didn’t need to occur if W’s crew had handled the situation with North Korea differently from the beginning. But no, they were determined to write their own rules.
The perils of a slip of the tongue
So Alfredo Fernandez, one of the State Department’s very few really competent Arabic speakers (they can be counted on one hand I understand) “misspoke” in an interview on Al Jezeera on Saturday and was then forced to recant in writing by the Department on Sunday. What did he say that was so awful? That there had been “arrogance and stupidity” in Iraq on the part of the U.S.
As John Brown pointed out in his Press and Blog Review this morning, “A Google search suggests that no public-diplomacy related news item has received more coverage in blogs and the media in recent months than the Fernandez statement discussed below. The entries cited are only a small portion of the reports (many of them from wire services) on this issue.”
Just for the record, it’s worth reading what Fernandez said in response to an Al Jezeera question. Here’s the relevant part of the CNN after-action report:
"History will decide what role the United States played," he told Al-Jazeera in Arabic, based on CNN translations. "And God willing, we tried to do our best in Iraq. But I think there is a big possibility (inaudible) for extreme criticism and because undoubtedly there was arrogance and stupidity from the United States in Iraq." Fernandez told CNN he was replying to a question about how people will assess the United States in the future, and he said he thought that was how the country would be judged.
He cited as an example a speech made in March by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
During a visit to Blackburn, England, Rice acknowledged to journalists that mistakes had been made in the war. "I am quite certain there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush administration," she said. "I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure ... But when you look back in history, what will be judged" is whether the "right strategic decision" was made.
It’s also well worth reading Mark Lynch’s (Abu Aardvark’s) link to the AP translation of the entire interview from its Baghdad bureau – as well as reflecting long and hard on Lynch’s description of Fernandez’ pivotal role in carrying the Bush administration’s heavy water over the past several years in an incredibly hostile media climate.
True Fernandez should have been hyper-careful - given the extreme sensitivity of the Bush administration to any form of self-criticism particularly in the run up to Congressional elections in which its failed Iraq policy is the issue and public opinion is not going W’s way. But come on, was Fernandez’ comment all that far from Condi’s own assessment of the same mess to journalists when she was in England in March? Don’t recall she was forced to make a public apology when she "misspoke."
So Fernandez veered from the official spin and spoke the truth on the record for a change. He certainly isn’t the only American to make that same point. I’m reading Tom Ricks’ book Fiasco and there are any number of Americans including, or especially, the U.S. military who have served in Iraq who would agree with Fernandez. And Fiasco is just one of an increasing number of eye witness accounts that accuse the administration of “arrogance and stupidity” in Iraq – and far worse. Such books document the mistakes and failures in excruciating detail.
It seems to me then that such an admission on the part of the administration would be the first thing it should do if it wants to try to begin to right a terribly “stupid and arrogant” policy – not chastise a poor press spokesperson in one of the hardest jobs in the world for a single slip of the tongue.
But then this administration’s policies are always right. Or so W and company contend. There’s always someone else to blame and Fernandez became this week’s scapegoat in this deadly finger-pointing game. Yet, blame games can only be played for so long before the finger is pointed directly where it belongs.