Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Defining a Dictatorship: The US Role in Egypt
Yesterday (FAIR Blog, 1/27/11) the Washington Post tried to argue that U.S. policy under the Obama administration has shifted to one of open support for pro-democracy movements in Egypt and Tunisia. There was little, if any, evidence to support this idea.
Today (1/28/11) the New York Times steps in with a report based largely on WikiLeaks cables that paints a rather unflattering portrait of Obama policy towards Egypt. As the Times put it, the cables
show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.
But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public "name and shame" approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided "the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years."
The Times story unfortunately buries some of the most damning details:
American diplomats also cast a wide net to gather information on police brutality, the cables show. Through contacts with human rights lawyers, the embassy follows numerous cases, and raised some with the Interior Ministry. Among the most harrowing, according to a cable, was the treatment of several members of a Hezbollah cell detained by the police in late 2008.
Lawyers representing the men said they were subjected to electric shocks and sleep deprivation, which reduced them to a "zombie state." They said the torture was more severe than what they normally witnessed.
To the extent that Mr. Mubarak has been willing to tolerate reforms, the cable said, it has been in areas not related to public security or stability. For example, he has given his wife latitude to campaign for women's rights and against practices like female genital mutilation and child labor, which are sanctioned by some conservative Islamic groups.
So a key U.S. ally is run by a torturing, election-rigging authoritarian who the U.S. mostly refrains from criticizing in public. "Cables Show Delicate U.S. Dealings With Egypt's Leaders" would seem to be a rather gentle way of putting it. Scanning coverage of the protests in Egypt overall, it seems like long-standing U.S. support (including billions in military aid) receives scant attention.
But U.S. policymakers are being asked the tough questions, right? Not exactly. Here's Jim Lehrer at the PBS NewsHour (1/27/11) in an exclusive sit-down with Joe Biden:
LEHRER: The word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?
BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be--I would not refer to him as a dictator.
Lehrer has long viewed his job as not pushing his powerful guests too hard. "My part of journalism is to present what various people say," as he once put it . "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism." That's a good thing for Biden.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


10 Comments so far
Show Allbligh4
Egypt has been run by dictators since before Nasser. Not going to change any time soon. Mubarek will be replaced by another dictator, secular or religious.
The US did cozy up to Pol Pot in the 1970s. The US backed UN recognition of the Khmer Rouge as a way to counter an increase Vietnamese power.
"Lehrer has long viewed his job as not pushing his powerful guests too hard. "My part of journalism is to present what various people say," as he once put it . "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism.""
Let's rephrase Lehrer's remarks:
"My part of stenographer is to present what various people say," as he once put it . "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism."
I abandoned the PBS News Hour without regret after 9/11.
Long ago, when I still bought into the facile dichotomy of "liberal" vs. "conservative", I mistakenly believed that despite their on-air harmony, Robert MacNeil was probably the more stodgily "conservative", while Jim Lehrer was the more "liberal"-- or at least more aggressive, skeptical, and even a tad iconoclastic. I was deceived by appearances; in retrospect, it was obviously the other way around.
And before THAT, when I became acquainted with the pair in their pre-News Hour "MacNeil-Lehrer Report", I had the impression that despite their respectable button-down appearance, the program was subversive in the best sense of the term, more or less in the political/journalist countercultural muckraking tradition of I.F. Stone. It challenged Official Versions of events.
You may remember Dan Rather's embarrassing, mawkish, maudlin outburst on some late-night talk show days after 9/11/01-- Letterman, IIRC-- when Rather declared that he was ready to do whatever his president asked him to do in response to the alleged terrorist attacks. He emotionally blathered something along the lines of "Mister President, just tell me where you want me to be and I'll be there!"
Around that time, it finally clicked that Jim Lehrer had the exact same substrate of Establishment-defending reactionary jingo patriotism. Although Lehrer credits his stint in the Marine Corps as an eye-opening, consciousness-raising experience, it's obvious that he's never transcended his flag-saluting Inner Jarhead.
When Lehrer vigorously defended the Stenography School of Journalism by declaring disingenuously that it wasn't their job to practice "advocacy journalism" by being openly skeptical or confontational towards government spokespersons and/or the Official Stories they presented on the News Hour, but simply to "report" statements by officials or analysts in order for the audience to decide their merits, it removed all doubt.
Lehrer's journalistic philosophy reduces "questioning authority" to a rote exercise in complacent, deferential obsequiousness. That's why the Snooze Hour has become the perfect "flagship" news program for the fully-corporatized and neutered PBS network.
Lehrer's not in the journalism part of journalism. His show should be called, "The Jim Lehrer Suck Up to Power Hour."
Progressive101 January 29th, 2011 2:04 am
Reports that Lehrer said in some interview:
"My part of stenographer is to present what various people say," as he once put it . "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism."
That's exactly what he does after Robin McNeil left the show - - stenography.
He types up news copy and asks his bosses in the oligarchy if his copy is correct. If they say "yes" he moves onto the next page. If they say "no", he types up a newspeak version to ask whether that Orewllian version is correct.
I stopped watching that fart after he didn't take anybody in the Bush/Chenney administration to task for anything at all on 9/11 or the Iraq war. If this bozo article author considers that Lehrer epitomizes the best of American journalism, I am at a loss whether to pity the American public or this fellow or both.
I am getting a bit tired of this American, Australian, Anglo world crocodile tears and internecine finger pointing "you screwed up" now that things have gotten out of their control in Egypt and soon all over the ME on CD. I would request CD to provide views of more informed NON-AMERICAN journalists on the ground (please not Fisk again) where the events are happening, for once in America's recent history, while it and it's somnolent population have their attention span on a world changing situation as it develops please.
One article per day on Wikileaks cables is enough. No statistically significant sample of the protestors in Tunisia or Egypt, as far as I know, and I may be wrong on this (prove it), has said they were inspired to the major world order changing revolution that they are carrying out on the ground with their blood, sweat and tears by Wikileaks cables.
Every dictator is surrounded by bully buddies with responsibility for making lots of money. They're generally very well organized. They even have friends in the media who make them look like fine, upstanding citizens.