

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In a piece about Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to build a coalition to support the attack the Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/18/14) made a curious assertion about the US government's position on Egypt:
When Kerry appeared with Egypt's foreign minister later in the day, the Egyptian seemed to set a price: increased US assistance against Islamic radicals within Egypt and in neighboring Libya. And Kerry was forced to respond gingerly when asked about local human-rights abuses, a longtime US concern in the repressive country, saying Egypt would take steps "on an appropriate schedule that is controlled by Egyptians, not by me."
The idea that the United States is being forced to suspend any "longtime concerns" about Egyptian human rights is hard to square with reality. For several decades, the United States considered brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak an ally; the initial US government response to the 2011 uprisings that would remove him from power was supportive (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/1/11). The New York Times noted (1/27/11) that "Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms," while Vice President Joe Biden challenged the notion that Mubarak was a dictator at all (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).
And WikiLeaks cables showed that the Obama administration was backing off even making public criticisms of the regime's human rights abuses; the New York Times (1/27/11) reported that the documents
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."
Of course, the Egypt story didn't end with Mubarak's ouster. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won presidential elections in 2012, only to be removed by a military coup a year later. It is believed that as many as 2,500 were killed by Egyptian forces following the coup (The Nation, 5/8/14). The United States did not condemn the coup, and would eventually welcome former military leader Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who in elections staged by the coup regime this year won an incredible, Mubarak-like 96 percent of the vote.
US leaders occasionally issue statements about their concern for human rights in a given country. But when judging a government's actual position, the clear, decades-long record should be matter more than the rhetoric-especially to journalists.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
In a piece about Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to build a coalition to support the attack the Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/18/14) made a curious assertion about the US government's position on Egypt:
When Kerry appeared with Egypt's foreign minister later in the day, the Egyptian seemed to set a price: increased US assistance against Islamic radicals within Egypt and in neighboring Libya. And Kerry was forced to respond gingerly when asked about local human-rights abuses, a longtime US concern in the repressive country, saying Egypt would take steps "on an appropriate schedule that is controlled by Egyptians, not by me."
The idea that the United States is being forced to suspend any "longtime concerns" about Egyptian human rights is hard to square with reality. For several decades, the United States considered brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak an ally; the initial US government response to the 2011 uprisings that would remove him from power was supportive (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/1/11). The New York Times noted (1/27/11) that "Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms," while Vice President Joe Biden challenged the notion that Mubarak was a dictator at all (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).
And WikiLeaks cables showed that the Obama administration was backing off even making public criticisms of the regime's human rights abuses; the New York Times (1/27/11) reported that the documents
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."
Of course, the Egypt story didn't end with Mubarak's ouster. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won presidential elections in 2012, only to be removed by a military coup a year later. It is believed that as many as 2,500 were killed by Egyptian forces following the coup (The Nation, 5/8/14). The United States did not condemn the coup, and would eventually welcome former military leader Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who in elections staged by the coup regime this year won an incredible, Mubarak-like 96 percent of the vote.
US leaders occasionally issue statements about their concern for human rights in a given country. But when judging a government's actual position, the clear, decades-long record should be matter more than the rhetoric-especially to journalists.
In a piece about Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to build a coalition to support the attack the Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, Time magazine's Michael Crowley (9/18/14) made a curious assertion about the US government's position on Egypt:
When Kerry appeared with Egypt's foreign minister later in the day, the Egyptian seemed to set a price: increased US assistance against Islamic radicals within Egypt and in neighboring Libya. And Kerry was forced to respond gingerly when asked about local human-rights abuses, a longtime US concern in the repressive country, saying Egypt would take steps "on an appropriate schedule that is controlled by Egyptians, not by me."
The idea that the United States is being forced to suspend any "longtime concerns" about Egyptian human rights is hard to square with reality. For several decades, the United States considered brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak an ally; the initial US government response to the 2011 uprisings that would remove him from power was supportive (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/1/11). The New York Times noted (1/27/11) that "Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms," while Vice President Joe Biden challenged the notion that Mubarak was a dictator at all (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).
And WikiLeaks cables showed that the Obama administration was backing off even making public criticisms of the regime's human rights abuses; the New York Times (1/27/11) reported that the documents
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."
Of course, the Egypt story didn't end with Mubarak's ouster. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won presidential elections in 2012, only to be removed by a military coup a year later. It is believed that as many as 2,500 were killed by Egyptian forces following the coup (The Nation, 5/8/14). The United States did not condemn the coup, and would eventually welcome former military leader Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who in elections staged by the coup regime this year won an incredible, Mubarak-like 96 percent of the vote.
US leaders occasionally issue statements about their concern for human rights in a given country. But when judging a government's actual position, the clear, decades-long record should be matter more than the rhetoric-especially to journalists.