The United States sent former ambassador Frank Wisner to Egypt to talk to Hosni Mubarak. Wisner garnered headlines when he declared support for Mubarak staying in power, causing the White House to try and argue that wasn’t the message the White House was trying to send.
But Wisner’s background was worth more attention. As Pratap Chatterjee reported (Inter Press Service, 2/4/11):
Frank Wisner, the former U.S. ambassador that President Barack Obama dispatched to Cairo earlier this week to advise President Hosni Mubarak, is employed by Patton Boggs, a law firm and registered lobbyist. On its website Patton Boggs summarises the contracts that it has won in the last 20 years to advise the Egyptian military, leading “commercial families in Egypt” as well as “manage contractor disputes in military sales agreements arising under the US Foreign Military Sales Act.”
Shortly thereafter, Robert Fisk of the Independent weighed in with a column (2/7/11) adding more details about Patton Boggs, noting that Wisner’s pro-Mubarak comments were in line with his employer’s long-standing ties to the regime and Egyptian corporate interests. Fisk pointed out that this wasn’t getting much attention from the corporate media:
Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials—nor the blatant conflict of interest it appears to represent.
That’s still the case—but some reporters are attempting to debunk Fisk’s story.
New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote a piece for the paper’s website (2/7/11) where she pointed out that the story of Wisner’s conflict “erupted in the blogosphere”—we all know what that means—and that Fisk was wrong:
Mr. Wisner’s comments prompted the Independent, a British newspaper, to accuse him of conflict of interest and to assert—incorrectly, Patton Boggs said—that Mr. Wisner “works for a New York and Washington law firm that works for the dictator’s own Egyptian government.”
Obviously Wisner does work for Patton Boggs.What Stolberg is reporting is that the company doesn’t work for the Egyptian government (which was part of Fisk’s case). That debunking relies on the word of a Patton Boggs spokesperson, who said this:
But Mr. Newberry said that while Patton Boggs does represent “a very small number” of corporate clients in Egypt, it has had no business with the Egyptian government since the mid-1990s, except for briefly last year, when the Egyptian embassy retained Patton Boggs on a legal matter for which the firm billed less than $10,000.
OK—so does the firm represent Egyptian corporations? Yes. And as recently as 2007 was lobbying on behalf of a company with ties to the regime.
Does it have business with the Egyptian government? No—well, except for that time last year, and many times before then.
So I think I got this one: As the Paper of Record sees it, when Fisk reported that Wisner’s firm worked for the Egyptian government and various corporate interests, he was incorrect. The company in fact works for a small number of Egyptian corporations, and worked for the Egyptian government as recently as last year.
Let’s see if *I’ve* got this straight …
The firm openly boasts about its Egyptian ruling class connections on its site, yet when a spokesperson downplays those, the Times happily goes with the spinning spiel.
I wonder what those journalists catching all manner of hell from this company’s clients think about such dogged reportage?
Doug, you’ve got it straight. To summarize:
Frank Wisner is employed by a law firm that has a history of working with corporations and the Egyptian government, but the firm is not currently not performing any paid work for the aforementioned corporations and government. Fisk stated that Wisner was employed by a firm working for the government, which was incorrect, and failed to state Bigg’s past history of co-operation with the dictatorship.
Amen.
But wait another sec. P-B says it represents Egyptian corps & “elite families” but not the E. gov’t?! But aren’t most major E. corps run – to some extent – by highly-placed govt officials or members of Mubarak’s extended family? According to BBC, the Mubaraks have holdings of some 70 to 80 BILLION $ (US) in Swiss & London banks as well as Red Sea, NYC, & LA real estate holdings.
This is kinda like saying Dick Cheney was no longer associated with Halliburton once he became the VP usurper.
The Egyptian dictator backed by the Amerikkan government, Hosni Mubarak has stepped down from the government of Egypt. A great day for the democratic principle of the people electing their own government. Again, according to the reports on RT News and around the world, Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak has announced he is stepping down from the government of Egypt as of this moment.
With Mubarak stepping down as president of Egypt for a life of the idle rich, he will probably need some guidance with his various Egyptian corporate holdings.
Do you think Patton Boggs and Wisner might possibly be persuaded to step up to the plate? They do seem to have some history together.
Wouldn’t it be something if the New York Times applied that same rigorous standard to _any_ of its people? Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller (in any of the 15 or more years before the Times finally did something), Matt Bai, John Burns, Michael Gordon, and on and on and on.
Here is Berkeley economist Bradford DeLong’s factcheck on Sheryl Gay Stolberg: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/01/new-york-time-7.html
She does poorly — a lot more poorly than Robert Fisk.
they are all in bed with each other but instead of you-know-what-ing with each other they are doing it to us.
Deeper look at this would show you that on the same day……2 days before the fall,there were a number of mixed signals.Pelosi,VP Bidon,CIA director,gave accounts at odds with the president.It was left to Hilary to tell them all to shut the hell up and let Obama talk.
Hello there, You’ve done a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I’m confident they’ll be benefited from this site.
I’ve read some stuff casting doubt on Fisk’s honesty in his reportage – suggesting that he simply makes a lot of it up. No idea how much truth there is in that.