The New York Times:
Cables Show Delicate U.S. Dealings With Egypt’s Leaders
The Guardian:
WikiLeaks Cables Show Close U.S. Relationship With Egyptian President
That reminds me of something Times executive editor wrote in a forthcoming piece on WikiLeaks, where he explains the difference between The Newspaper of Record and the Guardian in handling theAfghanistan documents:
If anyone doubted that the three publications operated independently, the articles we posted that day made it clear that we followed our separate muses. The Guardian, which is an openly left-leaning newspaper, used the first War Logs to emphasize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, claiming the documents disclosed that coalition forces killed “hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents,” underscoring the cost of what the paper called a “failing war.” Our reporters studied the same material but determined that all the major episodes of civilian deaths we found in the War Logs had been reported in the Times, many of them on the front page.
They are indeed different newspapers. The Guardian thinks civilian deaths should be reported, in some cases maybe more than once.
The Guardian‘s piece today reports:
Another cable, from March 2009, shows the U.S.’s astonishingly intimate military relationship with Egypt. Washington provides Cairo $1.3bn annually in foreign military finance (FMF) to purchase U.S. weapons and defence equipment, and the cable said. “President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the $1.3bn in annual FMF as ‘untouchable compensation’ for making and maintaining peace with Israel.
“The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez canal and Egyptian airspace.”
PresumablyKeller wouldargue that the Times has already–somewhere, at some time–mentioned U.S. military aid to Egypt, and thus didn’t need to dwell on it today.
Keller fails to mention that Israel being at peace with Egypt gave Israel the ability to more easily ethnically cleanse Palestine and twice invade Lebanon. But these were Israeli actions and crimes that Keller and the NYT supported. Keller and his associates are pro-ethnic cleansing and pro-aggression–selectively.
A comparison of the two headlines is instructive: the Times mentions “Egypt’s leaders”; the Guardian addresses the “Egyptian President”.
For a comparative reality check, only notice that Mubarak felt it within his purview to dismiss the current government officers… but perhaps the “leaders” that the Times was mentioning were Generals. ^..^
Peace with Egypt equals a paycheck.REmember in the schoolyard when the bully traded lunch money for his laying off you?When did the world go to hell in a bucket?
I’d be surprised if the new york pravda times did accurately report anything. The US involvement in pretty much every country it touches is shameful, and is the nothing more than gangsterism.
of course, the reason the u.s. pays egypt the big bucks is that it has a relationship with israel that we approve of….that trumps our “displeasure” with egypt’s human rights records…
So we’re still calling Mubarak “president”?
To paraphrase Mike Royko, Mr. Mubarak is going to wake up one of these days, and see a goat staring back at him in the bathroom mirror. I’m sure he’s smart enough to know that once “our interests” are imperiled in “his” country, he’ll be given the gate. There’s a long, long list (Saddam Hussein and Ngo Dinh Diem come immediately to mind) of our ex-friends who did not fare well once their ostensible subjects got a real taste of freedom, or got tired of being under the boot with the “Made in the USA” label on the heel.
P.S.: That’s exactly right, Woodward burnstein.
Tim and w&B
Im in agreement that the money has been been the payoff for peace for years.Makes us all feel dirty.Problem is , in 5000 years of history, there has never been a Democracy there.This is the way THEY do business.This is their extortion not ours.I think honorable men like Nadar or Ron paul would stop our collusion in such things.Obama and Bush ….aint happening.And Im not sure who is right.As far as US policy in Arab nations …I sometimes wonder which end is wagging the dog. So when Tim says “subjects get a taste of freedom I worry what that freedom will taste like.Democracy?Doubtful.Violent overthrow by the Arab brotherhood?Sounds more likely.For us- I think it is better we go slow.And Obama declaring support for the rioters two nights ago that may of set them off is not the way.The big guy says he will go in 7 months.I wish the people would wait till then to see if it shakes out.If not, I could see scenarios akin to the Iranian revolution.To quote a famous Italian actor…..”You think you got problems now?JUST WAIT!!
“This is their extortion not ours”
more like, these are our bribes, not theirs.