The Empire's Bagman. More & new stuff on Wisner on DN! this morning.

[EFerrari]

"The Empire’s Bagman": Obama Egypt Envoy Frank Wisner Says Mubarak Should Stay

The official U.S. response to events unfolding in Egypt remains mixed. Over the weekend, the Obama administration distanced itself from U.S. “crisis envoy” to Egypt Frank Wisner after he issued a statement in support of President Hosni Mubarak. Revealing a possible conflict of interest, British journalist Robert Fisk recently reported Wisner works for the law firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the government’s behalf in Europe and the U.S." We are joined by Trinity College Professor Vijay Prashad, who has written about Wisner’s history with the U.S. Department of State and his close relationship with Mubarak.

Guest:
Vijay Prashad, Vijay Prashad is a professor of international studies at Trinity College. His most recent book is The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World.

snip

VIJAY PRASHAD: Yes, the point is a very good one, why Margaret Scobey herself was not in charge of the deliberations. Instead, President Obama turned to Frank Wisner, Jr. Frank Wisner, Jr., has had a 36-year career in the State Department. He is the son of Frank Wisner, Sr., a man very well known at the CIA, who was the operational chief to conduct at least three coups d’état—Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadeq in Iran, and the attempted coup in Guyana. He was also, Frank Wisner, Sr., the man who created Wisner’s Wurlitzer, where the United States government paid journalists to go and do propaganda in Europe and in the rest of the world.

Frank Wisner, Jr., had a more steady career in the State Department, was the ambassador in Egypt between 1986 and 1991. During that period, he became very close friends with Hosni Mubarak and, at the time, convinced President Mubarak to bring Egypt on the side diplomatically of the United States during the first Gulf War. Subsequently, Frank Wisner was ambassador in the Philippines and then in India, before returning to the United States, where he became essentially one of the great eminences of the Democratic Party. One of the things he did during this recent period is author a report for the James Baker Institute, where he argued that the most important thing for American foreign policy is not democracy, which they treat as a long-term interest, but stability, which is the short-term interest. So, Frank Wisner, Jr., is seasoned State Department official, a very close friend of Mubarak, a man more committed to stability than democracy, and, yes, an employee at Patton Boggs, where one of the portfolios is for Patton Boggs to lobby on behalf of the government of Egypt.

snip

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/7/the_empires_bagman_us_ambassador_frank

Video, transcript at link.

[grasswire]

1. Wisner's rule

the most important thing for American foreign policy is not democracy, which they treat as a long-term interest, but stability, which is the short-term interest.

[rhett o rick]

2. k&r

[bobthedrummer]

3. Frank Wisner Source Watch page k&r

Frank Wisner
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_Wisner

[EFerrari]

9. USAID in Vietnam 64-68. AIG before Patton Boggs.

Fisk calls it "permanent government" territory -- on the order of Porter Goss. Who says we don't have our own aristocracy? :)

[Gregorian]

4. The corporation's interests, versus the people's interests.

We are very confused. This is not the country they set out to create in the beginning. The bottom line is, we have an energy deficit here due to the way we're all living. And there are these monsters who are running around the world securing resources in our name. Even if we don't know it. Even if we didn't ask explicitly.

It's time to get off the oil addiction, and stop sneaking around in other countries. Of course it isn't all about energy. But it probably is, mostly about resources.

[Octafish]

41. They may say it's in our name, but they make enormous personal fortunes from it.

Lookit ENRON: Their "friends" in government changed the laws and regulations allowing ENRON to jack up energy prices.

Lookit EXXON: Their "friends" in government invaded two countries that had zero to do with 9-11 and jacked up energy prices.

In the process, the "shareholders" got the cash.

All the time, We the People got the bill.

[Gregorian]

43. Yes. There is that side of things also.

I tend to be innocent in that respect. I typically reserve this thinking for the military. I appreciate your reminder.

[yellowcanine]

5. Wisner may have a conflict of interest but Prashad weakens his own credibility by bringing up

Wisner's father and his work for the CIA. Wisner Jr. should be judged on his own merits, not those of his father. Did Wisner lobby on behalf to the Egyptian government? Prashad says that Patton Boggs did but that does not necessarily mean that Wisner did. I don't know anything about Wisner or Patton Boggs but I do not like this guilt by association stuff. Also I noticed little in the terms of timelines for the Patton Boggs lobbying (current or years ago?) and I also noted that Prashad asserts that Wisner is a close friend of Mubarak while not disclosing how he knows that. Convincing Mubarak to support the U.S. in the first Gulf War while he was the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt does not make Wisner a friend of Mubarak - that is part of the job of an ambassador. It appears that Prashad's claim of friendship is based on the fact that Wisner was the U.S. Ambassador while Mubarak was the President of Egypt. That is weak evidence in my opinion. Again, Ambassadors are supposed to socialize with host country leaders - that is part of their job. The fact that Mubarak may feel comfortable with Wisner could make him the right person to tell him he needs to go.

[bobthedrummer]

6. There's a lot of nepotism in the shadow government, it's real "classy" n/t

[yellowcanine]

7. Frank Wisner was a career Fareign Service officer. I looked it up.

Do you have any idea how one gets a position like that? Before making insinuations about people maybe you should fined out.

[bobthedrummer]

11. Actually I'm quite aware of hook-ups via my former OSS/ CIA fatherinlaw

my talks with Ray McGovern, Michael Parenti, Harvey Kaye and a lot of other real people that educated me about the shadow government yellowcanine.

So what sources did you really look up?

[yellowcanine]

15. So you can drop some names. That proves something? The career of Frank Wisner is a matter

of public record. Do you have reason to think the public record on Wisner is incorrect?
I'll grant you that the public record could conceal a CIA career but your contacts, as good as they might be, are not going to give you that information, because if you were entitled to that information, you would not be sharing it here. Furthermore, the son of a known CIA officer would be an unlikely choice for a covert CIA operative. Even the CIA is not that stupid.

http://www.nndb.com/people/808/000120448/

[bobthedrummer]

23. You sure aren't on the same page with the rest of US in this thread.

Of course the "public record" is incorrect, yellowcanine. Just like any private interpretation about my postings.

[yellowcanine]

31. Oh great, so "if you aren't with us you are against us," eh? Where have I heard that

before? What, we all have to think alike? Sorry, I was under the "misapprehension" that this was a Discussion Board. Silly me. I am sorry, but I don't find your "sources" convincing, for the reasons I have already given. The public record, as flawed as it can be, is all we have until someone offers good evidence otherwise. So far you haven't done that. Assertions and name dropping don't cut it. And facts aren't decided by majority vote.

[bobthedrummer]

45. Your reliance on Notable Names Database/NNDB and stubbornness are noted, I don't use ignore

this will be my last response to you in this thread-a Wiki page about your self-preferred fountain of facts, Notable Names Database/NNDB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNDB

'Bye for now.

[Octafish]

27. Frank Wisner, Sr. was a Founding Father of CIA, the man responsible for the covert action side.

Here's why Top Secret Nepotism matters:

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Crony Capitalists Win. We the People Lose.

[yellowcanine]

34. Ok, if I give you that, why did the "Crony Capitalists" allow Bush Sr. to lose to Clinton?

Clearly if they have as much power as you say they could weakened Clinton with planted "evidence" in his passport files, for example - can one doubt that a rogue CIA agent could not have pulled that off? - remember, the real reason the passport file business backfired on Bush is that there was nothing there - if there had been a juicy "plum" there the resulting uproar would have obscured the question of the propriety of the passport file search in the first place.

If this whole scenario has credibility there is no way the Crony Capitalists would have allowed Bush to lose. They had tons of real stuff to work with to discredit Clinton - the draft business, the women, etc - all that would have been needed would have been a bit of manufactured evidence that seemed to back up the wilder accusations that Bush himself was hinting at in the fall of 1992 - disloyalty or even treason. Bush was on Rush Limbaugh, of all places, flogging the "demonstrated in a foreign country, trip to Moscow crap." Clearly he would have seized on something that bore the imprint of an official record, however it was obtained. And the Washington Times was right there ready to print anything, however poorly sourced, thus getting it into the "mainstream news" and allowing major newspapers to write stories.

It might have all come out later but by that time Bush would have been securely seated back in the Oval Office. And as we know, impeaching AND convicting a President is difficult. Bush would have survived, as his "fingerprints" would not have been found anywhere. The Republicans learned a thing or two from Watergate.

[EFerrari]

35. Well, what did they lose by Clinton taking office?

They did fine under Clinton and it all had a Democratic stamp. Plus, they had that period to ramp up their media control.

[yellowcanine]

38. Well I disagree but even if you are correct, that was not predictable. Bush was a far safer bet.

There was no way Bush was going to do anything that didn't preserve the status quo. Clinton they could not be so sure about. I will grant you that Clinton was probably safer than Perot, but no one really saw him as a serious threat so I can't see anyone helping Clinton to deny Perot.

[Octafish]

40. Don't know Clinton's role. Do know what happened during his administration...

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Phil the Deregulator and his crony enablers moved the big monies to where Uncle Sam can't get them.

[EFerrari]

8. The State Department and our intelligence community

are joined at the hip. Then, this is what Robert Fisk brought up about Patton Boggs:

Patton Boggs states that its attorneys "represent some of the leading Egyptian commercial families and their companies" and "have been involved in oil and gas and telecommunications infrastructure projects on their behalf". One of its partners served as chairman of the US-Egyptian Chamber of Commerce promoting foreign investment in the Egyptian economy. The company has also managed contractor disputes in military-sales agreements arising under the US Foreign Military Sales Act. Washington gives around $1.3bn (£800m) a year to the Egyptian military.

Wisner joined Patton Boggs almost two years ago – more than enough time for both the White House and the State Department to learn of his company's intimate connections with the Mubarak regime.

Nicholas Noe, an American political researcher now based in Beirut, has spent weeks investigating Wisner's links to Patton Boggs. Noe is also a former researcher for Hillary Clinton and questions the implications of his discoveries.
"The key problem with Wisner being sent to Cairo at the behest of Hillary," he says, "is the conflict-of-interest aspect... More than this, the idea that the US is now subcontracting or 'privatising' crisis management is another problem. Do the US lack diplomats?

"Even in past examples where presidents have sent someone 'respected' or 'close' to a foreign leader in order to lubricate an exit," Noe adds, "the envoys in question were not actually paid by the leader they were supposed to squeeze out!"

http://counterpunch.org/wisner02072011.html

[yellowcanine]

18. Noe makes a better case for conflict of interest than Prashad does. Makes one wonder why Amy

Goodman did not interview Noe instead of Prashad. Perhaps because Noe would not have played up the CIA career of Wisner's father?

[EFerrari]

20. Or, Noe wasn't available? Hard to say.

It might be a little nuts right now that Sharif Kouddous is in Cairo with journalists being picked up right and left.

[mojowork_n]

10. Were you also skeptical of...

... off the top of my head:

the "Public Option"

Howard Dean's term as head of the Democratic Party

John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?"

the contributions of Brian Manning and Julian Assange, to Humanity, in general?


...If you were troubled by the "unfair association" of the two Wisner's, were you
ever similarly bothered that "guilt by association" tarred with too broad a brush
the reputations of Bush Pere et Fils? (41 and 43)? (There were soooo many
important distinctions to be made between those two, n'est ce pas?)

[yellowcanine]

13. I don't get where you are going here. I prefer to judge people's actions, not their family tree.

Does that answer your question? And I don't see what that character flaw on my part has to do with the public option and the other issues you mentioned. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Or not.

As for the Bushes, I neither voted for nor cared much for either of them, but not because one was the father and the other the son. Does that help?

[EFerrari]

14. And that makes perfect sense unless you are dealing with an oligarchy

where family tree is important to the distribution of power, position, influence and wealth.

[yellowcanine]

22. No oligarchy here that I can see. Do you have evidence of one?

That you can see without the tinfoil hat on, I mean.

If we really had an oligarchy, Obama would not be President. George W. Bush would be in the middle of his second term having been first elected in 2004 to succeed Jeb Bush, who succeeded George H.W. Bush after he finished his second term in 1996.

[EFerrari]

24. You're confusing an oligarchy with a monarchy. n/t

[yellowcanine]

28. No, I'm not. It stands to reason that the oligarchy would have kept Bush Sr.,

given the choices of Clinton or Perot. And a true oligarchy would have found a way to exploit Clinton's skeletons enough to keep him from being elected. Bush Sr. being reelected would have paved the way for Jeb and then George W. It would have been perfect because the oligarchy could have counted on the loyalty of the sons to the status quo. If there is one way all of the Bushes are alike it is loyalty to the status quo.

[EFerrari]

30. Not necessarily. It really depends on what is "up" at the moment.

[yellowcanine]

32. Well ok - the Bush-Bush-Bush scenario was an exaggeration to make a point. And that is that an

oligarchy would not have tolerated an Obama. He is too much of a wild card. A Hillary Clinton would have been more likely.

[EFerrari]

33. Without any snark or rancor, I honestly can't see how

they would have been very different. And, not so much because of them but, if we're looking at systems (in this case an oligarchy), because of the system they groomed for, ran in and would govern in on election.

I haven't seen any evidence that Obama is or wants to be a wild card. Maybe that ended for American presidents of this period with Jimmy Carter. He displeased enough of the status quo that they ditched him unceremoniously.

[yellowcanine]

39. I disagree but as I argued with Bill Clinton above, if true, how was that predictable?

I don't see how Obama is a safer choice than Hillary Clinton. I really don't. And it wouldn't have taken a lot of well funded manipulation of the primary process to make Clinton the nominee. McCain is probably going to lose either way. So the time to intervene was during the primary. As it was, it was a close call and it sure wasn't the establishment pulling for Obama.

On edit - I would also note, and this is relevant both for the election of Bill Clinton and Obama, that this is still a center-right country, at least as far as the people who actually vote. I happen to think that if we could ever find a way to get more under employed and chronic unemployed to actually vote, Democrats could clean up consistently. Given the reality, though, we just are not going to elect a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich as President. I would vote for either one in a heartbeat, but I would be on the losing side without that mobilization of the underclass that could turn around everything. That said, the rise of the Hispanic share of the vote offers some hope if the Republicans continue to alienate them and if the Democrats can find a way to effectively mobilize them and keep them voting Democratic. Neither proposition is a foregone conclusion.

[EFerrari]

50. Late to answer: I don't think he was a "safer" choice.

They were nearly indistinguishable in their positions except for a few cosmetics and their positions were much less important than the system they were entering.

[leftstreet]

12. K&R

[AzDar]

16. K & R

:kick:

[malaise]

17. I still can't believe that

Obama selected that scumbag as his envoy.

[yellowcanine]

19. It is fairly clear that Hillary Clinton was responsible for selecting Wisner.

There is no question in my mind that Hillary is behind this selection.

[EFerrari]

21. And behind her, the career State Department/Intelligence people.

Imo, anyway.

[yellowcanine]

26. Don't think so. The connection between Clinton and Wisner is political.

http://www.nndb.com/people/808/000120448/

Wisner was active in both Friends of Hillary (Senatorial campaign) and Hillary Clinton for President.

I suspect the career people were ambivalent, knowing about the possible conflicts. It is hard to go against the Secretary of State if someone appears to be qualified - which Wisner clearly does. And the Intelligence people would likely have been even more hesitant, because they would likely know the extent of the conflicts of interest. Hillary probably didn't even allow them to get an oar in.

[EFerrari]

29. Why do you think a supporter of that campaign

would carry more weight than a retired foreign service officer? In fact, those two hats dovetail, of course.

Or that conflicts of interest are in any way an obstacle? They seem to be a requirement.

[yellowcanine]

37. Because career people have no reason to be politically loyal to Hillary.

And they know about conflict of interest. The State Dept has all kinds of regulations, audits, etc to guard against it and career people are inherently cautious. They would have counseled against this, imo. But ultimately politics will prevail in high profile appointments such as special envoy situations. A career diplomat is not going to take on the SOS directly, unless they are prepared to resign, retire or accept reassignment if things don't go their way. And we actually don't know that this didn't happen.

[golddigger]

42. Yeah! Obama had no say in this matter.

What a load.

[Judi Lynn]

25. Thanks for the information. Wisners. Unbelievable condtributions to humanity. Argh. Thanks. Rec. n/t

[DCKit]

36. This is obviously a campaign to smear the man.

If only the Shah of Iran, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Sadat and Idi Amin were still around to clear up this stoopid conspiracy theory.

Yeah, I know I missed a bunch of names, but y'all get my gist.

[bobthedrummer]

44. ^

[bobthedrummer]

46. This is still part of LBN from Egypt/DC-kick

[malaise]

47. Who recommended this scoundrel to Obama

WTF???

[bobthedrummer]

48. Well, there's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear...^

[bobthedrummer]

49. ^

[EFerrari]

51. These guys really know how to start a weekend, don't they?

:)

[bobthedrummer]

52. lol-then there's the US consular in Lahore trying to "exfiltrate" the shooter Mr. "Davis"

US calls for release of American held in Pakistan (2-11-10 by Babar Dogar/AP via Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9496654

Here's a bit more about that official-Ms. Carmela Conroy--she's got a MA in Strategic Studies from the Naval War College and has been to many "hotspots" indeed, another spooky "US diplomat" imo Beth, it's not just guys today

Carmela Conroy in Okinawa
http://www.asia.umuc.edu/areas/article.cfm?areaID=5&SID=472

As the sole surviving son of a US Marine, Semper Fidelis!