[R-G] Whatever Happened to "Democracy Now?

[Anthony Fenton]

  June 11, 2008
http://counterpunch.org/ahmad06112008.html
When AIPAC Went Missing
Whatever Happened to "Democracy Now?"

By MUHAMMAD IDREES AHMAD

It is with some alarm and dismay that I watched Amy Goodman’s  
“Democracy Now” provide platform to right-wing Paksitani journalist  
Ahmad Rashid, long an apologist for Bush's war-on-terror, to recycle  
propaganda from British tabloid press and other discredited sources.  
His tale about al-Qa'ida recruiting white converts for terrorist acts  
in Europe originated with the British security services as part of  
their fearmongering campaign to build support for the 42-day detention  
without charge plan. No shred of evidence was ever offered.

Equally bogus are his claims of organized al-Qa'ida 'training camps',  
where recruits are offered foreign language training etc. Once again,  
these claims are the products of the vivid imaginations of the  
terrorologists proliferating in the war on terror fear factory. I  
suggest Goodman ask Rashid to substantiate claims, or issue a  
retraction. (When he claims 'Iraq is an Arab problem' and that it  
would be resolved when its neighbours 'stop interfering', I would have  
liked Goodman  to at least ask if he was aware the country is under  
U.S. occupation.)

He suggests the truce negotiated by the Pakistani government is  
tantamount to 'supporting the Taliban'. Quoting U.S. military  
officials in Kabul he alleges that Pakistan is 'funding' the  
'resurgence' of the Taliban. He faults Pakistan for not cooperating  
more enthusiastically in Bush's war on terror. Rashid appears to be  
living in a timeless world where the realities of 10 years past  
substitute for the present. Pakistani military's intervention in the  
FATA region has been brutal, now extending to the frontier heartland  
of Swat. Tactics have included Israeli-style collective punishment;  
wholesale demolition of recalcitrant villages; disappearing of  
opponents (mostly of the tribal homines sacri, not wealthy media  
figures of Rashid's stripe); bombing raids; extrajudicial killings.  
The response of the tribesmen -- all swept under the handy label of  
'the Taliban' by the government and hacks like Rashid -- is as brutal  
as it is predictable. Only a few months back three rockets landed in  
the very safe neighborhood where my sister resides in the frontier  
city of Peshawar.

Kidnapping for ransom has become a common phenomenon. Suicide attacks  
on the military have been frequent. The Pakistani military death toll  
now numbers in the hundreds. So when a guest on Goodman’s show starts  
claiming that the Pakistani government is funding and encouraging the  
slaughter of its own soldiers I am forced to demur despite my disdain  
for the regime. When I hear Goodman’s guest fault Pakistan for not  
allowing US forces on its territory, and refusing CIA a base in the  
tribal regions, its your judgment I must question Goodman for letting  
this pass without challenge.

The government for some time has shown a preference for a negotiated  
political settlement, only to be thwarted every time by unauthorized  
US assaults renewing the conflict. Other times the government has  
caved under pressure and resumed the assaults itself to fend off  
accusations that it is 'not doing enough' in the fight against the  
Taliban. This is the same twaddle Goodman has allowed Rashid to  
recycle on her show.

There is no reason why Pakistan should be cooperating with the US “war  
on terror”. Under this rubric, the Musharraf regime has already  
devastated much of the tribal belt and created enemies where there  
were none. Contrary to Rashid's claim that the new government is  
'willing to follow the US agenda', it has promised to open dialogue  
with the tribals in order to end hostilities. This is a positive  
development that makes the US apprehensive, as it does Uncle Toms like  
Rashid who have wedded their careers to the 'war on terror' as its  
sanctioned cheer leaders.

I hope Goodman shows more care in the future in vetting her guests.  
She certainly could not have been unaware of the political leanings of  
this guest as on her very show he had declared his preferred outcome  
for the region's conflicts: a NATO 'victory' in Afghanistan.

This is the second time in a week where Goodman’s editorial judgment  
has left me deeply disappointed. First was the refusal to cover -- yet  
again -- the AIPAC conference, with all its implications for US  
politics and the Middle East. In a year when even the mainstream media  
was finally forced to take notice (with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show  
going so far as to refer to the lobby group as the 'Elders of Zion',  
Democracy Now appeared alone in missing the irony of three  
presidential candidates pledging to fight the domination of lobbyists  
in Washington genuflect to the most powerful of them all.

Amy, what happened to Democracy Now's promise to speak truth to power?  
Did you not say once that your aim was to go where the silence is? How  
is it that the Washington Post was able to break the silence even as  
Democracy Now remained AWOL? Why did Democracy Now join MSM in denying  
Mearsheimer and Walt a voice, instead allowing their views to be  
misrepresented by critics without a chance of rebuttal? How well  
placed are you to criticize the mainstream for refusing to stand up to  
power when you can yourself be considered guilty of the same?

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is at the Department of Geography and Sociology,  
University of Strathclyde. He can be reached at m.idrees at gmail.com