Peter Arnett: Revoke his citizenship or-

[TimPoet]

Or here are my other options:
1. Flog him.
2. Half-drown him.
3. Drag him behind a tank in the Iraqi desert.
4. Embed him with a Marine detachment and let them mete out justice.
5. All of the above.
:p
:D

[morriswindgate]

Behind the scenes let it leak that an unnamed reporter has been helping with targeting, afterall any of the western reporters that are in Baghdad are there because the regime can trust them.

[morriswindgate]

Today Show just announced NBC,MSNBC & National Geographic has "severed" relations with Peter Arnett over his Badad broadcast.

[Strider]

Peter Arnett didn't even hesitate on his comments, while yes he's a journalist (A bad one at that) it was his opinions not his journalism that offended me. A jounalist responsiblities are reporting the news, not making it. He should join the Iraq Army, so he can become fair game.

[TimPoet]

I was thinking about the offer of super gluing him to Saddam Hussein.

[mairving]

Maybe they should reinstate him and let him cover what is happening at Sadaam's palaces ... at night.

[Hot Rod]

He overstepped his bounds as a journalist...and in his case I use that term very loosely. Okay.....he didn't just overstep his bounds. He hop skipped and jumped over it.

[doctorgonzo]

It was stupid of him to go on Iraqi TV, certainly. But most TV "journalists" are self-loving egomaniacs, who would jump at any chance to be on the tube even more. I don't think he would have been the only one to give an interview.

As for his comments, from what I have read (I do not watch TV much at all with this crap going on) it can hardly be said that he was on Iraq's side. He seemed to be giving his less-that-optimistic personal opinions about what is going on. That is a far cry from going on TV and saying "I hope Saddam wins."

He got fired for what he did; that is just fine with me. I think if this issue doesn't go away, it will give him even more publicity, which is what he wanted in the first place. This garbage just isn't worth the time.

[drisley]

Not only was it stupid to go on Iraqi TV, but what he said was idiotic.

- He said our war plan failed. Hehehe....yeah, right.
- Iraqi opposition was suprising the heck out of us - yeah, what a great thing to say on Iraqi TV, which is a regime propoganda machine.
- That the Iraqi action is helping the opposition here in the US which is changing the way the gov't does things - gimme a break.

In short, he went on there and basically said what they wanted him to say. So, why would he go onto their airwaves at a time of war AND deliver the enemy line while doing it?

That was just stupid, and it ranks right up there with ego-maniac Geraldo getting kicked out of Iraq for divulging war planning on TV (another bright move :rolleyes: )

[Paul Victorey]

Anyone have a full transcript? I missed it. I find it hard to hare a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has covered wars since Vietnam, although this would not be his first unpopular broadcast. Didn't see it, never watch televised war coverage for reasons I've mentioned before, so I have no opinion yet.

[TimPoet]

Paul, Dave had it down basically the same way I heard it coming straight from the traitor's mouth. We all know we can trust Dris, right?
Btw, Paul, I got a question that has been driving me crazy for over a year now. What is that avatar you have? Is it an angry cabbage head caricature? A sunflower enfant terrible?

[doctorgonzo]

This is the jist of what he said, as far as I have read:

"...and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan."

"Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces," Arnett said.

Arnett said it is clear that within the United States there is growing opposition to the war and a growing challenge to President Bush about the war's conduct.

"Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States," he said. "It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments."

Now, what he said about the war plan failing is stupid. But I think that it is a bit more accurate to say that the first political war plan isn't going as some hoped. It is clear that some of the comments made by the administration, such as Cheney saying it will be a matter of weeks, or Bush saying he just needs 30 days in his request for $74 billion to pay for the war, are not accurate. I don't know how many people believed what they said about this being a cakewalk (I certainly didn't), but the administration is getting heat for it now.

What he said about how the U.S. misjudged the fighting prowess of the Iraqis is accurate. The military is admitting that the Iraqis that we are facing in the field are not the Iraqis "we war gamed against." Many people are suprised that we haven't been able to take Basra in the Shi'ite south. So I don't think you can get all angry at him for saying what the military is admitting as well. It is the fact that he said it to Iraqi TV that makes is idiotic.

As for the fact that reports will help the anti-war movement, sure it will. That is what has happened in the past. If we see pictures of more U.S. casualties, and we don't hear news of any major advances, people are going to start asking more questions. It's pretty self-evident to me.

Like I said before, I don't think Arnett is the only TV reporter who would have done this. Their heads are big enough already, and when they are asked for their "personal opinion" the air around their heads gets even thinner. That's why I don't listen to them. I wouldn't call him a traitor, just a publicity wh*re.

[drisley]

I've been following this off and on, and it seems the military brass did misjudge the opposition, but not in the way that its implied. Its implied that the opposition is really stubborn and strong and is reeking hell on us. That doesn't seem to hold water. The Iraqis are resorting to terrorist tactics and generally breaking the rules of war, and in that regard, they are different than what's expected. But, I'm getting every impression that our Marines are in no way overwhelmed by the opposition, its just coming in a different form than they thought it would.

And, yes, the reports can help the anti-war movement, but the fact that he said that on propoganda-central in Iraq, that's the problem.

BTW, just to point out, this could still be a matter of weeks. We can speculate, of course, but the fact is we've only been though 12 days, and its still possible to get it done within the 30 days.

[Mac Medic]

I'm sorry but I disagree on this one. I'm a big proponent of getting rid of this regime, and the protestors annoy me aswell, but everyone has a right to an opinion. Sure, what he said was stupid, but it's the exact same thing being said on American TV and there are no calls for heads here. The NY Times, 2 days after the conflict started said the same thing Arnet said.

[Paul Victorey]

I've seen quotes, I'd rather see the entire speech in context before I make any judgements.

And my avatar is Bob the Angry Flower, www.angryflower.com, a favorite comic of mine (the recent ones aren't as good, but he had a lot of years of fantastic strips).

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by drisley
The Iraqis are resorting to terrorist tactics and generally breaking the rules of war, and in that regard, they are different than what's expected.

Well, if we "didn't expect" that Iraq would resort to guerilla warfare and "break the rules of war," then I have to seriously wonder how much thought went into this. As a friend of mine put it, the rules of war were made by the strong. The weak have always broken the rules in any game, because that's all they can do. I don't remember the Viet Cong playing by the rules.

Iraq also isn't using "terrorist tactics," at least not against the U.S. Terrorist tactics are aimed at civilians, of which we don't have many in Iraq. What Iraq is doing is guerilla warfare, which has been called such for many, many years. I think it is interesting that the administration is calling guerilla warfare "terrorism" now, but frankly it isn't surprising to me.

Sure, it could be done within the 30 days. However, something extraordinary would have to happen. It's not out of the question, I guess.

[mairving]

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett.transcript/index.html) is a transcript of the interview.

[drisley]

oem_guy, again, its not what he said that's as disturbing as where he said it. There's a difference between saying something like that in the NY Times and saying it on Iraqi TV when the bombs are dropping.

Gonzo, the Iraqi regime has been targeting civilians during the course of this, so I do call it terrorism. Their tactics go beyond guerilla warfare. Sure, the weak cannot be expected to follow thew rules of war, but come on - shooting civilians as they flee, forcing little kids to pick up a gun and shoot at US soldiers under threat of killing their families, using human shields - gimme a break, man. That kind of goes beyong guerilla warfare.

[Paul Victorey]

Don't see anything really wrong with what he said. He has always covered the civilian casualties of war, that was his expertise, and if he seems upset at the US government's conduct, remember what the government had done to him. He was labelled a "traitor" for reporting on civilian casualties. He was fired from CNN, after pressure from the Pentagon, because he did a story about the US's use of Sarin gas in Laos to kill US soldiers who fled the Vietnam war. CNN was put under pressure by the military to disavow that report, and they did; they fired all the journalists who refused to issue a retraction. The Pentagon threatened to effectively blacklist CNN from getting any military stories unless they fired Arnell, so they did.

Realitically, he's not saying anything that other people haven't been saying all this time already.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by drisley
Gonzo, the Iraqi regime has been targeting civilians during the course of this, so I do call it terrorism.

I said, "Iraq also isn't using 'terrorist tactics,' at least not against the U.S." I wasn't talking about what Iraq is doing to civilians. That is terrorism, yes, but I was referring to guerilla tactics aimed at our military forces.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by doctorgonzo
What he said about how the U.S. misjudged the fighting prowess of the Iraqis is accurate. The military is admitting that the Iraqis that we are facing in the field are not the Iraqis "we war gamed against." Many people are suprised that we haven't been able to take Basra in the Shi'ite south. So I don't think you can get all angry at him for saying what the military is admitting as well. It is the fact that he said it to Iraqi TV that makes is idiotic. I don't concede that the US military is admitting they misjudged the Iraqis. The guy who said the statement with the phrase "we wargamed against" is not in the military. He is retired. He's out of the loop. But I agree with you, Gonzo, it was a bad thing to say what he said where he said it.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Don't see anything really wrong with what he said....
...Realitically, he's not saying anything that other people haven't been saying all this time already. It's the fact, Paul, that he said these words that comforted the enemy (as he very well knew they would) on enemy soil, sort of like Hanoi Jane. I do believe there is a law against doing that. You can't go to an enemy's land and publicly support them in a war.
EDIT: Sorry, I was trying to edit this into my previous post.

[morriswindgate]

The only way that you have been able to get a Pulitzer Prize since Vietnam is to write, report, or take apicture that shows the USA in a bad light.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by TimPoet
It's the fact, Paul, that he said these words that comforted the enemy (as he very well knew they would) on enemy soil, sort of like Hanoi Jane.

I think that trying to draw a connection between what he said and giving "comfort" to the enemy is pretty frightening. I think giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy in a time of war is supposed to be interpreted as giving explicit, material aid and comfort. Giving an opinion, especially an opinion like Arnett gave, hardly qualifies. Again, Arnett did not say that he wants Iraq to win, or that he wants the U.S. to lose.

As for trying him in court, I think the question to ask is "Did he intentionally and materially give Iraq aid in the war?" I think not. He cluelessly gave an interview that could be used for propaganda purposes, but I don't think his deliberate aim was to help Iraq defeat the U.S. Thus, if he didn't do it on purpose, the only point of putting him on trial would be to make an example out of him to the rest of the press. That, to me, sounds like the actions of the Soviet Union, not the United States of America.

[WJWheels]

He said our war plan failed.I guess my main concern is where, in the middle of Baghdad, did Arnett get a copy of the U.S. Military war plan???

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by WJWheels
I guess my main concern is where, in the middle of Baghdad, did Arnett get a copy of the U.S. Military war plan??? From his left brain.

[Paul Victorey]

He was probably referring to statements made by Bush, Cheney, etc. that predicted the war would be over by now. Those plans obviously failed.

[drisley]

What statements?

[drisley]

I thought so.

[WJWheels]

Of course the plan had to change at the last minute due to the decision by the new Turkish parliament. It sure hasn't made much difference. This military campaign will go down in history. There's never been another like it as to speed, # of casualties, etc. We're less than 2 weeks into it... didn't we bomb for about 6 or 7 weeks in '91 before we even put a boot on the ground?

[TimPoet]

Anyone hear from this Arnett character lately?