So long Peter Arnett

mrskippy · 03-30-2003, 11:56 PM

If you indeed did this interview by your own choosing, without any Iraqi influence, you've truly disgraced your profession by participating in an interview like this and clearly taking sides.

Mr. Arnett, while all journalists have a bias, it doesn't belong in what you report. And personal opinions on subjects you cover should be kept to a minimum. By doing an interview like this, you ruin your credibility and that of the network.

Iraqi TV Interview Peter Arnett

mrskippy · 03-30-2003, 11:59 PM

As an aside, while I'm a reporter ... this also isn't a newspaper or TV station. And not something seen by millions of people. That is ... I'm not airing this in broad daylight public.

And I'm certainly not aiding the enemy!!!

Chuck · 03-31-2003, 12:02 AM

I wonder how he knew what the first warplan was? Is he going to give the Iraqi's the next plan?

The_herd · 03-31-2003, 12:06 AM

What a F@cking ass.

1st war plan must have failed after we couldn't find a damn baby milk factory. Is this guy really this naive, and stupid?

Someone needs to drag his stupid ass out of Baghdad.

mrskippy · 03-31-2003, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chuck
I wonder how he knew what the first warplan was? Is he going to give the Iraqi's the next plan?

Who knows ... one thing you can bet on ...

The US will monitor that interview tape closely and eyes will be kept on Arnett if he has indeed taken sides with Iraq.

Chuck · 03-31-2003, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_herd
What a F@cking ass.

1st war plan must have failed after we couldn't find a damn baby milk factory. Is this guy really this naive, and stupid?

Someone needs to drag his stupid ass out of Baghdad.

Why not leave him there to watch the bombing. Maybe he should get a closer look!

mrskippy · 03-31-2003, 12:18 AM

BTW ... Why does Iraqi TV keep coming back on the air after we bomb it???

Come on alraedy ... destroy the Ministry Of Information, the TV station, and the tower. The military already has proven it can do broadcasts on its own ... so take it out.

Havok · 03-31-2003, 12:36 AM

i've always hated that fucker

GoldenEagle · 03-31-2003, 01:23 AM

I have never liked him either.

Tasan · 03-31-2003, 01:44 AM

The major problem with the ministry of info is that its right next to a huge hospital, and something big enough to take it out fully, from what has been said on TV, would severely damage the hospital, something we don't want to do. Awful nice of ol' uncle sadaam to build it there, isn't it?

Fritz · 03-31-2003, 05:45 AM

Seeing Peter Arnett reminds me of Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein.

In a different time, Mr. Arnett would need to move to France or Algeria to escape his treachery. Now aid and comfort is just free speech and professional courtesy.

Bee · 03-31-2003, 06:21 AM

Never trust a man with a comb-over.

Fritz · 03-31-2003, 06:47 AM

Imus reports Arnett has been fired

Swaggs · 03-31-2003, 07:09 AM

What did he do?

Easy Mac · 03-31-2003, 07:11 AM

The article also reports he was fired, not sure if they updated it or what. I think he went too far in the interview. Maybe if he had stopped by saying his Iraq informants tell him there is a new resolve in nationalism, and what affects if any it may have on the war, I think everything would have been okay. Oh well, no skin off my back.

The_herd:
The baby-making facility was referring to the first gulf war, not the first war plan. Don't be so quick to condemn him as a quack based on that notion.

Mrs. Kippy:
Have you watched FoxNews? By your admonition, almost all the reporters on that station need to be fired and the network shut down. The amount of spin on the information I've heard coming out of Baghdad is astounding. I was watching the other day about the bombing of civilians, and not once was a question asked on whether the US misfired. All 5 questions asked were phrased as "Did Iraq bomb...Do you think Iraq...".

KWhit · 03-31-2003, 07:48 AM

The thing that makes this different than the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore (even though I think their comments were stupid too) is that Arnett went on Iraqi state run TV and basically gave their soldiers a morale boost. What a jerk!

I am all for free speech and support the Dixie Chicks and Moore's freedom to do what they did, but this is reprehensible. Arnett's actions make me sick.

Vaj · 03-31-2003, 08:05 AM

What did Arnett say that was different from what General William Wallace stated recently?

CamEdwards · 03-31-2003, 08:32 AM

He's supposed to be an unbiased journalist, and he made his comments on Iraqi state run television, interviewed by a member of the Iraqi military.

There are two big differences right there.

Bee · 03-31-2003, 08:44 AM

Yep. Arnett is supposed to be a reporter not a commentator.

Bonegavel · 03-31-2003, 08:53 AM

I don't know about you all, but I want "my" journalists to be biased in this matter. I can see being neutral when it comes to matters at home (congress, whitehouse, etc), but come on, these are our men and women in harm's way. Those journalists better be rooting for our side. Having said that, they shouldn't jump all over stories until they are verified (as Fox has done) and they better be telling the truth. But the latter is something that will come out in the wash and if they were lying, then they will pay the price in viewership.

I do agree, that FoxNews may be a little overboard to the Starboard side, but, as much as I hate to admit it, it is refreshing to watch a network that doesn't treat our country like a Socialist Sandbox. Besides, you can't tell me that ABC and company are swimming in the water off to PORT each and every week, War or no War.

Arnett, if he was not coerced, should be shamed out of this country for good. People make mistakes, but Arnett knows better than this, or at least should. Its not like he is an 18 year old fresh out of college with nothing in his head but thoughts of beer and beaver.

Intersting, i just googled arnett and Kosovo and he had this to say:

Quote:

What feelings do war reporters have in conflicts?

Arnett: The best war reporters are disciplined observers, maintaining their detachment and refusing to become emotionally involved in the stories they are covering. We are all too human, however, and at times we get angry at some things we see, and other times saddened. The best reporters, however, keep the anger and emotion out of their copy. The more dispassionate a reporter can be in his stories, the better for the reader and viewer. Only a detached, detailed, accurate presentation of information in a war is acceptable.

came from here: http://www.message-online.de/arch0199/91arne.htm

Looks like Pete can't follow his own advice. Or, maybe he is just admiting he isn't the best.

sachmo71 · 03-31-2003, 09:06 AM

So long, Peter Arnett...apparently we hardly knew ye. Just another example of someone taking themselves way to seriously. Thanks for the apology, and good luck in retirement. I would also suggest staying out of the United States for a couple of years...Jane Fonda STILL hasn't been forgiven, and she was just a dumb actress!

JPhillips · 03-31-2003, 10:03 AM

I just heard that Geraldo was just dropped from his embed unit. Apparently the military felt that Geraldo was giving away too much info and escorted his ass back to Kuwait. At least this time he wasn't making up stories like he did in Afghanistan!

Maple Leafs · 03-31-2003, 10:29 AM

I don't necessarily have a problem with Arnett granting an interview to Iraqi TV. In theory, it could have been useful to have a (somewhat) impartial voice explaining to the Iraqi people how the conflict was being viewed in the US, what was being shown, etc.

But his actual comments were stunning. He seemed to be more interested in sucking up to the interviewer than in giving thoughtful answers to the questions, which is almost unbelievable from an experienced journalist. His comments about the war plan are getting most of the attention, but I think the more shocking element was his praise for journalistic freedom in Iraq. Reporters are being expelled (and worse) by the Iraqi government, and Arnett praises them? Bizarre.

ctmason · 03-31-2003, 10:36 AM

I'm disappointed because that probably would have been an interesting epsisode of "National Geographic Explorer."

I wonder if they'll still air it.

AgPete · 03-31-2003, 07:40 PM

HE'S BAAAAAACK.

Click here for link. The UK's Daily Mirror hired him and has this in their headlines: "Fired by America for telling the truth."

The_herd · 03-31-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Easy Mac
The_herd:
The baby-making facility was referring to the first gulf war, not the first war plan. Don't be so quick to condemn him as a quack based on that notion.

Understood that, that was kind of a joke refering to this war plan failing because we couldn't find a baby-FORMULA making facitility to bomb, because the U.S. of course is SO infamous for bombing civilian places (sarcasim there).

Airhog · 03-31-2003, 08:27 PM

So now americans can not speak their mind about the war?

Seems too me like this guy had his first amendment rights violated. I dont think it matters that it was on iraq tv or not.

Pretty soon they will be locking up anyone that doesnt support the US 100% ala 1984

The_herd · 03-31-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Airhog
So now americans can not speak their mind about the war?

Seems too me like this guy had his first amendment rights violated. I dont think it matters that it was on iraq tv or not.

Pretty soon they will be locking up anyone that doesnt support the US 100% ala 1984

Ok, this guy didn't have his 1st amendment rights violated, he got on IRAQI TV and basically spread Iraqi propoganda, telling them that our 1st War Plan didn't work because they are fighting so well......BS, basically. I seriously doubt he knows what the 1st war plan is or even if the Pentagon is working on another. He has a right to say what he wants, but if his employer chooses to fire him or an entire country gets pissed at him, thats the consequences. We all live every day with not only the concequences of our actions, but our words as well. As a journalist, his job isn't to spread propoganda, that's most likely why he was fired.

This man is obviously bringing is personal beliefs, and asumptions to his job. That can get you fired anywhere.

There seem to be a lot of people who need to not only read the constitution, but understand it as well. If you alienate and betray the country that is giving you your rights in a time of war, do you really deserve those rights?

03-31-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Airhog
So now americans can not speak their mind about the war?

Seems too me like this guy had his first amendment rights violated. I dont think it matters that it was on iraq tv or not.

Pretty soon they will be locking up anyone that doesnt support the US 100% ala 1984

I am getting so tired of people hiding being the 1st amendment as if it says anything about us having to like what someone says. Sure he has the right to say what he wants but does that really mean that we have to support his opinions? No it does not and I for one am appalled at his remarks considering his position as a journalist. The first amendment does not guarantee that your opinion will be either popular or excepted. Deal with it and stop trying to use the 1st amendment as an excuse because that is not how it was ever meant to be used.

AgPete · 03-31-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_herd
Ok, this guy didn't have his 1st amendment rights violated, he got on IRAQI TV and basically spread Iraqi propoganda, telling them that our 1st War Plan didn't work because they are fighting so well......BS, basically. I seriously doubt he knows what the 1st war plan is or even if the Pentagon is working on another. He has a right to say what he wants, but if his employer chooses to fire him or an entire country gets pissed at him, thats the consequences. We all live every day with not only the concequences of our actions, but our words as well. As a journalist, his job isn't to spread propoganda, that's most likely why he was fired.

Was that propaganda?

I know Rumsfeld denies the rumors but I continually read stories about the Pentagon underestimating Iraqi resistance. The military thought more Iraqi soldiers would surrender, they didn't anticipate guerilla warfare, thought their supply lines wouldn't have any problems, figured urban resistance wouldn't be as strong, thought they'd be fine without the 4th infantry, thought their intelligence would be better, etc., etc., etc. I'll give you that Arnett didn't have to go live on Iraqi television to give Hussein's troops a morale booster but he wasn't reporting anything that you can't find elsewhere. I also think his opinion about American resistance to the war was a bonehead comment because recent polls show that Dubya's approval rating is rising.

I guess the most disturbing rumor to me is that Rumsfeld is forcing Gen. Franks to attack Baghdad now instead of waiting for reinforcements. If Baghdad becomes a bloody mess, I imagine the truth will come out and we'll find out what the military really thinks.

GrantDawg · 03-31-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AgPete
I guess the most disturbing rumor to me is that Rumsfeld is forcing Gen. Franks to attack Baghdad now instead of waiting for reinforcements. If Baghdad becomes a bloody mess, I imagine the truth will come out and we'll find out what the military really thinks.

If this were true, Franks would quit. He would not be the first general to quit because he disagreed with an order, and he strikes me as just such a guy who would. I think most of these rumors are poppycock. That is a technical term by the way.

STK · 03-31-2003, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Easy Mac

The baby-making facility was referring to the first gulf war, not the first war plan.

mmm...baby making facility

The_herd · 03-31-2003, 09:02 PM

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

March 31 — NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic said Monday that they had terminated their relationship with Peter Arnett after the journalist told state-run Iraqi TV that the U.S.-led coalition’s initial war plan had failed and that reports from Baghdad about civilian casualties had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration’s strategy.

I would call that propaganda

AgPete · 03-31-2003, 09:02 PM

Grantdawg, I can't wait until the war is over and we find which news agencies should lose their credibility.

Most of these rumors started with fringe publications but have become so prevalent in the mainstream media now that Rumsfeld dedicated a heavy portion of his news conference answering them. I remember Schwartzkopf's nasty facial expression and comments when asked his opinion of Rumsfeld before the war began so even before it became a big story, it was obvious there was disagreement.

GrantDawg · 03-31-2003, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AgPete
I remember Schwartzkopf's nasty facial expression and comments when asked his opinion of Rumsfeld before the war began so even before it became a big story, it was obvious there was disagreement.

I don't think Schwartzkopf is over there.

AgPete · 03-31-2003, 09:11 PM

Yeah, but it's obvious if anyone has good friends in the highest ranks of our military, Schwarzkopf is the man. The comments I heard weren't his own opinion, it was pretty apparent he had some inside sources.

GrantDawg · 03-31-2003, 09:14 PM

Also remember generals are people. They have people they like and they have people they don't like. It doesn't always have to do with military disagreements either.

Generals are also political animals, and the best way to kill a career is to accept a command with a warplan that you do not think will work. If Franks didn't think the plan would work, he would not have stayed.

GrantDawg · 03-31-2003, 09:16 PM

dola...Franks also makes clear that this is his plan. He said that just yesterday. Again, if he thought the plan was a failure, he would be saying "I am following the plan as given to me."

AgPete · 03-31-2003, 09:27 PM

Here's a link for ya Grantdawg from the Washington Post. It summarizes Schwarzkopf's opinions before the war began.

...Schwarzkopf's comments reflect Pentagon scuttlebutt that Rumsfeld and his aides have brushed aside some of the Army's concerns.

"The Rumsfeld thing . . . that's what comes up," when he calls old Army friends in the Pentagon, he says.

"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army," Schwarzkopf says. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else.....

And here's a current link regarding Rumsfeld and Frank's disagreements about Baghdad.

....Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have pressed Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to attack the Republican Guard divisions defending Baghdad as soon as U.S. Air Force planes and Army attack helicopters have softened them up, according to Pentagon officials.

The officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the civilian war planners want to clear the way for swift takedown of Saddam Hussein's regime in the Iraqi capital....

....Pentagon officials said Rumsfeld had been pressing Franks to attack the Republican Guard outside Baghdad without waiting for the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) to arrive from Fort Hood, Texas, and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, its scout unit, to be flown into the battle zone from Fort Carson, Colo. Neither will be ready for battle for at least two weeks.

"I hope (Franks) won't do this," said one retired senior officer. "He should stand on the perimeter and grind them down. He has got to bring the 4th Division in to do this. He can't do it with what he's got.....

And one more link about General Johnson and Robert McNamara in which a career military man was forced to make the very decisions you're talking about. Sorry to bring up another McNamara/Rumsfeld comparions but I think it's uncanny how they resemble each other.

I don't know if it's as easy as you put it. I don't believe Franks would simply retire if he disagreed with Rumsfeld.

.....In the wake of this fiasco, Johnson considered resigning or retiring in protest. But mindful of General Bradley’s advice, he did not, and served as Army Chief of Staff until 1968, when he was replaced by General Westmoreland. Johnson wrote a letter to Westmoreland, warning him that civilian control of the military had become civilian command: "There will be efforts to back you into corners, where you will find out that the exits have been painted shut....

Hey, it's all speculation at this point! We'll get the true story once the war is over.

GrantDawg · 03-31-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army," Schwarzkopf says. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else.....

Sounds personal to me. He doesn't like him, so that might slant his comments.

Again, Franks not just staying in command but taking credit for the plan suggest that much of this is over-blown.

Airhog · 03-31-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_herd
Ok, this guy didn't have his 1st amendment rights violated, he got on IRAQI TV and basically spread Iraqi propoganda, telling them that our 1st War Plan didn't work because they are fighting so well......BS, basically. I seriously doubt he knows what the 1st war plan is or even if the Pentagon is working on another. He has a right to say what he wants, but if his employer chooses to fire him or an entire country gets pissed at him, thats the consequences. We all live every day with not only the concequences of our actions, but our words as well. As a journalist, his job isn't to spread propoganda, that's most likely why he was fired.

This man is obviously bringing is personal beliefs, and asumptions to his job. That can get you fired anywhere.

There seem to be a lot of people who need to not only read the constitution, but understand it as well. If you alienate and betray the country that is giving you your rights in a time of war, do you really deserve those rights?

1. how is what he said propaganda? Was it because he said it on Iraq TV? I think that is why they fired him. If he had said that on our TV it would have never even been broadcast.

Now I can understand him losing his job for saying this in Iraqi tv. But honestly people in this thread saying he should lose his life for it? Thats ridiculous. and other people think he is a traitor now.

How exactly did he betray our coutry?

Killebrew · 03-31-2003, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_herd
propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

March 31 — NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic said Monday that they had terminated their relationship with Peter Arnett after the journalist told state-run Iraqi TV that the U.S.-led coalition’s initial war plan had failed and that reports from Baghdad about civilian casualties had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration’s strategy.

I would call that propaganda

You don't agree with that report - that sounds pretty safe actually. Whether it was right for him to say that to Iraq TV is a is a different thing, but it was not propaganda.

03-31-2003, 11:09 PM

Since he commented on things that he could not have possible known to be true and accurate he was in fact spreading propaganda. There is no other way to look at it. If he has proof of what he said as being true then lets see it. Otherwise, pure propaganda.

mrskippy · 03-31-2003, 11:28 PM

The simple fact that he went on Iraqi TV was considered reprehensible by most. But saying what he said on Iraqi TV was even worse.

You must remember Iraqi TV is a state-run entity, run by the Hussein regime itself. American TV completely different and while he'd have been slammed for airing his view like that on American TV, he probably wouldn't have been sacked.

He did this interview with someone in an Iraqi military uniform. That's another strike. He basically is sitting down with the enemy and saying everything.

Walter Cronkite supposedly has a column coming out. The preview I read on the wire tonight uses the word treason, which includes offering "aid and comfort to the enemy," sounds interesting. It'll be interesting to see what the US does to Arnett.

Skippy

Airhog · 03-31-2003, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by couriers
Since he commented on things that he could not have possible known to be true and accurate he was in fact spreading propaganda. There is no other way to look at it. If he has proof of what he said as being true then lets see it. Otherwise, pure propaganda.

So by your defination, anything anyone says that isnt regarded as absolute fact is propaganda.

I dont think he purpose was to harm the US government or help the Iraq goverment. Of course one could argue about his intent all day long. And his purpose is what defines propaganda.

mrskippy · 04-01-2003, 01:32 AM

Apparently Arnett retracted his apology after getting hired by The Daily Mirror. He's got a paycheck now, so screw everyone right?

Fox News had a segment tonight. The consensus is that Arnett's mistake was going on Iraqi state-run television. Nobody argues he has the right to his opinion, but the voice it on enemy television during the war was the big no-no.

One media analyst fears that journalists won't be allowed to air their views even on American television. I don't think journalists have to worry about that.

Another journalist, I believe from Newsday, basically said that Arnett should be lucky he isn't being charged with treason for offering "aid and comfort to the enemy." The panel seemed to agree that Arnett definately did that ... giving the Iraqi people hope and perhaps a little willingness to fight on.

Of course, Arnett hasn't set foot back on US soil yet either. I doubt he'll get nailed with a treason charge, but no doubt there could be justification to do so. And since treason requires a witness ... there would be no shortage of them ...

04-01-2003, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Airhog
So by your defination, anything anyone says that isnt regarded as absolute fact is propaganda.

I dont think he purpose was to harm the US government or help the Iraq goverment. Of course one could argue about his intent all day long. And his purpose is what defines propaganda.

Since what he said was not based on facts and considering the forum in which he chose to say theses things, that being enemy TV, then yes it does fit the definition of pure propaganda. You can try to spin it any way you like but you are still wrong. He knew he was wrong, NBC knew that he was wrong and so does most every one else. Stop trying to defend the moron already because he really isn't worth the time or effort. It appears that you are arguing about this just to argue and it gets old really quick.

03-30-2003, 11:59 PM	#2
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	As an aside, while I'm a reporter ... this also isn't a newspaper or TV station. And not something seen by millions of people. That is ... I'm not airing this in broad daylight public. And I'm certainly not aiding the enemy!!! Last edited by mrskippy : 03-30-2003 at 11:59 PM.

03-31-2003, 12:06 AM	#4
The_herd College Starter Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Fort Lackland, Texas (San Antonio)	What a F@cking ass. 1st war plan must have failed after we couldn't find a damn baby milk factory. Is this guy really this naive, and stupid? Someone needs to drag his stupid ass out of Baghdad. __________________ Oakland Raiders: HFL's 1970 AC West Champs

03-31-2003, 12:36 AM	#8
Havok College Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Florida	i've always hated that fucker __________________ Maniacal Misfitz - We're better than you and we know it!

03-31-2003, 01:23 AM	#9
GoldenEagle Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Little Rock, AR	I have never liked him either. __________________ Xbox 360 Gamer Tag: GoldenEagle014

03-31-2003, 01:44 AM	#10
Tasan College Starter Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Houston, or there about	The major problem with the ministry of info is that its right next to a huge hospital, and something big enough to take it out fully, from what has been said on TV, would severely damage the hospital, something we don't want to do. Awful nice of ol' uncle sadaam to build it there, isn't it? __________________ 2011 Golden Scribes winner for best Interactive Dynasty

03-31-2003, 12:02 AM	#3
Chuck n00b Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Louisville, KY (actually Southern Indiana)	I wonder how he knew what the first warplan was? Is he going to give the Iraqi's the next plan?

03-31-2003, 12:18 AM	#7
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	BTW ... Why does Iraqi TV keep coming back on the air after we bomb it??? Come on alraedy ... destroy the Ministry Of Information, the TV station, and the tower. The military already has proven it can do broadcasts on its own ... so take it out.

03-31-2003, 05:45 AM	#11
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	Seeing Peter Arnett reminds me of Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein. In a different time, Mr. Arnett would need to move to France or Algeria to escape his treachery. Now aid and comfort is just free speech and professional courtesy. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

03-31-2003, 06:21 AM	#12
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Never trust a man with a comb-over.

03-31-2003, 06:47 AM	#13
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	Imus reports Arnett has been fired __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

03-31-2003, 07:09 AM	#14
Swaggs Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	What did he do? __________________ DOWN WITH HATTRICK!!! The RWBL Are you reading In The Bleachers?

03-31-2003, 07:11 AM	#15
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	The article also reports he was fired, not sure if they updated it or what. I think he went too far in the interview. Maybe if he had stopped by saying his Iraq informants tell him there is a new resolve in nationalism, and what affects if any it may have on the war, I think everything would have been okay. Oh well, no skin off my back. The_herd: The baby-making facility was referring to the first gulf war, not the first war plan. Don't be so quick to condemn him as a quack based on that notion. Mrs. Kippy: Have you watched FoxNews? By your admonition, almost all the reporters on that station need to be fired and the network shut down. The amount of spin on the information I've heard coming out of Baghdad is astounding. I was watching the other day about the bombing of civilians, and not once was a question asked on whether the US misfired. All 5 questions asked were phrased as "Did Iraq bomb...Do you think Iraq...".

03-31-2003, 07:48 AM	#16
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	The thing that makes this different than the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore (even though I think their comments were stupid too) is that Arnett went on Iraqi state run TV and basically gave their soldiers a morale boost. What a jerk! I am all for free speech and support the Dixie Chicks and Moore's freedom to do what they did, but this is reprehensible. Arnett's actions make me sick.

03-31-2003, 08:05 AM	#17
Vaj H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Lawn Gisland, NY	What did Arnett say that was different from what General William Wallace stated recently? __________________ "To all of those here who work in marketing or advertising: kill yourselves." -- Bill Hicks "Christianity's such an odd religion. The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love" -- Bill Hicks

03-31-2003, 08:32 AM	#18
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	He's supposed to be an unbiased journalist, and he made his comments on Iraqi state run television, interviewed by a member of the Iraqi military. There are two big differences right there. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

03-31-2003, 08:44 AM	#19
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Yep. Arnett is supposed to be a reporter not a commentator.

03-31-2003, 09:06 AM	#21
sachmo71 The boy who cried Trout Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: TX	So long, Peter Arnett...apparently we hardly knew ye. Just another example of someone taking themselves way to seriously. Thanks for the apology, and good luck in retirement. I would also suggest staying out of the United States for a couple of years...Jane Fonda STILL hasn't been forgiven, and she was just a dumb actress!

03-31-2003, 10:03 AM	#22
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	I just heard that Geraldo was just dropped from his embed unit. Apparently the military felt that Geraldo was giving away too much info and escorted his ass back to Kuwait. At least this time he wasn't making up stories like he did in Afghanistan! __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

03-31-2003, 10:29 AM	#23
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	I don't necessarily have a problem with Arnett granting an interview to Iraqi TV. In theory, it could have been useful to have a (somewhat) impartial voice explaining to the Iraqi people how the conflict was being viewed in the US, what was being shown, etc. But his actual comments were stunning. He seemed to be more interested in sucking up to the interviewer than in giving thoughtful answers to the questions, which is almost unbelievable from an experienced journalist. His comments about the war plan are getting most of the attention, but I think the more shocking element was his praise for journalistic freedom in Iraq. Reporters are being expelled (and worse) by the Iraqi government, and Arnett praises them? Bizarre.

03-31-2003, 10:36 AM	#24
ctmason High School JV Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Mesa, AZ	I'm disappointed because that probably would have been an interesting epsisode of "National Geographic Explorer." I wonder if they'll still air it.

03-31-2003, 07:40 PM	#25
AgPete College Prospect Join Date: Jan 2001	HE'S BAAAAAACK. Click here for link. The UK's Daily Mirror hired him and has this in their headlines: "Fired by America for telling the truth." __________________ Click here for the FOF2004 World Football League Dynasty (WFL) - Football Goes Global! OOTP5 Psychology Experiment (Incomplete but fun read for MLB fans.) The FOFC All-Time NFL Team - Voted on by FOFC members.

03-31-2003, 08:27 PM	#27
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	So now americans can not speak their mind about the war? Seems too me like this guy had his first amendment rights violated. I dont think it matters that it was on iraq tv or not. Pretty soon they will be locking up anyone that doesnt support the US 100% ala 1984 __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

03-31-2003, 09:02 PM	#33
The_herd College Starter Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Fort Lackland, Texas (San Antonio)	propaganda n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause March 31 — NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic said Monday that they had terminated their relationship with Peter Arnett after the journalist told state-run Iraqi TV that the U.S.-led coalition’s initial war plan had failed and that reports from Baghdad about civilian casualties had helped antiwar protesters undermine the Bush administration’s strategy. I would call that propaganda __________________ Oakland Raiders: HFL's 1970 AC West Champs

03-31-2003, 09:11 PM	#36
AgPete College Prospect Join Date: Jan 2001	Yeah, but it's obvious if anyone has good friends in the highest ranks of our military, Schwarzkopf is the man. The comments I heard weren't his own opinion, it was pretty apparent he had some inside sources. __________________ Click here for the FOF2004 World Football League Dynasty (WFL) - Football Goes Global! OOTP5 Psychology Experiment (Incomplete but fun read for MLB fans.) The FOFC All-Time NFL Team - Voted on by FOFC members. Last edited by AgPete : 03-31-2003 at 09:12 PM.

03-31-2003, 09:14 PM	#37
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	Also remember generals are people. They have people they like and they have people they don't like. It doesn't always have to do with military disagreements either. Generals are also political animals, and the best way to kill a career is to accept a command with a warplan that you do not think will work. If Franks didn't think the plan would work, he would not have stayed.

03-31-2003, 09:16 PM	#38
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	dola...Franks also makes clear that this is his plan. He said that just yesterday. Again, if he thought the plan was a failure, he would be saying "I am following the plan as given to me."

03-31-2003, 09:27 PM	#39
AgPete College Prospect Join Date: Jan 2001	Here's a link for ya Grantdawg from the Washington Post. It summarizes Schwarzkopf's opinions before the war began. ...Schwarzkopf's comments reflect Pentagon scuttlebutt that Rumsfeld and his aides have brushed aside some of the Army's concerns. "The Rumsfeld thing . . . that's what comes up," when he calls old Army friends in the Pentagon, he says. "When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army," Schwarzkopf says. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else..... And here's a current link regarding Rumsfeld and Frank's disagreements about Baghdad. ....Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have pressed Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to attack the Republican Guard divisions defending Baghdad as soon as U.S. Air Force planes and Army attack helicopters have softened them up, according to Pentagon officials. The officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the civilian war planners want to clear the way for swift takedown of Saddam Hussein's regime in the Iraqi capital.... ....Pentagon officials said Rumsfeld had been pressing Franks to attack the Republican Guard outside Baghdad without waiting for the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) to arrive from Fort Hood, Texas, and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, its scout unit, to be flown into the battle zone from Fort Carson, Colo. Neither will be ready for battle for at least two weeks. "I hope (Franks) won't do this," said one retired senior officer. "He should stand on the perimeter and grind them down. He has got to bring the 4th Division in to do this. He can't do it with what he's got..... And one more link about General Johnson and Robert McNamara in which a career military man was forced to make the very decisions you're talking about. Sorry to bring up another McNamara/Rumsfeld comparions but I think it's uncanny how they resemble each other. I don't know if it's as easy as you put it. I don't believe Franks would simply retire if he disagreed with Rumsfeld. .....In the wake of this fiasco, Johnson considered resigning or retiring in protest. But mindful of General Bradley’s advice, he did not, and served as Army Chief of Staff until 1968, when he was replaced by General Westmoreland. Johnson wrote a letter to Westmoreland, warning him that civilian control of the military had become civilian command: "There will be efforts to back you into corners, where you will find out that the exits have been painted shut.... Hey, it's all speculation at this point! We'll get the true story once the war is over. __________________ Click here for the FOF2004 World Football League Dynasty (WFL) - Football Goes Global! OOTP5 Psychology Experiment (Incomplete but fun read for MLB fans.) The FOFC All-Time NFL Team - Voted on by FOFC members.

03-31-2003, 11:09 PM	#43
couriers	Since he commented on things that he could not have possible known to be true and accurate he was in fact spreading propaganda. There is no other way to look at it. If he has proof of what he said as being true then lets see it. Otherwise, pure propaganda.

03-31-2003, 11:28 PM	#44
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	The simple fact that he went on Iraqi TV was considered reprehensible by most. But saying what he said on Iraqi TV was even worse. You must remember Iraqi TV is a state-run entity, run by the Hussein regime itself. American TV completely different and while he'd have been slammed for airing his view like that on American TV, he probably wouldn't have been sacked. He did this interview with someone in an Iraqi military uniform. That's another strike. He basically is sitting down with the enemy and saying everything. Walter Cronkite supposedly has a column coming out. The preview I read on the wire tonight uses the word treason, which includes offering "aid and comfort to the enemy," sounds interesting. It'll be interesting to see what the US does to Arnett. Skippy

04-01-2003, 01:32 AM	#46
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Apparently Arnett retracted his apology after getting hired by The Daily Mirror. He's got a paycheck now, so screw everyone right? Fox News had a segment tonight. The consensus is that Arnett's mistake was going on Iraqi state-run television. Nobody argues he has the right to his opinion, but the voice it on enemy television during the war was the big no-no. One media analyst fears that journalists won't be allowed to air their views even on American television. I don't think journalists have to worry about that. Another journalist, I believe from Newsday, basically said that Arnett should be lucky he isn't being charged with treason for offering "aid and comfort to the enemy." The panel seemed to agree that Arnett definately did that ... giving the Iraqi people hope and perhaps a little willingness to fight on. Of course, Arnett hasn't set foot back on US soil yet either. I doubt he'll get nailed with a treason charge, but no doubt there could be justification to do so. And since treason requires a witness ... there would be no shortage of them ...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)