Charles..ever think of going into politics..?

Charles, what did you expect from this piece of dreck?

Clue to INS,start his denaturalization process(unless his interview wasn't done at gunpoint).

I am confused, I thought he was supposed to be reporting? Seems to me he was giving an interview and working as part of the Iraqi Ministry of Disinformation.

Wouldn't that technically make him part of the Iraqi regime we are working to remove? Thereby can't we just target him as we would any other of Saddam's henchmen?

ve

I just had dinner with a former diplomat, and I related to him the story of Arnett's treasonous stunt. He told me that a friend of his in Army intelligence told him that during Vietnam Arnett filed a number of false reports. Apparently the Army had a team that would investigate media reports as an extra source of intelligence, and Arnett's reports were never fruitful because they were simply never true! I'd love to hear from someone who has any memory of this bastard from the Vietnam era.

I think we can take some solace from the fact that tonight a number of NBC and GE execs are shittin' bricks over this fiasco. The government may not draw and quarter him, but some shareholders might.

It's pretty bad.

I wonder if in fact, he was coerced.

The issue has been raised before, but I haven't seen the possibility dismissed to my satisfaction. In particular, the comments about how well he's been treated seem pretty incongruous with the dissappearence of journalists in Gagdad.

But even if he meant every word he said, he has an out. He can say he was coerced even if he wasn't. Those who would argue he's a traitor will have to prove he wasn't subjected to coercion. And since the people most likely to argue Arnett's a traitor think Saddam's a tyrant, it will be a tough sell.

Still, being the arrogant nitwit he is, if he means it, he'll likely come out and say so.

Arnett is from New Zealand, not the U.S. Thus, the word you want is "treacherous", not "treasonous", and no prosecution is available under our laws.

We could always shoot him, though, if we determine that he is on the enemy's side. That wouldn't go over too well with his fellow journalists, however, so I think we'll avoid it.

It makes me angry, but in the end it'll have no effect on our war effort. He deludes himself when thinking a.) he's had some great effect already and b.) there's a real opposition to this war in the States. The polls just don't bare it out.

Besides, he's lying wildly. This whole effort, despite all the hand-wringing from the press and whines like "we were promised a cakewalk...where's our cakewalk?", has been a butt-kicking success with very little historical precedent. We now hold a dagger to Saddam's throat, pinning down the only semi-real military foe just outside of Baghdad. We now have the leisure of disposing of the entire rest of the countryside on our timetable and in our way, though there's not much to do, there. Whackos in Toyota pickups are the only shooting enemy, since three whole corps have dissolved away without fanfare.

Ten days in, and we're crushing the enemy like no enemy has ever before been crushed. The outcome, as President Bush has said all along, is not in question.

What is yet an unanswered question, though, is this:

How many Iraqis must we kill before the war will end?

We're going to win, but it'd be nice to do it with a minimum of carnage. Quite a few of the Iraqis we will have to kill are fighting us out of fear of Baathist thugs reprisals against their wives and children, and it's terribly sad that they and we must fight.

Still, fight we must.

Peter Arnett, though, has decided in his infinite wisdom to lie to the Iraqis on their TV station and to give hope to the Saddammites and despair to the unwilling Iraqi soldier that by some weird miracle the U.S. might not win.

Peter Arnett is encouraging more Iraqis to die, and for no end.

Oh, and lest we forget, Arnett has a history of doing this. His interview of Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War was widely resented by U.S. citizens as being fawning and as allowing Hussein to have his views aired sympathetically to the Western world.

No, no! You've got it all wrong!
He was only being polite...

Arnett Iraq interview a 'professional courtesy'

Does anyone know where Arnett is stayin in Bagdhad. It would be nice to convey those coordinates to the military for the next round of Tomahawk launchings

Glorious imagination at work:

"Sir, I have the suspect in crosshairs"

"Marine, state the target and distance!"

"Sir, Peter Arnett at 300 yards"

"Marine, .223 to the head"

"Sir, yes sir"

What he spoke felt like a script of Iraqi propoganda. It's hard for me to believe he wasn't coerced, even with his poor record in Vietnam.

The Corner at NRO has 2 links that are quite telling about Arnett.
Photo

Transcript

#12

I'm starting to think this is the best hypothesis.

we'll probably see a lot of whacky shit coming out of Gagdad in the next week or so.

Or am I just niave?

If he was coerced (which I doubt) I want to see the gun to his head while giving that interview. He seemed awfully full of himself while gestering his points.

Just saw FOX do a very critical piece on Arnett.

Funny thing is -- Arnett is over there primarily as a correspondent for National Geographic TV.

And National Geographic is a FOX show!

Two soldiers from my town were killed by a cowardly suicide bomber.

Assh*les like Arnett, who practically cheer these savages on, are as useful to me as dog puke.

Arnett will never be half the man that my neighbors were.

To think that they died so he'd be free to profit off their death...

...I'm disgusted.

It appears to me that Peter Arnett is telling the Iraqis to kill as many civilians as possible and then to blame the deaths on us. If that is what happens, then he should be tried as a war criminal.

#10
LOL! What a great idea! That would make me feel better.

This reads like disinformation. "The war plan is failing... the opposition is growing... leave the lights on in all your bunkers... Saddam should feel free to appear in public..."

Does anyone know if MSNBC has even addressed this issue on the air yet? Both Fox and CNN have...or is MSNBC too afraid to recognize the treasonous behavior of one of their correspondents?

I say kick out every single NBC embedded media member until they disavow all relations with him...this shit can't be tolerated!

Here is the e-mail I sent to all the e-mail addresses I could find (thanks everybody), to my local NBC affiliate, and (what the hell) to my congressman:
------------
SUBJECT: Peter Arnett is NBC's Lord Haw Haw, and it has to stop.

The remarks made by Peter Arnett on Iraqi television, in which he claimed that the US war plan has failed and that Iraqi civilian casualties will aid the anti-war movement, are beyond outrageous.

The clear message that Arnett has given to the Iraqi leadership is that their cynical and cruel exploitation of the Iraqi civilian population will work to their advantage, and that Mr. Arnett will assure that it does, with the assistance of NBC and National Geographic. This gives open encouragement to the Iraqi regime in its use of human shields, and in its policy of forcing civilians to undertake suicidal attacks.

Arnett's statement is so profoundly reprehensible that it can only have been made by a morally depraved person, or by a person who is being held hostage and acting under duress. In either case, Mr. Arnett's employers have a clear responsibility to disclaim it, and to carry no further reports from Mr. Arnett.

The First Amendment does not morally condone or excuse the encouragement of murder and tyranny. Neither does the freedom and independence of the media excuse it. Until such time as NBC and National Geographic indicate that they agree, I support a boycott of all their media, and of their corporate sponsorship.

Glen Wishard

may the stench of rotting carcasses never leave his nostrils....exemplery obsequious reportorial objectivity--may he forever be stigmatized as "saddam's buttboy'....egregiously disgusting--do i make my point!!

With this propaganda, Arnett is insuring that more Iraqis will die. He's giving them false hope that resistance is working, that it is causing America to "halt" and re-think our strategy. This, of course, is nonsense. So more people will die because of his morally indolent musings. Their blood is on your hands Peter.

So, is he a naturalized American or is he still a citizen of New Zealand? If the former, I hope Ashcroft has the guts to prosecute him under the Sedition Act. I've only read the transcript, not seen the interview, but this doesn't sound like a coerced conversation to me. The BS flows too naturally. It sounds like he believes it.
#23 Glen, well said.

Arnett is a US citizen and therefore qualifies as a traitor if this act rises to that level. Or sinks to that level.

My guess is, he was trying to win points from the Iraqis in order to keep his priviliges - he is trying to make a documentary film, after all, and if he gets kicked out that whole project is lost.

If that's his excuse, then he's a total scumbag.

Ron (#4): Check this out.

Mac (#7): Actually, support for the war is at an all-time high (78%-18%). Media spin is being ignored:

Have the Iraqi troops been fighting back more than you expected, less than you expected or is the Iraqi resistance about what you expected?

1. More than expected 18%

2. Less than expected 15

3. About as expected 60

4. (Not sure) 7

And the public seems if anything more hardline than Bush (incidentally, Rummy has better numbers than W!):

Do you think U.S. military attacks on Iraq have been too aggressive, not aggressive enough or about right?

1. Too aggressive 6%

2. Not aggressive enough 29

3. About right 58
4. (Not sure) 7

Oh, yeah, btw the American Street is quite awake:

Do you think American tourists should avoid taking trips to France in response to French opposition to U.S. policies on Iraq?

1. Yes 56%

2. No 36

3. (Not sure) 8

Ha.

Oh, and those Iraqi civilian casualties Arnett wants to make much of? The poll shows the American public won't mind a bunch more, when our soldiers' lives are at stake.

This just shows that FOX - which aired parts (all?) of the interview - is actually quite balanced, allowing Mr. Arnett time to present his reasoned argument against the war is an opportunity given by FOX to make the principled left look good ... oh wait a minute ...

#26 et al...

Arnett is dual citizen/dual loyalty, so he will never have to say he is sorry. Treason? Aid&Comfort? Betrayal?? Hardly...he has the out of every American with dual cirtizenship from those charges.

If Lord Haw-Haw had two passports, he never would have been hanged.

The only way you ever grab a dual citizen/dual loyal person for spying or such is get them before they physically leave the USA to go to the land of their 1st loyalty.

BTW - Any effort to denaturalize him will be blocked in Courts by the ACLU on freedom of the press grounds for years.

GE, owners of NBC - is a global company that takes care not to be seen as a rah-rah arm of the US government...so they won't can him.

It is good to be rich! In the old days, it was good to be King. In America, it is even better to be in the top 1% of wealth. If Arnett was a 3rd-rate stringer making 40K a year...we could screw him...but this is a famous millionaire who gets an automatic pass from the inconvenience of our jailhouse hospitality and someone whose fame and wealth assures him continued lucrative reporting employment.

Arnett is untouchable in a country where money assures dispensation is greased well for his ilk. And, he only got US citizenship so he could work w/o a green card, enjoy creature comforts, and be at the center of the hiring action in the media market...and most importantly, so his millions would be taxed at a lesser rate than in any other industrialized country.

Other than those abovementioned perks from friendly American boobs - that pass out citizenship like bubblegum and let a million people as scummy as Arnett in every year -he really hates America.

Smile when you see Arnett. He gamed the system as good as Jesse Jackson or Gary (Global Crossing) Winnick.

Another letter, just to get it off my chest.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Allow me to say that I'm sickened and outraged by Peter Arnett's comments in service of the totalitarian, human rights-abusing Iraqi regime at this time and in their capital. He knew these statements, some of them false, would be broadcast by state-controlled media to give the regime comfort as they fight against our military.

Yet this should come as no suprise, as Mr. Arnett has held a vendetta against the U.S. military for many years. His "Tailwind" smear campaign alone told you whom you were hiring, and that's exactly what you knowingly got. For Ms. Allison Gollust to issue a statement defending Mr. Arnett after this interview makes it clear that "journalists" willing to abandon taste and objectivity while pushing the envelope of treason are the kind that get the full editorial and managerial backing of MSNBC. No wonder this is the last place Americans turn to for news and analysis.

I look forward to your attempts to spin this as Mr. Arnett being under duress, though everything he's said fits his lengthy pre-MSNBC record. We'll likely also be treated to lectures that he has the right to free speech, but other citizens aren't free to criticize what he says. It's too late for apologies from the network that has heard his remarks and stood behind them. Consider my household now among the proud millions who won't tune in to news aired by NBC or MSNBC. Know that I'll be certain to give preference in purchasing to GE's competitors as well. National Geographic will sit on the racks untouched. You hired him knowing who he is, and you defended his falsehoods, yellow journalism and encouragement of our enemies.

With disgust,
"contact info"

I'd recommend writing your own, as "form letters" don't get as much reaction. But then again, hopefully they've been flooded so hard they'll be reduced to just tallying up the hate-mail. Big thanks to Jheka and others for doing the legwork in getting us the contact info.

Sad thing is that the only way he'd be charged with treason would be if a Democrat were in the White House. Otherwise it's the administration "just being mean."

letters@msnbc.com>,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

WaPo is weighing in on this. [Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Interestingly, they do mention the baby formula and sarin incidents.

Here's my letter to NBC, GE, et al:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Peter Arnett's remarks on Iraqi TV, in which he falsely claimed that the US war plan had failed and that Iraqi civilian casualties were undermining support for the war in the US, illustrate beyond all doubt that he is a shameless self-promoter and a willing stooge of Saddam Hussein's hideous regime. Arnett used his standing as a journalist with a respectable media group to undermine the coalition war effort by directly giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Arnett’s behavior was disgusting and inexplicable, and the lame excuses NBC offered to explain them are beneath contempt. To try to pass off Arnett’s treasonous commentary as "a professional courtesy" and "analytical in nature" is insulting to NBC viewers and consumers of GE products. The only possible excuse for Arnett’s comments are an off-camera gun pointed at his head. Though I would not put such a tactic past the propaganda arm of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Arnett did not appear to be coerced. I believe he was made his treasonous statements to inflate his own sense of self-importance and enhance his status with his thuggish hosts. His efforts to bolster the morale of the regime might very well have a real cost in lives on both sides of the conflict.

If NBC hopes to maintain its credibility as a news source, it should dissolve its relationship with Arnett with all possible speed. I hope the company does so immediately. But if not, I plan to boycott NBC and write letters to NBC sponsors detailing why I'm doing so. I will also direct my broker to sell off all of the stock of NBC's parent company, GE, and I will encourage everyone I know via every forum available to me to take similar actions. Further, I will contact my elected representatives to inform them that lucrative government contracts should not go to companies with Saddam Hussein's stooges on the payroll. Please make these actions unnecessary; do the right thing. Dump Arnett.

Sincerely,

**************

Here's an outrageous fantasy: Saddam was taken out months and months ago and it is actually the CIA and a new Iraqi government that is in control. The war is mostly a complete fiction with recycled images from '91, Demolition man style demolition of Saddam's buildings for media consumption, etc.... The true intent? To smoke out all the radical islamo-fascists and the 5th column (like Arnett). They arrive in Baghdad and are exterminated at will.

but then there's reality

You ever think, if the contempt and hatred the mainstream media have toward Bush weren't so obvious and transparent, people might be a lot more willing to criticize his war policy and performance thus far?

By grinding their axes so publicly, they not only thwart honest criticism, but also by exaggerating the strength of the Iraqi resistence, they make his eventual success look even more like a triumph.

Oops, those were supposed to be addresses. Sorry, I don't buy for a second the coercion routine for Arnett. Though it would break his heart to say anything against the Iraqi regime, he just might after the fact if his access to the camera depends on it. As Ran says, he won't hurt for money, and would get off on his infamy, as would future prospective employers. But never misunderestimate the size of this f**ker's ego.

Face it, there are other journalists there. A bit unlikely he'd be the one to be coerced. And just the only one? And just now? He's been an enemy of our forces for decades. He also in a high profile editorial this year stood by his "reporting" of the "baby milk factory" and has no regrets I know of over the fabricated "Tailwind" debacle. Sorry, his tongue's been all up Iraqi ass for over a decade, so I don't see him turning against the regime only to be forced to serve it. And again, GE, MS/NBC and Nat'l Geo knew exactly who they were hiring and defended his statements in full after hearing them.

letters@msnbc.com
Natgeoexplorer@msnbc.com
allison.gollust@nbc.com
ngm@nationalgeographic.com
richard.wacker@corporate.ge.com
joanna.morris@corporate.ge.com
pauline.berardi@corporate.ge.com
david.frail@corporate.ge.com
alex.constantinople@corporate.ge.com
world@msnbc.com
viewerservices@msnbc.com
erik.sorenson@msnbc.com
bob.wright@nbc.com
phil.griffin@msnbc.com

Mac (#7)

Peter Arnett is encouraging more Iraqis to die, and for no end.

Not so. The more Iraqis die, the worse the US looks, the better Peter feels about himself.

"I'd love to hear from someone who has any memory of this bastard from the Vietnam era. "

General Norman Schwartzkopf wrote about having known Arnett in Vietnam. It's in his memoirs "It Doesn't Take a Hero" (If I recall the title), though I donb't remember details of what he said about Arnett.

Bob #35

You ever think, if the contempt and hatred the mainstream media have toward Bush weren't so obvious and transparent, people might be a lot more willing to criticize his war policy and performance thus far?

By grinding their axes so publicly, they not only thwart honest criticism, but also by exaggerating the strength of the Iraqi resistence, they make his eventual success look even more like a triumph.

I think you're on to something there. I noticed the same thing when Bush was running for president; media figures were so openly contemptuous and dismissive that even an average performance seemed like a triumph because it exceeded expectations so wildly.

That was especially true, I thought, during the debates. Before the first Bush-Gore debate, all we heard was about what a sharp debater Gore was and how he was expected to shred Bush -- Al the diligent policy wonk vs. the feckless frat boy. All Bush really had to do was refrain from drooling and picking his nose to win.

Uzi (#38)

Is that you, and if so, where have you been!?

Watching the interview and listening to it again, no way he's being coerced. He's in lucid extemporaneous mode and quite comfortable and haughty. That's not how someone delivering a bogus message in fear of their life acts. He's used to the camera, but not a professional actor, and even professional actors don't work well with a "gun at their head." He would have been much stiffer. And we've seen Iraqis just don't have the savvy to pull off something that good. They also would have had him say things even worse.

Mark Ginsberg (don't they say he worked for Carter?! Is he related to Dick Clark?) is tearing up into Arnett's asshole. Good for you Mark!

Ran-

Arnett is dual citizen/dual loyalty, so he will never have to say he is sorry. Treason? Aid&Comfort? Betrayal?? Hardly...he has the out of every American with dual cirtizenship from those charges.

your wrong about that- despite what wooden head (Tree) says, it is treason, and he is not free from it.

Your right in that he can run to NZ, but he can be tried in absentia. Once convicted, he is free for the taking by anyone who wants to.

"The Man Without a Country"

I think he is speaking under duress. Too much of the language is inconsistent with Arnett's background as a pop-lefty icon. Even with regimes they favor, such as North Vietnam or Cuba, major media fifth columnists do not commonly endorse or use terms that come straight from the propaganda ministry. It is much too obvious and these people are not fools. He would scarcely be likely to claim of his own free will that a statement from the Iraqi military disproves a Pentagon claim in and of itself, which he did here in reference to the market bombings.
I think Baghdad Pete is on his last assignment, and he will be killed by "American bombs" before this is over. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Cool. Can we strap a web-cam to Iron Fist's head and send him bounty hunting? Huh? Can we?

#38 Uzi - Sorry to link to The Columbia Journalism Review (not responsible for brain damage or loss of bladder control) but this is funny:

Something even more distressing was shortly to follow. Into the room strode the only well-known reporter who had maintained an image of independence from the Bush administration during the war: Peter Arnett of the Baghdad dateline. Arnett walked up to Schwarzkopf, into the limelight, and vigorously shook the general's giant hand: "Congratulations, General, on a very fine effort," he said. "I know you didn't mean all those things you said about me." Then, like any media-trained celebrity, Arnett tossed a quip to the assembled guests: "He tried to kill me," he joked, gesturing at Schwarzkopf. The general said nothing, but continued smiling.

If it comes to that, everybody remember that Schwarzkopf had the idea first, and gets dibs.

Ranbutan (#30) wrote:

If Lord Haw-Haw had two passports, he never would have been hanged.

Even if it was the passport of an Allied country? He was an American, after all; I find it hard to believe that we couldn't have come to some agreement with the British.

I think Peter Arnett is pissant, snibbling, oportunist worm. Much like Chirac himself. Everyone needs an enemy to grab onto and he is coming a good candidate. His motives though tacky and selfish might seem mainly to say anything nesscasary to garner the sympathy of Arnett so he may facilitate the whereabouts of missing journalist commrades. AKA he will sell out the US and it's people for professional courtesy. Though he thinks that's a noble cause. He shows absolutey no spine of backbone what so ever. Sound Familiar Frenchmen?

Had to work in that French bash didn't I. hehe

Sorry, I meant to say sympathy of Iraq, err not Arenett. That would be silly

Egfrow

#30 Ranbutan

Arnett is dual citizen/dual loyalty, so he will never have to say he is sorry. Treason? Aid&Comfort? Betrayal?? Hardly...he has the out of every American with dual cirtizenship from those charges.

Here is the Oath of Allegiance

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovreignty, of who or which have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United Staes when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God.

This is very simple, very clear, and on 3/28, 7650 people in Los Angeles took this oath and became citizens. The ceremony in the morning had 3900 participants and was extremely moving.

Dual citizenship does not give one the right to abuse or break the laws of the United States, and freedom of the press does not cover acts of treason which include providing aid to the enemy. The oath indicates that all must renounce their allegiance and fidelity to the previous recipient of that loyalty - so in the eyes of the law - Arnett is an American just like Walker Lindh or Jose Padilla.

Glen #23 - great letter. Do you mind if I fire that off to my congressman? I doubt the Senators from CA will do more than pat Arnett on the back.

Uzi #38 - only mention is on pgs 135-136 - when he tells the story of Arnett leaving Duc Co to file a story and Arnett shaking from fear when trying to get a night medevac out.

#43 - No way. He's enjoying what he's saying too much to be coerced.

Re: #30 and #46 -

Here is a bit from the last words of William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw), and doesn't it sound familiar?

I know that I have been denounced as a traitor and I resent the accusation ... although I understand the resentment that my broadcasting have in many quarters aroused. Whatever opinion may be formed at the present time with regard to my conduct, I submit that the final judgment cannot be properly passed until it is seen whether Britain can win the peace.

The first sentence could be Arnett, word for word. The second reminds me of what David Horowitz wrote about Arnett: That he lives in a fantasy in which he imagines that the US will be ultimately overcome in a clash of civilizations. (I think Joyce went to his death believing that right-thinking Britons would raise a monument to him some day.)

I'm sure Arnett has no intention of being another Joyce. His model would more likely be Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett, who broadcast propaganda against Australia in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

All Burchett had to do was wait for a Labour government to come to power in Australia (in 1972) and he knew he could return home without fear of prosecution. So he went back to clean sheets and reliable plumbing, and sued everybody who called him a traitor for libel.

#36, thanks ever so much for the email list. I just sent my comments off to them all.

#49 - Athos:

Go for it. Don't neglect to hit those local TV affiliates, too.

Holy Radicalization, Batman, this war has turned me into some kind of activist. Now I'm encouraging other people to do it, too. I'm going to get my ass kicked out of the Silent Majority, and lose my group insurance plan.

Great, this is really what the Iraqi civilians need to see. This fool has been bought and sold by Saddam. Notice how friendly his opening statement was? I mean, can you imagine one of our reporters talking this way to Goebbels during WW2? If he wasn't under a gun, then he is just pure slime.

#43 atomic conspiracy

I think Baghdad Pete is on his last assignment, and he will be killed by "American bombs" before this is over. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

This would qualify him to join Rachel Corrie to compete for the Fisky and Darwin in the same year. I do hope that Fisk himself decides to run :-)

Maybe Baghdad Pete will get the interview of his career, the last personal interview ever given by Saddam Hussein, only to have a 5,000 pound bunker buster cut it short?

I smell ratings!

Andrew Sullivan has the following to say about Arnett and other mega-idiotarians

ARNETT, STOOGE: A long, long time ago, I voiced an offhand fear that some parts of the left (and far right) in this country were so disenchanted with America, so contemptuous of president Bush, so full of misplaced attraction to the thugs and despots of the developing world, that they could mount what amounts to a fifth column in the event of serious conflict. For the new class especially, the journalists and academics and chatterers, some of whose loyalties extend only to their latest publicist, the notion of simple loyalty to country is and was, as Orwell, noted a contemptible emotion. I was denounced for such a thought - even though it was an aside in an essay devoted to celebrating America. But it turns out I was right. My piece opposite deals with the fulminations of a Columbia University professor, Nicholas de Genova, who blurted out what some of his fellow leftwing academics truly feel: that they want the United States to lose this war, and if that means that Saddam wins, so be it. There is no question in my mind that that is also a simmering sentiment among several important media institutions, like the BBC and, to a lesser extent, the New York Times. (Reading the Sunday New York Times yesterday was to read a paper whose editors have already assumed - or can barely conceal the conjecture - that the war is lost.) And now we have Peter Arnett, mouthing Ba'ath Party propaganda, lying about declining support for the war in the U.S., sucking up to the Stalinists who control the Iraqi police state, and generally making a huge ass of himself. This interview is disgusting. It is propaganda. It could demoralize Iraqi resistance to Saddam; it could therefore increase the likelihood of a longer war and cost American lives. This after barely two weeks of warfare. Two weeks.

I wonder how many bombs headed into Baghdad now have special greetings of "Hasta la vista, Pete!" on 'em. Yeah, big change of war plans there.

Craig (#55): I'm sure he'll get a long interview when he joins Saddam in hell.*

*See this:

Iraq's defense minister appeared on Iraqi television last week accompanied by a man believed to be Saddam's longtime bodyguard. U.S. officials wonder why the bodyguard would stray from Saddam at a moment when the Iraqi leader presumably would be concerned about coup attempts and his personal security.

"It's worthy of note," the official said. "Here's a guy who's always seen with Saddam. You always see him in the videos."

and this:

Longtime observers of the Iraqi regime say the unnamed bodyguard has never been spotted outside Hussein's presence, Fox News Channel's Washington Bureau Chief Brit Hume said.

Peter Arnett, Forth Estate, Fifth Column, brought to you by the good folks with the bright idea, helping you to live electically.GE

This is bad for coalition forces. For the first time in a long time, I'm really worried and I think this war might take a lot longer than previously anticipated. I have a feeling that things are going to get really ugly.

There is nothing in Arnett's comments that haven't also been made many times elsewhere. Iraqi resistance higher than expected; uprisings against Saddam not materializing; rethinking of strategy. Several retired generals have said the same things; US officials have responded feebly, if at all.

If Arnett hadn't given the interview, what difference would it have made? Do you think Iraqi TV won't report Wesley Clark saying our troops are bogged down, or Gen. Paul Funk's harsh criticism of the administration?

Or are you suggesting that no one should ever criticize the administration's military strategy, and anyone who does so is a traitor?

Arnett wasn't coerced. He was so obviously full of himself that he couldn't get his words out quickly enough. They called this an interview, but it clearly was a staged diatribe in which Arnett was fully complicit.

The increased death toll of both Iraqi citizens and coalition forces isn't the only consequence of Arnett's BS. This interview will go out to the other Arab networks, feeding the growing frenzy of the Arab street.

I am reminded of whozits (sorry, I'm an old lady who suffers from chronic brain-farts) of Egypt in 1967. He stirred up the population to such a degree that he lost control and ended up in a war he wasn't really prepared to fight. He was bluffing, but his citizens didn't know that. They took him seriously and so lost most of their military and many citizens dead -- and suffered one of the worst, most humiliating defeats in history...in six days, no less.

If Arnett hasn't met the criterion for treason, he certainly has met the criterion for sedition.

A call for a boycott of MSNBC, NBC, National Geographic, GE, and Microsoft needs to be organized. Letters to those sponsoring programs on these networks' programs is also called for. Vote with your dollars, your time, and your enthusiasm. Make this man a pariah as he deserves. Make sure he is held accountable to the citizens of the United States -- even if the government doesn't take official notice of his sedition. The people have the power in this country. Spontaneous ostracism is called for -- swift and sure.

Do your bit for the war. Make sure this SOB is never again in a position to screw this country and her fighting forces.

This is the link for Peter Arnett's Letters - a page on MSNBC.com that includes a form to send Peter a message while he is in Baghdad.....

What could we say to him......?

Fill in the form, below, to e-mail Peter a question. You can also send him a message and wish him safety in Baghdad.

Look Peter Arnett is just misunderstood. Don't be so hard on him. Here is a picture educating the youth of tomorrow.

Arnett with the Childern

Look at the head of hair on that Iraqi interviewer, as compared to Arnett's. We must close the comb-over gap.

benai zanot!!!!!
FLOOD THE BASTARDS WITH e- MAILS!
Cancel your cable if they have CNN on it!!!( will save you alot of agro)
Israel threatened CNN with cancelling them last spring, and in the end CNN got scared and Turner issued an wussy apology, and promised to lighten up( and kicked rula
-amin out of our region.. ) we dont have to put up with this.. CNN is a business, and if enough people cancel, it will have an effect.
For more about e- mailing campaigns , and media patrolling see honest reporting ,
[Link: honestreporting.com...]
and channel that anger! The amount of articulte intelligent people in here can add to the 50,000 people who wont take the bullshit anymore. I can proudly say that our Israel cable TV has cancelled BBC world service news, because of its blatant anti irsael stance. morons have " peace protests", let's harness our majority force to do some good. !!!!

FROM HONSET REPORTING..

In May, HonestReporting members took CNN to task for originally giving more airtime to the family of a suicide bomber, than to the Israeli victims' family. Resentment built up more after founder Ted Turner equated Israeli security measures with Palestinian terror. Israeli satellite TV companies nearly dropped the network in favor of Fox News, and CNN instituted some sweeping editorial changes. The New York Times cited HonestReporting for its role in affecting policy, and the Jerusalem Post reported that "HonestReporting.com readers sent up to 6,000 e-mails a day to CNN executives, effectively paralyzing their internal e-mail system."

LETS GET EM, GUYS!!!!!!

He's a New zealander not a traitor - New zealand is officially neutral....

I said it once in a different thread and I will say it again; I detest this man. Any guy that interviews Saddam Hussein while a war is going on ...

One bit that made my jaw drop: "the population is responsive to the government's requirements of discipline," says Arnett. Yeah, the threat of a bullet to the back of the head'll do that to you.

"Uzi (#38)

Is that you, and if so, where have you been!? "

Yep its me. I've had to cut back. My wife has accused me of being an internet junkie and threatened to stick me in the Betty Ford Clinic if I didn't stop spending all my free time on LGF.

So for the last couple of months I've avoided spending a lot of time on the internet at home and I've only managed to glance in at LGF at the office, about once a day for a few minutes, read the main clips, catch a couple of the links, but mostly I haven't been able to post.

Now it's a slow day at the office, so I can post away without getting into trouble with she who must be obeyed.

As a member of the female side of the species you can probably sympathize with my wife's position, though as a member of the LGF community you can probably identify with my predicament as well.

See ya.

This Aussie wants you all to know Peter Arnett is a former NEW ZEALANDER.

(He is NOT an Australian, thank God.)

Condolences to all my good Kiwi friends out there.

Sorry, that last post was from UZI, not Zulubaby. I typed in "Zulubaby" by accident, intending to respond to her.

Yesterday I found a way to get a high bandwith feed of Iraqi TV via the internet.

Amazing how much the Iraqi people love to sing about Saddam.

One of those generals looks just like Cheech Marin.

Anyway, I happened to catch most of that 'interview' with Arnett.

He didn't appear to me to be coerced. At one point during his rant I thought he would pause to wipe the spittle from his lip. It was sickening and appalling.
He appeared to truly believe what he was saying.
I did come away thinking that if they do believe him, they are as self deluded as Arnett is. I am not so sure that is true.
The funny thing was that the host looked uncomfortable and embarressed by it all. I got the impression that he wasn't buying it either.

FIRED! by both NBC and National Geographic.

Lesson noted ...... you're to report the story not BE the story.

Peter Arnett has been FIRED by MSNBC, NBC News and National Geographic. Just announced on the Today show around 7:15 am Eastern, and was followed by a massively-contrite Arnett apologizing his ass off and announcing he plans to pack up and leave Baghdad.

It's over. We won. In record time.

I have MSNBC on now, and they just said they've "severed all ties" with Arnett as a result of his interview. Somebody's listeing. :-)

Pondscumsucker.
(A life form lower than pondscum.)

I watched that interview, now couldnt you imaging him saying this "now it puts the lotion in the basket" "or it gets the hose again". hehe

glad they fired his insane ass.

Damn. I've been reading too much news lately. It was Arnett who "reported" the infamous line "we had to destroy the village to save it" from Vietnam. The source of the quote was an "anonymous US officer".

IMHO, Arnett made it up. Just like "Tailwind" -- which wasn't just an attempt to attack the US, but to rehabilitate Iraq.

This is just the most blatant example; Arnett's been a traitorous piece of scum for most of his life.

There are 80 posts on this article and I don't have time to check 'em all, so I apologize if I am repeating what someone else already said. Whatever we did to Tokyo Rose after WWII would be a good place to start with this sleazy POS.

Was that Peter Arnett or Peter Arafat?

#13, Karen:
The Iraqi TV "interview" doesn't even qualify as an interview. It's just the Iraqi sitting by as Arnett chucks up his pre-arranged venom. And when I checked his 1997 Bin Laden inverview, thanks to your link, the most amazing aspect of Arnett's "questions" was the cloying obsequiesness, the fawning ass-kissing.
Obviously one of the (many) bad results fo the Vietnam war has been that a lot of media "personalities" came to see themselves as a fourth branch of government. Demi-gods with bad harcuts. It's their job not to report the truth but to tweak world affairs.
I'm glad somebody brought up the dubious veracity of Arnett's "We had to destroy the village..." quote. That one used to bother me a lot. All thanks to a manipulative, self-promoting clown.

#26
As I recall the Alien and Sedition Act expired during Thomas Jefferson's presidency amid wide popular outrage, and no new sedition act has been passed since then, so sedition is not illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

#49
As I understand it, although dual citizenship is illegal in the US, there are no laws or regulations that specify what anyone should do about it, so there are no consequences for dual citizens except under very peculiar circumstances. If you disagree with that, as I do, write your congressman and ask them to put some enforcement in the law.

#84, etc

I haven't seen a definitive source for whether Arnett is a naturalized US citizen, or whether he had parents from two different countries.

If he was naturalized, then as part of the process he reounced all other citizenships. Thus he is not a dual citizen, but an american of NZ ancestry.

However, if his parents were from different countries, then it's possible that he could be a dual citizen.

Claims that dual citizenship is illegal shows a lack of knowledge of what causes it. It's a matter of biology and the crazy patchwork of international laws that involve citizenry. People have two parents. Therefore in countries that base citizenship on two different things they may be eligible for different reasons for each parent.

In the USA you are a citizen if you are born here. In other countries you are a citizen if a parent was a citizen. In fact, it is possible to wind up being a triple or quadruple citizen.

It's also possible to wind up being a citizen of no country. The arab world plays games like this, with the result that there are millions of people who have no citizenship, and are at the mercy of whatever asylum programs will take them. In fact, that is part of the reason such countries make the citizenship laws so restrictive. They want to evict certain classes of people and not allow them back in.