Posted on 02/17/2005 8:15:05 PM PST by unknownblogger
This is the good stuff from a speaking engagement Peter Arnett had at West Virginia University:
...He seemed to tear up at first as he said that he had been "struck by the generosity of the local community." He then segued into one of his most partisan statements of the evening, which by itself does not signify bias, but does give insight into the mind of a veteran journalist. He said this as he talked about the Bush adminstration's war on terrorism (or as he perceived it, globalization):
"If we could export West Virginian hospitality to the Iraqs of the world...then maybe I'd get behind President Bush's grand design and vote Republican."
There was scattered laughter at this statement, but the obvious connotations of a "grand design" spoke volumes about his opinion of the administration. More on that later....
Arnett kept wondering to himself, "What had [Saddam] been doing all these years?!?" He found out much of what Saddam had been doing; although most of it will be revealed in the April issue of Playboy, he divulged, "You won't believe it...he wrote a romantic historical novel in his last year in power!" I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that bit of information. The novel will be published in Jordan soon; I believe it will be within the year....
Peter Arnett's most peculiar statements came in response to questions about liberal bias in the media. He segued into the discussion by mentioning the set-up question about body armor that was posed to Donald Rumsfeld last year, saying that he thought it was great and produced results, because now the troops have much more armor. As if that wasn't wild enough, what he said next about whether the media has a liberal bias completely surprised me:
"Oh, it was! But it's being well-balanced now."
I wish you could have seen my face. As I attempted to pick my jaw up off the ground, he referred to all the different forms of media there are today and how much more diverse it had become. He then changed the subject to the blogosphere, which he actually has a very high opinion of. The only thing that seems to bother him about bloggers is when they come together and attack those that they don't like, particularly former co-worker Eason Jordan. Notice he didn't say a word about the whole Gannon thing that's been big on the left lately; I doubt he ever worked with the guy, so why defend him?
And then the big question was asked. The first person in the audience to be called upon said roughly, "Why do you think we went into Iraq?" Arnett attempted to choose his words carefully, saying that the bloggers were going to have a field day with his response. Great foresight, Mr. Arnett; you hit the jackpot! I quote the next portion as closely as possible. He said the following:
"I think historians will look at the WMD scare as Bush's Gulf of Tonkin...I think he took [the assassination attempt on his dad by Saddam] personally, and the neo-conservatives around him all thought it would be easy [to go and get Saddam]. It was natural to go to war in response to the attacks...the world was behind us going into Afghanistan, but not for Iraq. It was the passion of the moment...but I think the jig is up. You lost some of your civil liberties this time...let's hope it doesn't happen again."
He also went on to reiterate his belief that the MSM is neutral, but I almost burst out laughing when he asked, "If you can discredit the New York Times, what the hell do you have?" Well, for one, you have balance. He said some other interesting things, but this is the majority of the meat. I'm glad he has respect for the blogosphere; he said he Googled himself this week and found about 30,000 more results than he did last week, mostly from bloggers. Ladies and gentlemen, let's light up Google some more. This was crazy in a good way, and while I think he can probably be a fair journalist (and my opinion of him improved somewhat), I think everyone should see this.
Talking about discrediting Arnett reminds me of the line in the Odd Couple about Felix's charred meatloaf: "I'd toss it in the incinerator but it won't burn twice."
Peter Arnett! Now there's a nearly forgotten name from the dust bin of History.
Peter Arnett? Didn't he use to be somebody?
I disagree. Historians, worthy of the title, will look back upon invading Iraq as Bush's "D-Day". Just as Jefferson was wise for engaging the Barbary Pirates to the consternation of the European Powers of the time, so is Bush's wise in taking on the oil wealthy dictators of the Middle East. A similar, seminal, act to Jeffersons. Peter Arnett will not even be a footnote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.