Posted on 03/31/2003 3:29:22 AM PST by conservativecorner
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise ... Peter Arnett is broadcasting his special brand of ego-driven, anti-American rhetoric from Baghdad once again, having been rehabilitated from his ashes and sackcloth by the "green"-driven National Geographic, and now seconded to the National Broadcasting Corporation.
For those not familiar with the symbol most closely describing the real-politik of the "greens," beyond a doubt, it would have to be the watermelon. A thin patina of green coats the exterior with a slightly bitter, hard, white rind supporting – while inside, it is red solidly to the core.
Yes, I know: Why don't I tell you how I really feel? But if one looks at some of the policy decisions made by the "greens," perhaps some justification might be found for this apparently less-than-charitable assessment.
Let's dial Mr. Peabody's "Wayback Machine" to the mid-1980s. Ninety miles off of the Florida coast, in Castro's idyllic worker's paradise of Cuba, the benevolent peace-loving Soviets are busily constructing a nuclear-power reactor, virtually identical to that gem of proletariat workmanship located near Chernobyl.
Chernobyl, as many will recall, was the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history – just a little earlier. But the Cuban copy is being constructed without the higher standards used in the construction of the original graphite-core reactor, as the hard currency required is getting harder to find.
Given the level of shrill, chained-across-the-entrance anti-nuclear hyperbole we are now long accustomed to at power plants throughout the United States, it might surprise you to learn that they had nothing to say about this holocaust-waiting-to-happen. Yes, that's right – a stunning silence.
Well, to be completely candid, the hierarchy did kind of very quietly mumble something indistinct when directly questioned about the situation, so perhaps you feel that they covered themselves OK (you mutter).
Fair enough. But how about the routine Soviet practice of dumping poorly sealed, hot-as-a-pistol naval nuclear-reactor cores into the Barents Sea? Golly gee, when you consider the media and legal ruckus kicked up about America carefully transporting low-level waste (about one-trillionth the amount the Soviets kept dumping, willy-nilly) designed more than a mite better than the bare ocean floor, it seems interesting that again you could hear a (very small) pin drop relative to what the greens had to say in the earlier scenario. Hmmm … the previous mumbled equivocations used for the Cuban scenario seem somehow less compelling this time.
But enough of the obnoxiously persistent and inconvenient facts about the greens' protestation policies (and there are many, many more), because what we are really reading this for is to find out about the whys and wherefores of the recently resurrected Arnett and his latest pro-Saddam journalistic antics so piously defended by NBC.
To put Peter's statements within a fair context of his past journalistic activities, one must go back to the 1960s and the Vietnam War. In that conflict, Arnett attempted to float – not once, but twice – the contrived story of the dread and deadly chemical weapons (common teargas, as it turned out) being deployed by the barbaric and murderous American military machine.
Undismayed by having been found out, and after being rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize (similar to the 1930s prize for "debunking" Stalin's coldly calculated, but well-documented Ukrainian genocide), Arnett skipped off merrily into the sunset with his North Vietnamese bride to later appear on CNN.
At CNN, Arnett became a rising star, broadcasting from around the world until 1990, where he was the only Western reporter allowed to stay in and report from Baghdad during the first Gulf War. While there, his reporting was widely criticized for its apparent slant favoring Saddam's regime, culminating in his infamous "Baby-Milk-Factory" story with its hastily scribbled signs in each of the languages that particular run of footage was to be aired with.
After the war, Arnett was granted unique and extensive privileges to cover the story within Iraq and, once again, his reporting was very favorable to the Iraqi regime. His coverage of Saddam's mass murder of Kurdish people with nerve agents and the brutal suppression of the Shiite revolt were kind, to say the least.
But in 1998, Arnett hit an unexpected snag in his well-practiced tap-dancing routine when he helped to construct – and then front for – the worst journalistic disaster in living memory, the CNN-TIME "Valley of Death" story that headlined (and sank) his own – and his network's – reputation. For that jewel of lurid deception, Arnett (well protected from internal review by CNN executives) dredged up his already twice-rejected nerve-gas story, applied some sparkly glitter effects with very adroit editing so as to ensure the success of the premier of "NewsStand."
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah broke the story and, within weeks, the fragile bubble of the leftist fantasy Arnett had created, burst. In the aftermath, Arnett was ignobly consigned to a bare desk while internal CNN reviews, lawsuits and governmental investigations ground on and on, until it was more cost-effective for CNN to spend the big bucks to buy out his contract rather than risk putting him on the air again.
The aftermath of that phony nerve-gas story was not only that CNN was virtually ruined from an integrity standpoint (not that Peter really cared), but that was the straw that broke the back of the fragile international consensus that kept the United Nations' weapons inspectors in Iraq. For it was Arnett's little introductory speech for that pack of calculated lies that asserted that now the United States had no moral position to deny Iraq chemical weapons.
Well, now the person who helped bring the world to a war over Iraqi chemical weapons brings you NBC-certified, fresh news from the front. Listen closely now and begin to understand ...
Company, not Corporation. It doesn't do wonders for your credibility if you can't even get the name correct, even if your argument is sound (as this one is).
I believe that was CNN's Bernard Shaw, but Arnett could have possibly said it, too.
Atta boy, Peter. Seeya at the next desert storm in the sky.
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.