Posted on 03/31/2003 4:18:35 AM PST by dep
Well maybe he isn't out of Iraq yet, but the military are fed up with him and I don't think he is with that unit anymore.
Geraldo Being Booted From Iraq?
by Charles Aldinger, Reuters
WASHINGTON (March 31) - Veteran reporter and former talk show host Geraldo Rivera, a correspondent for Fox News, was asked to be removed from Iraq by the U.S. military for reporting Western troop movements in the war, the Pentagon said Monday.
But in a report from Iraq where he was about 60 miles from Baghdad with the 101st Airborne Division, Rivera, known for his provocative on-screen style, said all was well and suggested he wasn't being ejected from the country by the U.S. military for coverage of the war. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman later told Reuters, however, that Fox News itself had agreed to remove Rivera after the military commander where Rivera was reporting felt that he had ''compromised operational security.''
A Fox spokesman said: ''All I can tell you is that he's still reporting from Iraq.''
Rivera said in his televised report that he did not know where the reports about the alleged security violations came from but accused colleagues, including former employer NBC, of perhaps ''spreading some lies about me.'' He suggested all was well between him and the military.
(Geraldo is one great big liar.)
''I'm further in the country than I have ever been,'' Geraldo said.
''If you were to ask me on whether or not he had reported on things that were of tactical value and compromised operational security, I would have to say yes. In the eyes of the commander on the ground, he did,'' Whitman told Reuters.
''I would say that he is going to be leaving Iraq,'' added Whitman. ''Fox has talked to us and they have indicated to us that they are going to remove him from the area of operations.''
Whitman, who had earlier said the military was ejecting Rivera, later amended that to Fox agreeing to withdraw the correspondent.
Reports from competing media said earlier that Rivera, a former talk show host and veteran correspondent who has also reported the war in Afghanistan and high-profile stories such as the O.J. Simpson murder trial, had been accused of violating rules against compromising operational security.
Whitman said Rivera was not officially ''embedded,'' or assigned to the unit by the military, but was covering the troops at the time.
Geez, would some Mydol alleviate his mindless, liberal symptomatology?
Well that makes two of us out of 50,000.
We live in interesting times. What really has me thinking is the way that "patriotism" is now officially acceptable and encouraged again, where for the longest time before it had been demeaned and discouraged by the dominant organs of society (media, schools, and the like). Something changed, and I'm not sure if it can all be chalked up to 9/11. I suspect that it's now been let out of the bottle in order to fuel, and provide cover for, other agendas that the average, well-meaning flag-waver might not be aware of. Someone obviously is benefiting from all this loose energy.
You keep trying to set the content of his interview aside, as if you're trying to keep any consideration of *what* he said off-limits. That's a mistake.
Accepting an interview on Iraqi TV during a war would itself have been unobjectionable if he had used the opportunity to present the American reasons for going to war, or attacking the Iraqi position/lies/etc.
His failure, however, was in giving an interview on Iraqi TV during wartime which was *sympathetic* to the Iraqi side in the war and *undermining* to the American side. He was, in short, trying to bolster the chances of an Iraqi war victory and undercut the chances of an American victory.
That's where it goes over the line into treason.
He could have said the same things "back home" and just been another one of the anti-American/anti-war chorus. But to do it on Iraqi propaganda TV was to knowingly do it *for the purpose* of giving "aid and comfort" to the wartime enemies of the US.
Jane Fonda had the same problem. Lots of idiots mouthed off about the Vietnam war. Fonda, however, did it IN NORTH VIETNAM, in a way that was *purposely* done for pro-NV propaganda value.
And if you *watch* the Arnett interview, it's impossible to escape the same conclusion. He was sympathizing with the Iraqis (and on their home turf, to boot) during a time when the US is at war with them.
I would shed no tears whatsoever if he were imprisoned or executed for treason. And this has nothing at all to do with "journalism" or "freedom of the press" -- people who happen to work for news organizations are under the same legal restrictions as the rest of us when it comes to undermining the US during times of war.
Exactly. Another martyr for the cause.
Arnett is (almost) all petered out.
Actually that wasn't my reason for ignoring the content. I considered how it might go if he did go on there and act like super patriot and I concluded that no matter what he said or did the Iraq news agency could spin it to their advantage.
So, I dug a little deeper in my thinking about this and looked at the earliest "transaction" in the chain. The earliest transaction was his acceptance of the interview which was when he simply showed up and sat down. From that second onward he was giving the enemy something that had value to them that he was under no obligation to give them, regardless of what he said afterwards.
His mere presence was in itself a propoganda win as was Jane Fonda if all she did was cooperate. I agree that what each said and did afterwards added fuel to the flame but I believe the point at which both crossed the line was the acceptance of the interview.
On that issue I don't know if he intended harm or was just plain gullible, stupid and reckless.
Not the first time for him. He lost his job at CNN for fabricating anti-US propaganda that the US had chemically bombed a Laotian village.
It's not about his views, but the fact that he committed treason.
And for any viewer who likes to be able to trust what reporters say, it probably doesn't matter which of your descriptions actually fits him the best. Any of them hinder his objectivity.
Like the little boy who cried wolf, his words won't be trusted.
That's a given. The question of intent was to establish whether he committed treason. As for most crimes, without intent there is no crime.
I wasn't clear enough...The question about treason is an important one. I only meant (as you pointed out) that it is a given that Arnett stepped into "it" and it will be difficult for anyone, even his supporters, to really take him seriously.
His supporters might pretend he has important things to say, but I doubt they would make any personal "life and death" decisions based only on what he says.
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.