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.
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.