Posted on 03/31/2003 4:18:35 AM PST by dep
"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview with Iraqi state television," said NBC in a statement. NBC, MSNBC, and National Geographic have all fired him.
Arnett on live, apoligizing to "NBC, MSNBC, National Geographic, and the American people." He then goes on to say that all he said in the interview was "what we all know.
who you calling the "propagandist right"?
dep
If you can't debate without ad hominem attacks does that mean you lose ?
Mr. Marzullo, I don't know how often you lurk, but you could really inform Sister_T.
I think NG beat MSNBC to the punch, his ugly mug was pulled sometime this morning (he had a large section on their site that no longer exists), they've still got an old story up, but I don't expect them to purge their old stories of him, just like I don't expect Fox to purge their old stories of Geraldo.
So are we taking bets on who the next journalist is to commit career suicide?
Well, there was William Joyce AKA Lord Haw Haw.
I, for one, am glad Arnett said what he said. It helps remind us that there are indeed traitors among us. Eternal vigilence, as Barry Goldwater said, is the price of liberty. Arnett's language, distasteful though it was, turned out to be a net positive.
Arnett failed to grasp the subtle difference between "fourth estate" and "fifth column." Good for NBC for firing him. But don't think for a moment they have moved back toward sanity; their undermining of our war efforts will only become more subtle, and unfortunately, probably more effective.
And don't think that Arnett will suffer any adverse financial effects from this. He was nearing retirement age anyway; he is probably even now entertaining several offers from European networks to be their war correspondent. Furthermore, you can bet the book offers will come flooding in -- no doubt the French translation of whatever he writes about our flawed war strategy and/or Peter Arnett's martyrdom will hit the best-seller list in short order.
Peter Arnett, in addition to being a traitor, is "full of it." He calls to mind the old junior high school insult: if they gave him an enema, they could bury him in a matchbox.
Did I say "wrong" or "false".
#1, How do you suppose he is correct in saying that our first war plan failed and that our generals are now taking a week off to rewrite the war plan? He couldn't possibly know if ANY war plan failed because he hasn't seen any war plans.
He said " ARNETT: That is why now America is re-appraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and re-writing the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance now they are trying to write another war plan."
How is that any different than waht is being reported here by all the arm chair analyists? #2, How could he be correct in saying that we are taking a week off? He couldn't possibly "know" that and there is absolutely no evidence to back up what he said - in fact, there is an abundance of evidence all over the tv from the embedded reporters that he is absolutely wrong.
I also hear it reported here that we were taking a breather in order to regroup.
#3, He took credit for being responsible for the anti-war movement in the U.S by his broadcasting the civilians that are killed by the coalition attacks. How could he possibly "know" that any of the coalition attacks have killed any civilians in Iraq? And as much as he likes to think he is responsible for any anti-war movement in the US, those started well before Peter started broadcasting anything at all about civilian casualities the he claims were from coalition attacks. The coalition wasn't attacking anything when the anti-war movement began in this country.
If you are referring to this
For that reason, the Pentagon keeps saying that the civilian casualties, particularly in Baghdad in the last three or four days, at the market places -- the Pentagon says -- well they are Iraqi missiles that land amongst the people. They keep saying that, but of course the Iraqi government says they are clearly cruise missiles that hit the population.
He appears to be stating each sides posistion only.
Then why not clear them all out. Jennings, Rather etc all say this crap over an over again.
Exactly. Then there's the effect on neighboring countries, across whose borders thousands are supposedly crossing or preparing to cross in order to fight with Iraq. The more the Coalition is made to look ineffective, the more these fanatics will be emboldened to rally to Iraq's cause.
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.