|
31 Mar 03 - 07:24 AM (#922357) Subject: BS: Peter Arnett From: kendall Looks like reporter, Peter Arnett, is facing the guillotine. He told it like it is, and Washington wants his balls on a pike. What ever happened to the first amendment? |
|
31 Mar 03 - 09:02 AM (#922428) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Beccy Is it telling it "like it is" because you agree with him? Or is it possibly overstepping the journalistic creed of not interjecting personal opinion into your reports? Before you say, "but HE was the one being interviewed," THAT is also overstepping the journalistic boundary. He is ostensibly there as an impartial reporter. Holding forth on his opinon of the military action is not only not in good taste, it's simply stupid. He deserves to be disciplined by NBC. Beccy |
|
31 Mar 03 - 09:24 AM (#922448) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Beccy Well, I guess justice IS swift, sometimes... Peter Arnett fired over Iraq comments |
|
31 Mar 03 - 09:55 AM (#922482) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: McGrath of Harlow Another own goal by the Establishment. Do they realise how welcome something like this sacking is to people who don't like America? |
|
31 Mar 03 - 10:17 AM (#922514) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Amos Arnett was not telling it "like it is". He was speaking as he saw things. As a journalist he has no way to get his arms around the ground truth. I don't think it was highly intelligent of him to give an interview to Iraq TV in the first place, but it was even less intelligent to select -- from the range of differnet perspectives flying around -- the semi-defeatist parts and pontificate on them without enough ground truth to speak with any authority. For example, he said in the interview that it was very clear that the coalition plan had failed and was obviously being redrafted. This is naive, IMO -- while I have no more access to the planning documents than he does, I do know that war plans of the kind he is speaking about are built on wide ranges of outcomes and multiple contingency plans. Knowing this, it is plain his "telling it like it is" was just one selective opinion from one corner of the sand box. Not that we should expect anything else from the chaos of war. The fact that he happened to be in a hotel in Baghdad during Gulf War I may technically qualify him as a veteran reporter but I see no reason to consider him any more of a source of truth than any other reporter over there. The fact is that even the coordination centers and HQs are struggling for information and constantly trying to get more complete pictures of the situation. Let alone an underpriveleged field reporter. A |
|
31 Mar 03 - 10:38 AM (#922534) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Richard L Oh Gosh, if we only had more journalists like Peter Arnett, and less like that silly woman on the aircraft carrier who kept asking American pilots to 'wave' to the cameras as they took off on bombing runs. Beccy, with all respect, NONE of the journalists have seemed completely impartial in this TV war. Of course they have their biases, but they all want to keep their jobs. Remember, this is how media 'superstars' are born. None of us knew much about Wolf Blitzer, Bernard Shaw, or Peter Arnett until desert storm a dozen years ago. Arnett has twice gone up against the hand that feeds him, and once again he's payed the price. He's a pulitzer prize winner though, and he'll be back. He DID say he'd acted stupidly though, so I guess he REALLY wants to be in the danger zone again (with an expense account) til this debacle is over. Here's part of his explanation: "I said in that interview essentially what we all know about the war, that there have been delays in implementing policy...that there have been surprises". Well.....who's going to disagree with that? I'm sure that you Beccy, Kendall, McGrath and myself are well aware that the Administration and the military have been passing this back and forth like a hot football for the last couple of days, so it's not like Arnett was making stuff up. He knows he made a faux pas, but my guess is some other (minor) agency will pick him up. He may have had it in the 'Majors'. Richard L |
|
31 Mar 03 - 10:43 AM (#922540) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Mars Peter Arnett is a good reporter with many years experience. However - he did show poor judgment in giving an interview to Iraqi TV. I think that was the lynchpin - not necessarily his comments. He pointed out this morning that Tim Russert and others had made the same comments, except that they were on US television. In doing what he did, he gave the Iraqis a great piece of propaganda. "Here's the US reporter on our network saying the war isn't working! Wow! How did we get so lucky?" He admits that he made a poor judgment call. |
|
31 Mar 03 - 10:56 AM (#922559) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Troll Peter Arnet is the one, if memory serves me, who accused the US of using Sarin Gas in Laos during Viet Nam to try and kill defectors. He said he had proof and CNN ran the story. Turns out that the proof was all in his head and CNN canned him. In Gulf War I, he sucked up to the Iraqi regime and they allowed him to stay in Baghdad and broadcast from there. It later turned out that some of his reports were, shall we say, not very long on fact. While Arnet praised the Iraqi regime for treating journalists well, he must have forgotten that several journalists have been killed, that three-two Israelis and a Portuguese- are missing and are presumed to be held by the Iraqis. Those of you who want to praise Arnet because he said what you wanted to hear, enjoy. Just because you like the message, it doesn't mean it's so. troll |
|
31 Mar 03 - 11:04 AM (#922573) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: katlaughing It also doesn't mean he should get sacked, either. It's been all over the news that the plan has not gone as the shrubites thought; plenty of broadcasts the Iraqis could use for propoganda, including Rumsfeld falling all over himself to shove the original plan off on Franks. Arnetts producers were fired before he resigned over the sarin gas thing, at least that's what I read. kat |
|
31 Mar 03 - 11:09 AM (#922581) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Rick Fielding Has anyone got any UNBIASED stuff on Arnett's work? I have to admit, I'd forgotten the "Sarin Gas" story. Was it ACTUALLY untrue, or just too dangerous to run....so they crapped out. Was it ever proven either way? Cheers Rick |
|
31 Mar 03 - 11:41 AM (#922607) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: katlaughing Probably not at all unbiased from WSWS: ...April Oliver, who produced the CNN investigative report "Valley of Death" which aired last June. Oliver and her co-producer Jack Smith were fired by CNN when they refused to disavow their exposé of US use of sarin nerve gas in a secret special forces raid into Laos in 1970 (Operation Tailwind). Peter Arnett, who narrated the TV report, caved in to pressure from CNN executives and repudiated the story. He was publicly reprimanded by CNN at the time, and has now been fired. Actual text of Arnett and Oliver's as seen in the London Observer in 1998. From looking through google, Rick, it seems one can find verification of whatever one wants to believe about the sarin thing. I do't see anything which seems unbiased about "Operation Tailwind." |
|
31 Mar 03 - 11:56 AM (#922624) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Norton1 Most of the Viet Nam veterans I know have not been very pleased with Mr. Arnett for much of his biased coverage of the war. And this latest piece is typical of how he can concoct a story that has little to do with reality. I'd say that the majority of Americans voted with e-mails and phone calls at their displeasure over acts similar to his. I know I did and so did many of those I served with. I'm thrilled he was fired. It ought to tell those of you who are upset by it that the majority, what we here in America go by, are supportive of this action in Iraq. We are at war, voted on and approved by the Senate and House and validated by UN Resolution. People like Mr. Arnett should be taken to task for treasonous acts in my opinion. Steve |
|
31 Mar 03 - 12:07 PM (#922638) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: McGrath of Harlow "While Arnet praised the Iraqi regime for treating journalists well, he must have forgotten that several journalists have been killed" Some of them were actually killed by the Americans. It happens, but "friendly fire" kills you just as dead whichever side it comes from - after all, most of the British military killed in last Gulf War died that way. |
|
31 Mar 03 - 12:30 PM (#922656) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: catspaw49 Well I'm confused right away here......... Kendall, you said, "He told it like it is, and Washington wants his balls on a pike." Why and how would they stick his nuts on a fish? Spaw |
|
31 Mar 03 - 12:43 PM (#922670) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: jimmyt He said what he wanted which was his right. It is also his employers right to unload him. I say good show!! Everyone did what they had a right to do. I do think most reporters seem to lean one way or the other in their reporting bias, Peter just leaned too far, and he is now unemployed. |
|
31 Mar 03 - 01:16 PM (#922702) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Beccy Spaw- sometimes you are brilliant. This is one of those times. Good grief! |
|
31 Mar 03 - 01:19 PM (#922708) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: harvey andrews So predictable..turning on the media when things go wrong. They're after the BBC over here, the defence Minister saying their commentary on events puts them on the same side as Saddam. Same story, same script everytime no matter who you vote for! |
|
31 Mar 03 - 01:50 PM (#922745) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: MarkS Isn't this the same guy who fabricated the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" quote from the Vietnam war? Anybody remember? |
|
31 Mar 03 - 02:32 PM (#922772) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: JedMarum Peter was fired by his employer. Nothing to do with Washington. Geraldo, on the other hand was bounced out of Iraq today for giving away too much location and operational detail in his broadcast - he drew a map in the sand, said where they were and where they were going! Peter might be guilty of poor (or worse) journalistic practice - but Geraldo's "free speech" was much more dangerous! |
|
31 Mar 03 - 02:40 PM (#922779) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: katlaughing According to google, it was an American military press officer... |
|
31 Mar 03 - 02:53 PM (#922792) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: McGrath of Harlow "Shoot the messenger." I can't see too much distinction between saying something about how things are going pear-shaped, speaking on an American TV channel, which then of course will get picked up and rebroadcast on the Iraqi channel, or doing it directly in an interview on the same Iraqi channel. Good news reporting doesn't trim or spin the facts to favour any side. That's the difference between real journalism and propaganda. And most of the time it seems to me that what is presented to us as "news" is much closer to propaganda than anything. And the messaage from the politicians seems to be pretty consistently that if it's not propagands (which with th BBCis still the case some of the time) it ought not to be allowed. But the actual job of keeping the journalists in line is delegated to the employers, which is a much neater way of doing things and avoids problems about press censorship and freedom of expression, which might arise if it had to be done directly. You cannot hope To bribe to bribe or twist Thank God! The British journalist. But seing what That man will do Unbribed, there's no occasion to. (Humbert Wolfe. |
|
31 Mar 03 - 03:37 PM (#922827) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Norton1 "Isn't this the same guy who fabricated the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" quote from the Vietnam war? Anybody remember?" An American press officer did make the comment - and it was said in the context of how sad it was that the village was destroyed and saving "it" had to do with something else entirely. Part of the same press release but Arnett took it out of two places and stuck it together. Least that is my memory of it - Steve |
|
31 Mar 03 - 03:52 PM (#922837) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Troll Geraldo did exactly what they said he did. I saw the episode. Arnett doesn't need to worry about a job. Saddams boys will probably hire him to do comentary. As far as the sarin story, as I recall, Arnett claimed that he had proof but could not produce it. His repudiation of the story was a last-ditch attempt to salvage what he could of his tattered reputation. My memory may be at fault on this, as I was going through some pretty hairy personal things at the time. troll |
|
31 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM (#922839) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: artbrooks The comment originated with MAJ Phil Cannella, commander of the advisory group in the town of Ben Tre (Pop. 50,000). He told Arnett that it was a shame that most of the town had been destroyed by the Viet Cong with capture South Vietnamese artillery while trying to destroy the advisors' compound. Arnett quoted him, not by name, as saying "we had to destroy the town to save it." He was also the one who reported that the Viet Cong had taken the US Embassy in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. |
|
31 Mar 03 - 04:42 PM (#922878) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Troll Arnett never let the truth get in the way of a good story. troll |
|
31 Mar 03 - 07:55 PM (#923025) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Coyote Breath Arnett strikes me as being a bit "full of himself" but I think it was stupid and cowardly of NBC to fire him. There are two photographers (freelance photojournalists) who are currently missing. One is Molly Bingham, American and the other is a guy from a scandanavian country. Does anyone recall his name? News reporting under the anarchic conditions of war is difficult at best. I am impressed by the job that all (including Arnett) seem to be doing thus far. I don't agree with some of the points of view expressed by some of the reporters but because there are so many reporters in "bed" and in place, I feel we are getting a fair presentation overall. My only complaint is: I would like there to be MORE coverage. The military leadership wanted more men and supplies than what they ended up with. The "civilians" kept cutting back and instead of seven divisions of troops we went in with just over three. I don't know if paring back the size of the force has contributed to the "slowing down" of the war or not but it seems it could have. Arnett was right in focusing on the war's performance and perhaps Rumsfeld will allow the military leadership to conduct the war as they know it must be conducted. CB |
|
31 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM (#923030) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Coyote Breath Whoops! just heard that the Daily Mirror has hired Peter Arnett!!! CB |
|
31 Mar 03 - 08:47 PM (#923045) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Bobert Right ideas, wrong words? Hmmmmm? What Peter Arnett did was echo the thoughts that you'll find buried in the Washington Post, New York Times and others. Maybe it was a timing thing? With the media being micro-managed, with the "embedded" journalists, heck, I'm beginning to think we'd be better off not knowing a danged thing. At least it wouldn't have been bleeached out and edited before offered as news in entertainment wrappings. Of course, I jest here, but really. Censorship is so blattent in the reporting of this war to the American people, that the people are not being given anything upon which to judge for themselves. And for God's sake... or the sake of NASCAR, what ever it that turns you on, lets set aside words like "treason" for folks that don't happen to hold one's point of view. "Treason" is *not* an issue here. And lets also not loose fact that the US was born in adversity and difference of opinion. Anyone wanting to declare they own the high road is going to have to go beyond the "declaration stage" and bring some ideas to the table. It's the American way. Bobert |
|
31 Mar 03 - 09:57 PM (#923075) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: MarkS Thanks all for your prompt answers. You can learn just about anything here(!) |
|
31 Mar 03 - 10:32 PM (#923101) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Barry Finn The covering & reporting of this war leaves a hell of a lot to be disired. Peter said the same (whoopiee dou) thing that a fair amount of Ret. Generals, military analysts, military historians, tacticians & a host of others are saying, over the air. "We screwed up" or we shouldn't be there or we went about the whole thing ass backwards, duh, thanks up the news bulletin. Damn, if I could get paid to ponder & guess the reasons of how & why & have my head so far up my ass that I couldn't see the day for the night nor the trees for the forest as much as what I'm hearing from the Gulf I'd be right on the money & on par with the weather reporters, funny how that profession gets paid for so little that is useful, there ought to be a law ('I guess' once there was). There are reports that Franks got refused by his boss, for what he consideded he needed, then there's the spin that says just the oppisite. There is an incredible amount of speculation as to why we hit this or what was that burning some even answer their own questions & others give an answer & in the same sentence state "but this is just a guess". Shit what kind of reporting is this? Then there's the host of other international reporters saying that what the US is getting & what the rest of the nations are reporting are worlds apart. No matter what angle or side or view you see this war from the coverage of it sucks. I watched a few stations last night & there's was a lot of coverage on support the troops rallys while the same stations reported not a thing about the many anti-war rallys. I consider this kind of reporting base & not even worthy of the National Inquire's reports of "alien gives birth to Jesus's mother" or some other 'laugh a lot headline'. The only true news we'll get, IMHO, are from the flies on the wall & they'll all be dead by the time we're ready to listen. Barry |
|
01 Apr 03 - 12:23 AM (#923150) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: DougR McGrath: your anti-Americanism is getting a bit tiresome ...to me. I'm sure there are others here who applaud your efforts though. DougR |
|
01 Apr 03 - 01:26 AM (#923163) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Gareth Mmmmm ! Arnett was lucky, didn't we hang William Joyce, "Lord Haw Haw" Gareth |
|
01 Apr 03 - 03:29 AM (#923189) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Boab Steve---I can't think where you have been for the last six months! Where you get the idea that this attack on Iraq was with the blessing of the UN, I don't know. There MIGHT have come a time when direct action would have been required by that world body, but the American administration never had any intention of refraining from the action which is now in process. The bunch [and that is as respectful as I intend to be] at the top in the USA at present are , to a man, "UN haters". Reading some of the comments here, I come to the sad conclusion that a good number of the American people are likewise minded.If there are still some Americans who are naive enough to believe that operation "Iraqi Freedom"is an apt name for what is going on in the middle east, then I can only assume that they are being starved of the facts of what is happening on the ground. That "the best-laid plans" have yet again "gone agley" is as plain as day, no matter how the propaganda machines in London and New York try to insist that they knew all along that the Iraqis would fight. Heads more important than those of journalists have been rolling because their owners have been broadcasting uncomfortable truths. I'm one, by the way, who is deploring the Iraqi will to fight. While it shows their independent spirit, and their love of their Nation despite their despotic leader, it also spells death and misery for many innocent Iraqi women, little children and men, and so too for the young men in uniform who have been sent to fight the fight for oilmen and profiteers. This "war" is as nothing to what must lie now in the future. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 03:37 AM (#923193) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Boab And please----don't give me more of this "anti-American" guff. My life partner is a very dear lady from Chicago. Her brother, whom I consider one of my best friends, is a Vietnam vet. I have seen literally millions of American people giving vent to their feelings about the war. Like almost all the peoples of the globe, they arein the main decent human beings who are afflicted by a powerful minority of rapscallions. Rant over----- |
|
01 Apr 03 - 08:36 AM (#923386) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: kendall Arnett had no business doing that interview anymore than Jane Fonda had sitting on that anti aircraft gun. However, what he said was true; the war mongers in Washiongton are falling all over themselves trying to figure out what went wrong. They were expecting a "cakewalk" and the Iraqi's are actually fighting back. Once again, Bush is dead wrong, and he has egg all over his face. If King George the first had kept his promise to the Iraqis after the first gulf war, there would be a major uprising against Saddam; but, no, he failed, and after the war, Saddam took his pound of flesh against 50 thousand who rose up on our side. No wonder they are waiting to see what happens. Guaranteed, if we get Saddam, they will all be with us. That is, if we dont kill them all off. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 10:08 AM (#923511) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST,Sean Waltman Iraqi television is a propaganda arm directly controlled by Saadam's son. As an educated journalist, Arnett knew that they would show nothing that would not be to the propaganda benefit of Saadam's regime. As an experienced reporter, Arnett knew that he would have no future with NBC after giving the interview that he did. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 02:27 PM (#923769) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: katlaughing Not that it means anything, especially, but I just saw a news item at google news which was about the fact that Arnett is originally from New Zealand and was a "Southland" reporter at one time. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 02:44 PM (#923780) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: McGrath of Harlow Please Doug, quote anything I have said on this thread that is anti-American. I say "on this thread", because presumably I must have said something here to set you off, and if I knew what it was I could correct what has to be a misunderstanding. If it was "Friendly fire"? - that was setting the record straight. The nationalities involved weren't the point. In fact I would emphatically deny that I am in any way anti-American. In common with a very large number of Americans, I am extremely critical of many aspects of American government and of a number of tendencies in society which are common to both America and other countries. Many of the people whom I most admire and respect are American, that goes without saying. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM (#923942) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Barry Finn Peter just got pick up by a Brittish???? |
|
01 Apr 03 - 06:19 PM (#923954) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: wysiwyg So what if Arnett WAS being truthful-- don't people already know what they already know? Imagine if Hardi decided one Sunday morning at homily time that the best he could do for his flock was tell everyone which of the little old ladies in the church smell funny and have lint balls under their sofas... it would be true, but would it inform? And would it edify anyone? So, whaddaya think, would he expect the vestry to vote him a raise... or a one-way ticket out? People have a "right" to be truthful but they have a "right" to shut the **** up to prevent being idiots, too. ~Susan |
|
01 Apr 03 - 07:26 PM (#924003) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: McGrath of Harlow The job of a journalist is to find out what is true and significant, and put it in the public domain. Even when it is inconvenient. It's not a right, it's a duty. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 07:51 PM (#924018) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: kendall If governments could be trusted to tell the truth we wouldn't need journalists. |
|
01 Apr 03 - 09:23 PM (#924066) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: artbrooks Remember, the basic function of a TV reporter is to sell deodorant, Ford SUVs and tampons. The advertiser decides what the network is going to show, and the network executives say "yes, sir, boss - whatever you say." |
|
02 Apr 03 - 01:11 AM (#924195) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Troll Arnett went with the Mirror, eh? Good. He should fit right in there. Bobert, why do you say this war is censored? I assume you mean censored beyond the usual strictures ragarding troop movements etc. Could it be because they aren't reporting that things are going badly? Because they aren't reporting what you want to hear? Maybe you should try to get a Pacifica reporter embedded. Then you'd get the truth I betcha! A bit of intel on that van which ran a checkpoint resulting in the deaths of 7 women and children. Seems their families were being held by Saddams goons. They were given a choice. Run the checkpoint and some of you will die. Refuse and all of you will die. The source of this intel? Iraqi civilians who manage to get through the Coalition lines. Seems the "suicide taxi" was given the same choice; do it or your family dies. Nice folks, Saddam and his buddies. troll |
|
02 Apr 03 - 01:17 AM (#924198) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: GUEST What does "anti-American" mean? Is it anything like anti-Irish, anti-Venezuelan, anti-Turkish, anti-any other nationality? How can one be anti a nationality? |
|
02 Apr 03 - 01:29 AM (#924204) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: DougR There you go again, troll, confusing Bobert! McGrath: you may truly feel many of your posts are not anti-American. To other readers (and I am one), 'tis not so. But you don't HAVE to like us, I hasten to add. You have lots of company (born and bred 'Mericans right here on the Mudcat that agree with you!) DougR |
|
02 Apr 03 - 02:11 AM (#924237) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Thomas the Rhymer Oh dougie... you are at least as anti American as McGrath! Your definition of American seems mighty short on reasons... but then, I've never seen you actually explain anything! It would help the efficacy of your 'scathing' posts if you provided some factual data, and left out the snide personality smear campains... Seems to me you might want to chew before you swallow Rush's caustic wallow... ;^) ttr |
|
02 Apr 03 - 02:30 AM (#924245) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: Troll GUEST, it's pretty simple. You are anti a nationality if you have a general dislike (or hatred) for most things associated with that nationality. Sometimes it stems from a disagreement over political policy, and sometimes from a (possibly) justifiable dislike of just a few people which then expands to cover the entire country or ethnicity. Right now, for instance, some would describe me as anti-French. I'm not, although I'm not too happy with their present stance on the war because I happen to feel that their stated reasons are at direct odds with what I feel are the real reasons. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. But I'M not anti_French. The true "antis" are the ones who can find almost nothing good to say about a country or its people and say it at every opportunity and at some length. troll |
|
02 Apr 03 - 07:59 AM (#924381) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: kendall That being the case, I'm not anti anyone. What pisses me off royally, is so many half blind "patriots" who accuse the protesters of being un patriotic. I am against this war, but, I love my country as much as any mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, flag waving Bush syncophant! "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do, is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works in ANY country." Hermann Goering Now, before one of you conservatives yell "We WERE attacked" consider this; the attackers were mostly Saudis, and, there is still not one scintilla of evidence to link Saddam to 9 11. Sure we were attacked, but, why are we bombing the wrong country? Could it be that the Shrub has failed to "get" Bin Laden and needs to kick someone's ass? Anyones ass? |
|
02 Apr 03 - 09:05 AM (#924420) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: McGrath of Harlow So, if I'm in favour of things a lot of Americans are in favour of and against things a lot of Americans are against, how does that make me in any way anti-American, Doug? The divisions that matter aren't the ones between different countries,just don't lie between countries, and it's dishonest to pretend they do. They are between different understandings of what is wisdom and what is folly, and what is right and what is wrong. Or would you say that anyone who detests Saddam must be anti-Iraqi, and anyone who is not anti-Iraqi must support Saddam? Or would you class Abraham Lincoln as anti-American? |
|
02 Apr 03 - 10:10 AM (#924472) Subject: RE: BS: Peter Arnett From: JedMarum Peter was fired by both National Geographic (his current full-time employer) and NBC (who contracted him by agrrement with National Geographic). He was not fired for teh incident of expressing an 'unkind' word about the Coalition's prosecution of this war, though of course, that expression made the incident more controversial. He was fired for his total lack of judgement and his very poor journalistic practice. There are two major breeches, as I see it, that led to his firing. 1) He agreed to grant an on-air interview to the Iraqi TV. This is a group that he and the world know is government controlled. It is known to Peter and to all the world as a propaganda machine, and he knew that his words would be used as propaganda by Iraq - a country currently at war his (adopted) country. This is a major breech of good journalistic practice and has been condemned as such by every journalist I've seen discuss the matter on TV. 2) Peter is a journalist, not an op ed opinion columnist. He is not in Iraq to make and publish his opinions from that location. He is not in a position to have enough information to make opinions, while he is Iraq and the war is on-going. |