You may recall Peter Arnett's balcony dispatches from Baghdad during the Gulf War. Many questioned his loyalties then. Intervening years have not been kind to Arnett. Perhaps desperately trying to rekindle the buzz he once enjoyed, he fronted a preposterous "documentary" that accused US special Forces of using nerve gas to kill their own countrymen held as POW's in Vietnam. The defamatory story was exposed as false and Arnett was finished in the news business. Until now. Somehow he finagled a deal with Nationa Geographic to produce a documentary from Baghdad. He was also piucked up by NBC and MSNBC as a special correspondent or some such title. Last night he was revealed by FOX to have gone on Iraqi state TV for an "interview" that was little more than a pep rally for Saddam and his fedayeen. In breif, Arnett rpaised the resistance of the Iraqi's, and claimed it had undermined war sentiment here. He claimed the US's plan had been defeated and they were desperately trying to rewrite it. Soime of what he said was not that different from what is being reported here, but it was clear from the interview that he intended it to be supportive of the Iraqis. The interview ignited a firestorm of criticism, no doubt egged on by Fox. Thsi morning NBC issued a statement distancing itself from Arnett and saying he had been canned. Does anyone doubt things have changed in a major way? NBC would never have done this in the past. Most likely they would have attacked Arnett's critics as trying to censor him. Thank you Fox News for bringing this traitor to account. What are you doing in bed with him National Geographic?????
Instead of Arnett, NBC should have sent John Lindh Walker, Jose Padilla or that Columbia University professor who's cheering Saddass's army, any of them would have been less biased.
I consider Arnett to be a worse criminal than John Walker Lindh - a confused young man who became obsessed with an exotic ideology, and found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, way over his head -with a rifle. As far as I know, he did little of any significance to contribute to the Taliban or Al Qaeda in operations against the US or its allies. In another time and place, he might have ended up being a Moonie, a Trotskyist, or a crack addict, and might have been rescued and de-programmed by more responsible parents. Arnett, on the other hand, is a grown man who's been around the world several times and has covered several wars. He can in no way plead ignorance. He went on TV and gave what amounted to a pep talk to anti-American Iraqis and others, and gave anyone who opposed the regime reason to fear that somehow Saddam might win. In short, he gave aid and comfort to the enemy and may very well have contributed to the needless deaths of civilians and soldiers. I am totally unconvinced by his apology. If he were conscious of his guilt, he'd either have left the words behind in his suicide note, or have found some way to try to make amends.
Yes he is a US citizen - he's been one for 25 years, I think he said. Does it matter? I suppose that's a matter of opinion, depending on one's view of the meaning of citizenship in time of war, and it would conceivably be a matter of law in the extremely unlikely event that he was ever charged with treason.
I think it does matter. one story today noted he was born in NZ, but didn't say what citizenship he held now. not sure that what he said amounts to 'aiding' the enemy, but it was an extremely poor decision to make these statements during the campaign, at any rate.
he is a citizen, and he willingly did a propaganda piece for iraqi TV. Still we have fucking idiots saying the news is all Pro U.S. propaganda. He is lucky he is just getting fired, in most countries he would be dead by now as a traitor.