« ruminations on the evils of the ice cream man | Main | let's play two »

delusion or duress?

Peter Arnett is either:

A) Being held at gunpoint by Iraqis

or

B) A traitor and and flaming gasbag.

Either way, he is in deep, deep shit.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference delusion or duress?:

» Lies, lies, lies, yeah - they won't forget you! from Ain't too proud to blog
In the April 5 issue of TV Guide, [Peter] Arnett said he felt he had found redemption reporting on the current war. "I was furious with (CNN founder) Ted Turner and (then-CNN chairman) Tom Johnson when they threw me to the wolves after I made them bill... [Read More]

Comments

I just expressed my outrage to national geographic . The address for their public relations is cbeidel@ngs.org

One must bear in mind that Mr. Arnette is the feller that got snookered in to believing that myth of the US spraying a Laotion ville with Sarin Gas to eliminate US turncoats during the Southeast Asian War Games. Two producers were fired and Arnette was reprimanded when the story was proven to be a hoax.
I prefer to get my news from people who have a somewhat firmer grasp on reality, myself.

Now Baghdad has a professional media spokesman: Baghdad Pete.

What? You're mad at him because he's not acting like a good little CNN FOX News MSNBC media puppet? He's just speaking his mind, whether he's right or not, he's using his right to express himself, and isn't that what the war is being fought over? Oh, wait no it isn't, it's all about disarming Saddam and getting rid of all those WMD that no one has been able to find.

"He's just speaking his mind, ***whether he's right or not***"

See, there's the problem right there...

I saw the video on Fox. If he's being threatened, he's got ice water in his veins.

I think he really means what he said.

Another Useful Idiot!

Hey Chip,

Why does nearly every lefty argument these days include the red herring of free speech? Just wondering.

Is anyone surprised? Don't you all remember his supine performance in Gulf War I?

He did it before ... I'm not surprised. Jeffersonian sums it up quite well.

Why is it an "or" ? Why not "and" ?

Choice B

I remember it.

I think Peter Arnett has some screws loose and a chip on his shoulder.

I just sent this to National Geographic:

The real tragedy of what your correspondent Mr. Arnett did in Iraq is not that he lied, not that he's wrong, not that his statements reflect so badly on your publication (to which I unfortunately subscribe). No, the real tragedy is that Arnett's words are now being broadcast in Iraq by Saddam and his people-shredding thugs to subdue the long suffering Iraqi people. Through an American journalist, employed by National Geographic (in which, one would think, the anxious Iraqi population might naturally place much trust), Saddam is hoping to convince his subjects and slaves that the coalition is losing, that any hope of freedom has been dashed, and that rising up now would only result in their annihilation, just like 1991. That's the real horror of what Arnett's done. Now, there is also another, far less important horror, for you: Arnett made these statements in National Geographic's name. I trust that you will be loudly and publicly and immediately terminating Mr. Arnett. Otherwise, this much I can absolutely guarantee: I and thousands of other Americans will never pick up your magazine again, for it will be dripping with the blood of millions of innocent Iraqis.

I'm all for B just as long as it comes with a firing squad.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy on their own TV channel sure seems treason to me. Saddam doen't even need to grab feeds of peace protestors to bolster his cause, he has his own embedded reporter.

"He's just speaking his mind, whether he's right or not, he's using his right to express himself, and isn't that what the war is being fought over?" - C.T.

Umm, yeah - he's using his right to express himself in a country where the people who live there can't even express themselves freely unless they want to get shot or tortured by Saddam's goons. So then whose opinion is he really expressing?

Actually, as a reporter, Arnett should have a duty FIRST to the truth. Not just to "express himself," as someone here so deftly (ahem.) put it. It's a professionalism thing. On his own time, without the name of a generally well-respected publication in tow, he can speak his mind all he wants. But in the context of his job, NG has every right to fire the guy for being a complete idiot, and in any case, we have every right to point out that he's a complete idiot.

I think I've discovered the answer. Sadam is not missing, In fact he kidnapped Arnett and stole his face. Then had it surgically implanted on himself. It's no secret that face transplants have recently been in the news. A very clever disquise. Why else would Sadam's body guard be there w/o Sadam?

He got fired.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82656,00.html
YES!!!

You know, it's really sad.

People like Peter Arnett give bullshit a bad name.

A bald Michael Moore. No acquaintance with facts; no scruples. But, geeze, he did warn the president. Why didn't GW listen to him? Why didn't the generals and Rummy consult him about the battle plan?

So sad that you're right, Bill. Blood will spill directly because of this.

Official transcript from Pentagon to Peter Arnet c/o NBC -
Bad puppet. You deserve to be spanked. First you spill the beans about our Sarin gas, then you dare say that because our supply lines are stretched thin and our soldiers are subsiding on Iraqi charity, and because we can't seem to gain decent footing in places like Basra, that we underestimated the Iraqi resistance? You know better than that. We spoon feed you the information we'd like you to report, and you go and do this? That's it, if NBC doesn't fire you, well then, we'll exclude them from the boys club!

Official script from CIA to Chip: Make outrageously ridiculous consipiracy comments to turn people away from the left and further embolden them to back the war.

Re: your last comment...Well done, you are a good puppet.

Chip
Read the U.S. definitions of treason. What Benedict Arnett did was not a 'right'. He was used by the Iraqi government for propaganda. In this context in the time of war it was simply treason. I hope he (and you) can live with it if it costs U.S. soldiers their lives.

Chip
Read the U.S. definitions of treason. What Benedict Arnett did was not a 'right'. He was used by the Iraqi government for propaganda. In this context in the time of war it was simply treason. I hope he (and you) can live with it if it costs U.S. soldiers their lives.