Peter Arnett = TRAITOR?????

[Laz]

People, please read this article and tell me why I shouldn't think that Peter Arnett is not a Traitor to our country??

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html

I can't believe what I just read.

 

[bsnyder]

I'll just cut and paste what I just wrote on the debate board.....if I write it again, my blood will begin to boil!

I think some people will do anything to further their own fame, even if it crosses the line of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Nowhere in the CNN article does it mention that Arnett is not allowed to go anywhere without an Iraqi Information Ministry "minder". He has stated this clearly in his dispatches from the last few weeks. So I find it incredible that he can make statements like these:

Arnett also said Iraq has given him and other reporters a "degree of freedom which we appreciate,"

He added that "clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the population is responsive to the government's requirements of discipline," and "Iraqi friends tell me there is a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain is doing."

He said his reports "would tell the Americans about the determination of the Iraqi forces, the determination of the government and the willingness to fight for their country."

Arnett is so clearly intoxicated with his "staring" role as one of the few Westerners that the regime is allowing to stay in Bahgdad that he's willing to repeat their propaganda for them!

Despicable, yes....and pathetic!

 

[glo]

makes me ill

 

[Geoff_M]

The man has become an Iraqi stooge.

Article 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason as:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The man's got one foot on the line.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

What an idiot.

 

[SuiteDisney]

"I'd like to say from the beginning that the 12 years I've been coming here," Arnett said, "I've met unfailing courtesy and cooperation, courtesy from your people and cooperation from the Ministry of Information."

He should just stay there!

 

[delswife]

Okay, at first when I read this I thought he was afraid for his life because he has a "wacky Iraqi" standing there telling him what to say.

And maybe that is true,But.....
bsynder said,

Nowhere in the CNN article does it mention that Arnett is not allowed to go anywhere without an Iraqi Information Ministry "minder".

Why wouldnt they inform people of that?

 

[DonnaS]

I honestly don't see where he said or did anything wrong. I think the article should have talked about the "minders", but from what I have read on some blogs the "minders" are quite protective of "their reporters".

I don't think Peter Arnett didn't tell the Iraqi's anything they didn't already know and I don't see where he disclosed anything unfactual.

So flame me... I won't argue back. This is my opinion and I have the right to it.

 

[Grog]

I also posted against his actions on the debate board...

I think it's despicable too. He is bolstering the morale of the Iraqis and in turn could be hurting morale here. I doubt the Pentagon briefed him on how they expected the war to unfold, so how can he claim the plan has failed and we are having to re-write it? I also think it is incredible that NBC is standing behind him on this. I hope it comes back to hurt him and the network

I think he has spent too long in Iraq. Hopefully he will stay there when the war is over. An even better scenario is that he will be arrested and tried for treason. I think doing something like this crosses the line of "free speech".

 

[Lanshark]

I just saw part of the interview on FOX. I went on MSNBC's site to see if I could find a way to contact them. I didn't see anyway to send them an e-mail. If anyone figures it out please PM me.

 

[Grog]

I don't think Peter Arnett didn't tell the Iraqi's anything they didn't already know and I don't see where he disclosed anything unfactual.

You are right in that he didn't disclose any facts, because he doesn't know the facts. What could occur is that some Iraq soldiers who have been "on the fence" about whether or not to surrender when US forces come into view, might decide to fight it out instead. His words could give them hope where none might have existed prior to his little interview. His words could lead to more US and Iraqi deaths.

 

[Grog]

Lanshark, I found this through the NBC website. I'm going to e-mail them. I didn't PM you because I thought others might want it too.

MSNBC contact

 

[Lanshark]

Thanks Grog. I just e-mailed the National Geographic News division who employs Arnett.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Grog]

Thanks for the NG link. I just e-mailed them both.

 

[bsnyder]

This is one of the recent interviews I had already read from Arnett, where he describes the access he's being given in Baghdad:

Are the Iraqis censoring your reports; restricting your movements? Are you being watched by minders all the time?

They have not imposed censorship at all. But they do require us to attend their regular briefings and press conferences at the Information Ministry every day. The Ministry has made it clear that if we don't attend these briefings then they don't see why we should be allowed to be here. They want us to report their side of the story.

Some people have left the country because they are unwilling to attend these press conferences. It has been rumored that the Information Ministry is going to be a prime target for the U.S.A. Even today there have been stories that it will be attacked. So there is a lot of concern about going to the Information Ministry.

The Information Ministry is furious. They do not believe they will be a target because they are a civilian operation.

There are about a hundred journalists in town, lots of them from the Arab and European media, and only a handful from the U.S.

My belief is that the U.S. Government will not target the Information Ministry, and certainly not while there are about a hundred journalists milling around in the building. Perhaps they will do it at four in the morning.

I will continue to go to the press conferences. Some journalists don't go because they have problems with going there.

There are no minders about when we do our broadcasts. I'm using this hotel phone now and I'm able to talk freely. Iraqi officials may be monitoring what I say in some way, but there is no one in my room. I've never been asked about any conversation in the six weeks that I have been here.

There has been no attempt to monitor what's in a news package I'm putting out. This is unlike the gulf war, when they did impose censorship.

The reason they may be fairly relaxed is that they are not giving us access to anything other than the locations they think are news: civilians affected by the bombing or the news conferences.

At the press conferences we can ask any questions we want, and we do.

We still have minders. National Geographic EXPLORER has been following up on several families. We can visit them if we go with minders. The reality is that the minders are listening to our conversations with them and they (the families) frame their answers to our questions in a way that will not offend the minder.

We are not being allowed to go anywhere near the military or the Republican Guard, and I wouldn't volunteer to do that anyway. We are not seeing any action.

If we can survive the next few weeks I think it will be an interesting journalistic experience. As the war progresses we may have fewer minders and we may well be able to speak to the families again after the war.

Video phones are forbidden. Quite a few of them have been confiscated. The use of satellite phones has been restricted essentially to when we are at the Information Ministry. We need permission to use them outside the Ministry. Live camera reports have to be done from the Ministry.

Shooting pictures is allowed wherever we want to—but with a minder present. We can't just get into a taxi and go somewhere. We need permission. It's always been that way here.

To go on Iraqi TV and say the things he did - this guy is either a traitor, or he's a complete brainwashed moron!

 

[delswife]

Originally posted by Grog
You are right in that he didn't disclose any facts, because he doesn't know the facts. What could occur is that some Iraq soldiers who have been "on the fence" about whether or not to surrender when US forces come into view, might decide to fight it out instead. His words could give them hope where none might have existed prior to his little interview. His words could lead to more US and Iraqi deaths.

Well said.

 

[delswife]

This is interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82656,00.html


Arnett was the on-air reporter of the 1998 CNN report that accused American forces of using sarin gas on a Laotian village in 1970 to kill U.S. defectors. Two CNN employees were sacked and Arnett was reprimanded over the report, which the station later retracted. Arnett ultimately left the network.

The artical bsnyder posted really makes me angry! This guy is out to either boost Iraq moral or further his own career. I agree, he should stay right there with his new friends.

 

[bsnyder]

Interesting speculation on Fox News, just now.

The reporter was discussing the Arnett interview TV with two military people (retired). One of them said that unless Arnett had a gun to his head when he made those statements, that it bordered on treason.

The reporter then speculated on this as a possibility (that he's being threatened in some way), given the fact that Newsday (a Tribune Company newspaper) is saying that two of their reporters in Baghdad are missing and they presume the Iraqi government is holding them captive.

 

[Geoff_M]

Let me give the doubters an example of how Arnett's actions are harmful to his nation....

My guess is here's how the Iraqi TV evening news went tonight:

News Reader: "Today our glorious Defence Minister announced that our heroic forces have killed several hundred and wounded 3,000 of the criminal invaders and destroyed about 130 of their tanks. They are in total disarray and the tide of the war has turned in our favor. As further evidence of this, one of their top award winning journalists, Peter Arnett, stated the following directly to Iraqi TV today..."

Cut to tape of Arnett: "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan."

News Reader: "And there you have it! Fight on true heros of the Iraqi people and drive the infidel invaders from our lands!"


You don't go on the TV network of the nation your country is at war with and tell them that your country is getting its butt kicked... especially when it's not true!!! BTW, the Iraqi claims I mentioned above are actually being feed to journalists by the Information Ministry.

 

[Geoff_M]

Here's the full transcript from CNN. I've highlighted the statements I find that are totally indefensible.

Transcript of Peter Arnett interview on Iraqi TV
Monday, March 31, 2003 Posted: 0306 GMT (11:06 AM HKT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. war plan has "failed," veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett told Iraqi TV in an interview that aired Sunday. Following is a transcript of that interview:

IRAQI TV HOST: Welcome in Baghdad, and our people know you, know your reports to CNN in 1991. Let us start with a question about the general image that you look now in Iraq.

ARNETT: Well, I'd like to say from the beginning that the 12 years I've been coming here, I've met unfailing courtesy and cooperation. Courtesy from your people, and cooperation from the Ministry of Information, which has allowed me and many other reporters to cover 12 whole years since the Gulf War with a degree of freedom which we appreciate. And that is continuing today.

HOST: (Translates into Arabic)

ARNETT: In answer to your question, it is clear that within the United States there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war. So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments.

HOST: (in Arabic)

ARNETT: One other point. I've been mainly in Baghdad in the past few weeks. But, clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the population is responsive to the government's requirements of discipline and my Iraqi friends tell me there is a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain are doing.

HOST: (In Arabic first) What have you seen until now, have you been to some of these places where civilian casualties have been seen during these two days?

ARNETT: Yeah, I think American policy and strategy is the weakest when it comes to the Iraqi people. The U.S. administration is concerned with the possibility of killing civilians, because the international community is very concerned about the Iraqi people. President Bush says he is concerned about the Iraqi people, but if Iraqi people are dying in numbers, then American policy will be challenged very strongly.

Arnett's Iraqi TV interviewer
HOST: (In Arabic)

ARNETT: 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.

HOST: (In Arabic)

ARNETT: For that reason the Pentagon keeps saying that maybe it is an Iraqi missile that hit the population and not a U.S.
Whenever I gave a report on civilian casualties on CNN (in the first Gulf War) the Pentagon and the Bush administration got very angry and called me a traitor.

HOST: (In Arabic)

ARNETT: However, when missiles hit the Al-Maria shelter in early February of 1991, killing nearly 400 women and children, the Bush administration had to admit that they were responsible. And when that happened, there was a different attitude to the war. They had to try and complete the war fast, because the world criticized that bombing very severely.

HOST: (In Arabic)

ARNETT: Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces.

HOST: (In Arabic)

ARNETT: And I personally do not understand how that happened, because I've been here many times and in my commentaries on television I would tell the Americans about the determination of the Iraqi forces, the determination of the government, and the willingness to fight for their country. But me, and others who felt the same way were not listened to by the Bush administration.

HOST: (In Arabic)

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.

HOST: Yeah. (Speaks in Arabic) Mr. Arnett Thank you very much. (Speaks in Arabic)

It's funny how a plan that's resulted in the fastest military movement in human history, and causualties that are around 250:1 in our favor is a "failure". I love to ask Peter one question: "Whose army would you rather be a member of now... Saddam's or the allies???"