What on earth is Peter Arnett thinking???

  1. my hubby was just telling me about peter arnett's interview with iraqi tv. here is the story....

    peter arnett: u.s. war plan has 'failed'

    monday, march 31, 2003 posted: 0216 gmt (10:16 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.

    "the first war plan has failed because of iraqi resistance. now they are trying to write another war plan," arnett said. "clearly, the american war planners misjudged the determination of the iraqi forces."

    arnett -- who is reporting for national geographic television and nbc news -- also said iraq has given him and other reporters a "degree of freedom which we appreciate," this despite the fact that iraq has expelled several journalists, including cnn's baghdad team, and apparently has imprisoned two journalists from the new york newspaper newsday.

    arnett is a member of the board of directors of the committee to protect journalists, which is trying to locate the missing journalists.

    "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."

    arnett told the iraqi tv interviewer, who was dressed in an iraqi army uniform, that president bush is facing a "growing challenge" about the "conduct of the war" within the united states.

    "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," he said. in the interview, arnett said reports from baghdad on civilians being killed are being shown in the united states, and "it helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments."

    he pointed out u.s. claims that civilians killed in an explosion at a downtown baghdad market were the victims of iraqi missiles, and that iraq had said the missiles were definitely incoming coalition fire.

    nbc news issued a statement supporting arnett, saying that arnett gave the interview to iraqi tv as a "professional courtesy" and that his remarks "were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more."

    arnett also said "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."

    the longtime war correspondent, who reported on the persian gulf war for cnn in 1991, said u.s. war planners miscalculated the will of iraqis and he does "not understand how that happened."

    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."




    why doesn't he know when to keep his trap shut? to tell iraq that the us is changing their war plans is nothing short of treason... am i overreacting here, or is arnett lost his marbles?
    •  
  2. 72 Comments

  3. by   l.rae
    what is he thinking????...giving aid anc comfort to the enemy. that he is important. that numerous ppl agree with him. what a moron. l hope SH gets him.
  4. by   rncountry
    1. He is protecting his own ass and saying what he feels will do so.
    OR
    2. He is a complete and utter moran who is giving the enemy aid and comfort.
  5. by   deespoohbear
    My hubby was actually talking (yelling) at the TV when Arnett was on just a little while ago. If Arnett is that fond of Iraqi TV why doesn't he apply for a job at Al-Jeerza or whatever the heck it is called?

    Think I better head over to the cyber bar!!
  6. by   Mkue
    omg, does NBC need the attention or what? I think Arnett works for Nat'l Geographic and has been in Iraq for some time, but he's also affiliated with NBC, are they trying to boost their ratings?
  7. by   rncountry
    Does this mean I have to start watching Fox?
  8. by   Mkue
    I did see part of the interview, Fox was livid

    I think they referred to him as a "Propaganda tool".
  9. by   deespoohbear
    Originally posted by mkue
    omg, does NBC need the attention or what? I think Arnett works for Nat'l Geographic and has been in Iraq for some time, but he's also affiliated with NBC, are they trying to boost their ratings?
    They just lost this viewer....I haven't been devoted to any one news service ever but I just turned off MSNBC....and National Geographic...
    Last edit by deespoohbear on Mar 30, '03
  10. by   Q.
    Maybe Arnett is saying that to let the Iraqi's think they have the upper hand and maybe let their guard down?

    I dunno, I'm so sick of people. They piss me off.
  11. by   deespoohbear
    Originally posted by mkue
    I did see part of the interview, Fox was livid

    I think they referred to him as a "Propaganda tool".
    How about "propaganda FOOL".... (And some other names that would get be banned from this site if I posted them..)
  12. by   molecule
    anonymous sources say Bush wasn't given the scoop?
    from the Star-Telegram.com March 29, 2003


    Hawks led Bush to expect quick victory, sources say
    WAR IN THE GULF
    By Warren P. Strobel
    Knight Ridder News Service


    WASHINGTON - President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from the CIA and the State and Defense departments, which warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.

    Bush embraced the predictions of some top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney. Officials said Cheney forecast in the run-up to the war that Saddam Hussein's government was brittle and that Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators, the officials said.

    The dissenting views "were not fully or energetically communicated to the president," said one top official, who like the others requested anonymity. "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong."

    Instead, Bush embraced the views of Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other hawks, who have long advocated using force to overthrow Saddam, the official said.

    In varying degrees, those views assumed that many Iraqi forces, including part of the elite Republican Guard, would surrender or at least not fight, that Iraqi civilians would revolt and assist U.S. and British forces, and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks.

    Top political and military leaders insist that the war to oust Saddam and neutralize his weapons of mass destruction is on course. Army and Marine units are within 50 miles of Baghdad, troops pour into Iraq, and increasing swaths of Iraqi territory have been taken from the government's control.

    But debate over the war's course roiled Washington on Friday. Confronted with questions, administration officials insisted that they had never promised an easy conflict and accused the news media of making snap judgments 10 days into the war.

    Rumsfeld said it was "premature" to ask whether the administration miscalculated the Iraqis' desire to rise up against Saddam.

    But some senior U.S. officials now acknowledge that they may have underestimated the threat from Iraqi paramilitary units, which have engaged in guerrilla warfare against U.S. and British forces and threatened or executed Iraqis trying to surrender.

    While the administration did not underestimate Iraqi resistance, "I think we probably did underestimate the willingness of this regime to commit war crimes," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

    Another senior official said planners expected tough fighting from the irregulars, or Fedayeen, and Republican Guard units, but only "in the red box outside of Baghdad."

    The surprise has been that the units have been spread throughout the south, preventing anti-Saddam revolts among the populace and regular army units, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    "One could say maybe we should have thought of that," he said.

    The president has been careful never to describe the war as easy or cost-free. Not Cheney.

    In a televised interview three days before Bush announced the strikes on Iraq, Cheney said, "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."

    Cheney, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, said his assessment was based in part on meetings with Iraqi exiles, many of whom have long predicted a quick collapse of Saddam's rule after an invasion.

    U.S. intelligence agencies insist that they warned policy-makers and war planners about the risks of Iraqi unconventional warfare.<<

    Peter Arnett by the way, is the highly respected journalist who reported the Gulf war 'live' from Baghdad. And the Star-Telegraph comes out of Texas.
  13. by   cwazycwissyRN
    Saw it when it was released on fox. I have been surfing since to find a article. Found a few I'll post them. I wonder if he was forced to say those things? I wonder if he was saying those things to get closer to SH? If not he has certainly stepped over a line. I was just stunned.
  14. by   Mkue
    What actually was the purpose of the interview? It was just strokingly weird.. his opinions and not facts.

close