Arnett Writes

Peter Arnett now works for London's Daily Mirror; a rambling piece with his byline on it is here. The headline -- for which Arnett is probably not responsible -- is pure Mirror bombast: THIS WAR IS NOT WORKING.

Students of British tabloids may recall the Mirror's front-page headline over a once-famous John Pilger report: THIS WAR IS A FRAUD. Pilger's story was not about Iraq, but about Afghanistan. He wrote, "The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks? bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan. Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by the most powerful…"

Meanwhile, London's Independent is reporting that "Hundreds of Iraqis shouting 'Welcome to Iraq' greeted US Marines who entered the town of Shatra yesterday after storming it with planes, tanks and helicopter gunships.

"A foot patrol picked its way through the small southern town, 20 miles north
of the city of Nasiriyah, after being beckoned in by a crowd of people.
'There's no problem here. We are happy to see Americans,' one young man
shouted."

Comments

[Sandy]

Just a cavalcade of contrasting quotes:

"There is enormous sensitivity within the US government to reports coming out from Baghdad. They don't want credible news organisations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems."
vs.
"And I certainly don't believe the White House was responsible for my sacking."

So it was the secret cabal in congress then? Or on the supreme court? Or does he now believe the commercial pressure on NBC he mentions is a government function?

"I present both sides..."
vs.
"I came to Baghdad with my crew because the Iraqi side needs to be heard too."

OK, cheap shot, but it does imply he's there to tell the Iraqi side, not both sides.

... and ...
"and [I] report what I see with my own eyes."
vs.
"It is clear the original timetable that America would be in Baghdad by the end of March has fallen by the wayside."

Damn, I must have missed that byline when he published the US warplan that he "s[aw] with [his] own eyes." Not to mention that this claim is a far less sweeping claim than the one he made in the Iraqi interview.

I personally don't think he should have been fired for going on Iraqi television. However, reading this piece enables me to find it funny.

[April]

That was a freudian slip. As in, "Let George do it."

[Sean]

"It is clear the original timetable that America would be in Baghdad by the end of March has fallen by the wayside."

umm...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Sorry Peter. Please play again. Looks like those wacky generals used the new moon to enter Baghdad rather than wasting it on desert fighting. Did you think they weren't coming just because your coffee maker still works?

[Warren]

I file this one in the 'who cares' bin. Arnett said what he said, and he got fired for it. I support both the right to say it and the right to fire him for it.

[Tuning Spork]

George, thank you for a rational post among a murky sea of short-sighted anti-presence.

[Anonymous]

Charles; I'm sorry. did I call you "George"? Oooops!

[Neo-Libertarian]

I see that Anti-War.com is now vomitting Peter Arnett's propaganda.

Anti-War "libertarians" defending Iraqi STATE propaganda and anti-war "libertarians" marching with Communists to prevent the destruction of a STATE. I wish this was an april fools joke, but it isn't.