PDA

View Full Version : NBC fires Peter Arnett!!



Jamie 3:26
03-31-2003, 11:18 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American television network NBC said on Monday it had severed its relations with veteran reporter Peter Arnett after he told Iraqi television that the U.S. war plan against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had failed.

"Peter Arnett will no longer be reporting for NBC News and MSNBC," NBC said in a joint statement with National Geographic (news - web sites), for whom the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter was also working.


"I said in that interview essentially what we all know about the war, that there have been delays in implementing policy, there have been surprises," Arnett told NBC's "Today" show.


"But clearly by giving that interview I created a firestorm in the United States and for that I am truly sorry," added Arnett, widely known for his dramatic live reports during the bombing of Baghdad on the opening days of the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).


"My stupid misjudgment was to spend fifteen minutes in an impromptu interview with Iraqi television," he said.


"It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview with state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions," NBC said in a statement.


"His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more," the network said.


In 1998, Arnett was fired from CNN after the Pentagon (news - web sites) pressured the news channel over a documentary in which Arnett alleged that U.S. commandos had used sarin gas on American troops who had defected to Laos during the Vietnam war. He disavowed the story after his producers were also fired.


Arnett told the Iraqi television that American war planners had underestimated the determination of Iraqi troops to fight U.S. and British troops and that the Pentagon seemed to be amending its original strategy.


"Now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week and rewriting the war plan," Arnett said in excerpts of the interview aired on U.S. networks. "The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan."


He added there was a "growing challenge to President Bush (news - web sites) about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war."


That view echoed similar comments in many U.S. media after the rapid advance of U.S. forces through southern Iraq (news - web sites) slowed south of Baghdad amid disruptive attacks on its long supply lines persistent resistance, particularly in the towns.


Arnett's remarks were received with anger by the administration in Washington. One White House source said they were based on "a position of complete ignorance."


Arnett, while apologetic on NBC, said he has granted many interviews in the past and that his remarks were not "out of line with what experts think."


"Maybe some people think I'm insane, but I'm not anti-military," he added. "This is the biggest story of my life."


Asked what the future held for him, Arnett said: "There's a small island, inhabited in the South Pacific that I will try to swim to."


"I'll leave, I'm embarrassed," he said.

GROOVE VICTIM
03-31-2003, 11:24 AM
I knew this was coming. He has a history of speaking his mind with illregards to whatever network he is a part of.

Peace

Leslie
03-31-2003, 11:36 AM
Curious to see where he lands next....

lyot
03-31-2003, 11:39 AM
that's sad ! graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

lola desire
03-31-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Leslie:
Curious to see where he lands next.... probably as a consultant for one of the news talk shows. too bad anyway.

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 11:53 AM
Greetings:

Three cheers to Peter Arnett for having the guts to tell the truth. As the weeks become months and months become years and years become decades and we are still in Iraq, paying dearly everyday for the actions of the Unelected "President," I bet we won't find a single American who voted him. Kind of reminiscent of another power hungry egomaniac, Richard Nixon.

Peace on Earth

d

Ps


First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

LEONARD REMIX RROY
03-31-2003, 12:00 PM
Bite the hand that feed you and get your ass snapped off...........such is life.

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
Bite the hand that feed you and get your ass snapped off...........such is life. Greetings LEONARD REMIX RROY:

Purrrrrhaps he was nibbling on the fruits of truth.....

Peace on Earth

d

Ronnie Ron
03-31-2003, 12:49 PM
I heard about this a day or so ago and i knew it was gonna be trouble from the reaction of the news Anchors. :(

Austin/Dallas
03-31-2003, 12:49 PM
That lets me know how controlled the media is. If the FCC (original Ginsu Possie)lets something get pass them without chopping it up first heads will roll..

The truth hurts!!!

Querck
03-31-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Leslie:
Curious to see where he lands next.... In a labor camp for all who stand in the way of Bush II.

A joke, but maybe not too far from the sad truth...

liL Ray
03-31-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by lyot:
that's sad ! graemlins/jpshakehead.gif They get what they sow....I don't see anyone running to his defense and by his running to apologize, he certainly still believe in the good old conservative way of reporting the news. All these reporters are pathetic....I won't be crying for him!

AR15firing.gif

LEONARD REMIX RROY
03-31-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LEONARD REMIX RROY:
Bite the hand that feed you and get your ass snapped off...........such is life. Greetings LEONARD REMIX RROY:

Purrrrrhaps he was nibbling on the fruits of truth.....

Peace on Earth

d </font>[/QUOTE]Nan, he was just spouting off. If General Franks really let the dogs out, Bagdad would be a parkinglot already without any air support. Great restraint is being used because no country could survive a division of Combat troop in a "Kill em all & Let GOD sort it out" mindset.

A small brigade of Combat Engineers in rotation could flatten Bagdad by our damn self.

Younger Combat Engineers call Friendy Fire
"Move bitch - get out the way" I do find the humor in that. We are trained killers and we are good at what we do.

Example, where did the Beltway sniper learn how to shoot?

U.S. Army Engineer School.

Balactus
03-31-2003, 02:46 PM
my question is what the hell was he doing on iraqi tv giving analysis anyway? it seems to me that if you're gonna be at least moderately impartial and report the facts you shouldn't be out in front of cameras telling people what to think. that's a columnists' job isn't it?

w

Querck
03-31-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by willdabeast:
my question is what the hell was he doing on iraqi tv giving analysis anyway? it seems to me that if you're gonna be at least moderately impartial and report the facts you shouldn't be out in front of cameras telling people what to think. that's a columnists' job isn't it?

w Will, actually he was reporting the facts, and definitely wasn't telling anybody what to think.
The war has not gone according to plan, but Bush and Rumsfeld do not want to hear criticism, therefore an objective reporter gets fired. End of story.

corwin
03-31-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Leslie:
Curious to see where he lands next.... hmmm, i wonder what publishing insiders are sitting on?

Nicholas
03-31-2003, 03:34 PM
but he gave an interview to iraqi television. we are at war, clearly nowadays the information war is as important and you dont want a US citizen feeding the Iraqi propaganda fire. Thats got to be bad judgement. Diss the US all you like on US news but to go onto Saddam's propaganda channel and do it was just silly.

I'm not surprised he got fired, people were obviously upset. I dont see it as a censorship issue at all. I have heard many commentators over the weekend say the exact same things and they are still around today. its doing it on the enemy's channel thats the problem.

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by liL Ray:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lyot:
that's sad ! graemlins/jpshakehead.gif They get what they sow....I don't see anyone running to his defense and by his running to apologize, he certainly still believe in the good old conservative way of reporting the news. All these reporters are pathetic....I won't be crying for him!

AR15firing.gif </font>[/QUOTE]I will be crying, however, for the "first amendment." That is what this is all about. graemlins/mecry.gif This is already "trickling down" to artist's and not too far off into the horizon it will also be the lyrics too. Try playing an anti-war song and/or a peace song thru the radio and, etc., in this present climate. I have lived thru "some of these similar situations" before and I speak from experience.

This is an information war used as the same way one uses bullets. Too many still have their heads "in the sand." This is the worse I have ever seen, here, in Amerika. Other countries know only to well from past wars - on their own lands, what this is all about.

Does one really think that GWB would not use his stock piles of WMD such as germ warfare if he had too? I think so. Personally, I hope not.


Peace on Earth

d

Save the Children!

[ March 31, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

Balactus
03-31-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Nicholas:
but he gave an interview to iraqi television. we are at war, clearly nowadays the information war is as important and you dont want a US citizen feeding the Iraqi propaganda fire. Thats got to be bad judgement. Diss the US all you like on US news but to go onto Saddam's propaganda channel and do it was just silly.

I'm not surprised he got fired, people were obviously upset. I dont see it as a censorship issue at all. I have heard many commentators over the weekend say the exact same things and they are still around today. its doing it on the enemy's channel thats the problem. yep he should've known better than to go on iraqi tv. bad judgement.

w

jurren
03-31-2003, 04:45 PM
http://tegenlog.blogspot.com/embeededcertoon.gif

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by willdabeast:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nicholas:
but he gave an interview to iraqi television. we are at war, clearly nowadays the information war is as important and you dont want a US citizen feeding the Iraqi propaganda fire. Thats got to be bad judgement. Diss the US all you like on US news but to go onto Saddam's propaganda channel and do it was just silly.

I'm not surprised he got fired, people were obviously upset. I dont see it as a censorship issue at all. I have heard many commentators over the weekend say the exact same things and they are still around today. its doing it on the enemy's channel thats the problem. yep he should've known better than to go on iraqi tv. bad judgement.

w </font>[/QUOTE]I agree that doing it on Iraq TV was over the line. Maybe he was manipulating "the media" to get his own personal message out. Perhaps I am unintentionally being naive....I hope not.
d

Ps

Beware! of the Industrial, Military, Religious, and Media Complex....

[ March 31, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

andrea
03-31-2003, 04:52 PM
arnett is an idiot. he blabbed and almost foamed at the mouth while talking to the Iraqui military. on the other hand, he could have been scared and got loose lipped. some of those media peeps need to get out of there, they are compromising the situation for our troops.

mhd
03-31-2003, 04:59 PM
so if no one contests the accuracy of Arnett's comments and others are saying the same thing on US state controlled media and the only problem was that he made the comments on Iraqi state controlled media, then my question is doesn't Iraq have access to us media too? why is this such a big deal, its not like he was conveying classified or unknown information?

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 05:05 PM
.

[ March 31, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
so if no one contests the accuracy of Arnett's comments and others are saying the same thing on US state controlled media and the only problem was that he made the comments on Iraqi state controlled media, then my question is doesn't Iraq have access to us media too? why is this such a big deal, its not like he was conveying classified or unknown information? Well said, mhd.


smile.gif

d </font>[/QUOTE]Ps I wish they would bring on tv the movie Dr Strangelove.....

mhd
03-31-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
so if no one contests the accuracy of Arnett's comments and others are saying the same thing on US state controlled media and the only problem was that he made the comments on Iraqi state controlled media, then my question is doesn't Iraq have access to us media too? why is this such a big deal, its not like he was conveying classified or unknown information? Well said, mhd.


smile.gif

d </font>[/QUOTE]Ps I wish they would bring on tv the movie Dr Strangelove..... </font>[/QUOTE]Perfect timing for Strangelove and for Seven Days in May

f0reverneverm0re
03-31-2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by dannyboy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by willdabeast:
my question is what the hell was he doing on iraqi tv giving analysis anyway? it seems to me that if you're gonna be at least moderately impartial and report the facts you shouldn't be out in front of cameras telling people what to think. that's a columnists' job isn't it?

w Will, actually he was reporting the facts, and definitely wasn't telling anybody what to think.
The war has not gone according to plan, but Bush and Rumsfeld do not want to hear criticism, therefore an objective reporter gets fired. End of story. </font>[/QUOTE]how can the average person know that the war isn't going as *planned* if they're watching live CNN coverage?...

so then the speeches given by Saddam and co. were right, the US fvcked up...hm. why would Arnett basically take "the enemies" side? who benefits/what results from such reporting?

w/ all the reported "intelligence" on Iraq and Saddam, how could the war not be going as *planned*?

the war controllers (the whitehouse controllers and whoever else) are saying through Bu$h that wars will take as long as they take. i don't know what it takes to plan a loooong or perpetual war but shouldn't less planning be needed to stop one?

i say a looong war is in the planning. the (fake) war on crime & terrorism is scheduled to be fought well into the future.

--------------------------------
The White House
The International Crime Control Strategy, May 1998

"In short, international crime today is more than a law enforcement problem. It is a formidable threat to America's security and it demands a concerted response.

That is why, on October 21, 1995, I issued Presidential Decision Directive 42, ordering U.S. Government agecies to intesify their international crime-fighting efforts. Now Federal law enforcement agencies, diplomats and intelligence officials are working more effectively and more closely than ever to combat international crime *bilaterally*, regionally and globally.
Through enhanced training and aggressive enforcement, we are making important strides in investigating, exposing, prosecuting and disrupting major criminal groups.

...The Strategy's goals and objectives are dynamic. They will evolve over time as conditions change, new trends emerge and improved anti-crime techniques are developed. But our *resolve* to attack and make significant inroads against international crime must and will be sustained. Only through concerted efforts at home and our international partners will we ensure the protection of America's interests today and in the future.

This Strategy sets us on that course, defining the specific goals and objectives which, if achieved, will lead to a more secure and law-abiding world in which America and Americans can thrive." --signed, Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the US

emphasis mine

from same Strategic report:
We seek a climate where the global economy and open trade are *growing*, where democratic norms and respect for human rights are increasingly accepted and where terrorism, drug trafficking and international crime do not undermine stability and peaceful relations. --U.S. National Security Strategy, May 1997

yeah, we wouldn't want the global economy undermined would we, even though time is on the side of poor people...

fvckers will lie right to you, in print and to your face! and suckers will eat this shit up and start waving flags--amazing :rolleyes:

this "Strategy" has no publishing info cuz i "borrowed" it from the government section of the library. they switch the stuff out pretty quickly so no one will miss it...i'll post more later, here's some more for now

II. The International Crime Threat to U.$. Interests

We must *combat* an *UNHOLY AXIS* of new threats from terrorists, international criminals and drug traffickers. These 21st Century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information and ideas and people. And they will be all the more lethal if *weapons of mass destruction* fall into their hands. --President Bill Clinton, January 27, 1998

so to combat Muslims--uh, such an evil and "unholy axis", the HOLY AXIS needs bigger, faster, better puters to get as much (or ALL) of the inspiration-information freely flowing between enslaved people trying to live freely (even if they are crooks but then who isn't a crook to a tyrannical dictator?) so we can control their lives forever and ever.

[ March 31, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: f0reverneverm0re ]

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 05:49 PM
Orwell: "Politics and the English Language"

- by George Orwell, 1946


The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.

In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides.

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning.

Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

f0reverneverm0re
03-31-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by david mancuso:
Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. so sometimes political speeches aren't really the joke, they're the punchline? seems like the people always end up being the butt of the joke

mdpm99
03-31-2003, 06:08 PM
- Peter Arnnet:


He said the United States is reappraising the battlefield and delaying the war, maybe for a week, ``and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan.''

``Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces,'' Arnett said.

Arnett said it is clear that within the United States there is growing opposition to the war and a growing challenge to President Bush about the war's conduct.