The value of Arnett’s comments can be judged by the number of deaths he has caused. At this point, regardless of whether you think the invasion is right or wrong, the outcome that results in the fewest deaths (on BOTH sides) is a quick Coalition victory. The stronger the Iraqi defense, the longer this will go, and the more people will wind up dead as a result. The Coalition will not give up until the job is done, and the Iraqis cannot stand against them forever.
Arnett’s ludicrous “the war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance” comment does nothing but bolster their confidence, and can only draw out the inevitable outcome.
It was my feeling from reading the transcript that each individual statement by Arnett was not particularly damning (despite its questionable veracity) but put all together, I think it represents aid and comfort to the enemy. No, there is no doubt that the US will win, but if, by encouraging the Iraqis to dig in, continue to fight and resist, and the US will go away, then he is responsible for the lives lost on both sides, civilian and military.
tvaa, you said, " Next they’ll claim that speaking the truth lets “the enemy” know too much. . ." isn’t that the same thing that spies do when they sell secrets to our enemies? That’s called treason and is punishable by death in the US.
**stoly, ** I must agree. He’s sounds like so much the back-slapper. I’m almost surprised he didn’t ask the “interviewer” to drop trou so he could kiss his arse. What a :wally
Arnett is the guy who reported the US used sarin gas in Vietnam,right?..then it was found out that wasn’t true. CNN then fired him and a couple more people.
The guy doesn’t need a gun to his head to report false information.
Wanna know why Shrub went to Harvard’s MBA program? Because he got his dumb fratboy ass stone-cold rejected from the University of Texas School of Law, and nobody gave a shit about MBA’s in the 1970s so it was easy to get into Harvard with a C average.
Try telling that to the Harvard MBAs! At the request of my company CEO, I interviewed a new Harvard MBA in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. I asked what area of insurance he wanted to work in, such as claims, underwriting, accounting, etc. He was surprised by the question. He had assumed he would go straight into the executive suite.
AFAIK MBAs from top schools like Harvard were in high demand at that time.
Cite: Newsweek’s 2000 election-season campaign profile of George W. Bush, published sometime around the conventions in the summer of 2000. Sorry, the article does not appear to be online anywhere, though it’s easy enough to confirm that Harvard Business School was Dubya’s backup for UT Law.
—Guys, in the interest of fairness, you must concede that 50% of people who play Tic Tac Toe lose.—
No, experienced players almost always play to draw with a similarly experienced player. The number of games are not only finite, but fairly easy for the average person to learn how to counter any set of starting moves to attain at least a draw.
My point is that, if someone wins, someone else must lose. How can two people tie at tic tac toe? There are 9 squares. Therefore, someone must win and someone must lose. So, for every winner, there is a loser. Ergo, 50% lose.
Since the only way to win at tic-tac-toe is to get three of your own symbol in a row, and it is possible to fill all the squares of the grid without doing that, it is entirely possible to come to a draw. No 3 in a row, nobody won.
NBC had every right to fire Arnett, because he told the truth. Just like CNN fired him when he told the truth about Operation Tailwind.
Arnett should have paid attention to the legal case of those Fox journalists who were fired for refusing to lie. They initially won their whistleblower case, but it was overturned on appeal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Figimingle *
**Since the only way to win at tic-tac-toe is to get three of your own symbol in a row, and it is possible to fill all the squares of the grid without doing that, it is entirely possible to come to a draw. No 3 in a row, nobody won. **[/QUOTE
I guess that would depend on if one believed Arnett’s comments fall under the category of “objective reporting” now doesn’t it? It clearly wasn’t a “just the facts” session, it was Arnett’s opinion being solicited, and being provided. His comments are online, so I leave the exercise of determining their position on the “objective” scale to the reader. I agree that objective reporting is something to strive for and something no one should be fired for. It is something we all desperately need. However, regardless of Mr Arnett’s statements, and his intents, this interview WILL be used, perhaps out-of-context, perhaps subtly mistranslated, to further the propaganda war. It would be within the perrogatives of MSNBC et. al. to determine if giving propaganda material(regardless of how it was intended) to the Iraqi government is a terminable offense.
Was it right to fire him? I don’t know, nor do I feel qualified to judge. I would tend to think that a journalist in a city under seige would be somewhat careful in their relations with the official media of that city(especially if it is an official arm of a regime that has thrown out or “misplaced” journalists in the past). Turning down a request for an interview could be used against us(or him directly), and going on TV with a “Ha Ha, coalition forces will be here in a few minutes and you’re going down!” type message would probably be unwise as well. Many of his comments seemed just to be mild sucking-up to the people who were putting him on the air and who, thus far, hadn’t thrown him out of the city(or made him “disappear”). From my reading of the transcript there wasn’t really much meat there. Characterizations of his comments like
are inaccurate at best. Shodan’s summary was drawn from this quote
I’ll leave it to the reader to determine if the sole source of discipline and responsiveness to government directives is the threat of torture and murder of their citizens. Note that our fellow SDMB posters Collounsbury and istara have also related a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to coalition activities. The single anecdote(related by istara IIRC) of ex-pats(who have nothing to fear from Saddam because they’re out of his reach in another country) coming back to Iraq to fight coalition forces gives a person pause. If Bhagdad is disciplined and the Iraqi forces fighting determinedly because of some fear of reprisal from Saddam(torture or murder for those who defy government orders) then what motive is bring ex-pats back?
The quote Bricker was condensing for us was this piece
Again, I leave it to the reader to determine if our fellow SDMB poster’s summary was accurate.
I was unable to determine which portion of Mr Arnett’s comments Jackmannii was referring to. Similarly stolichnaya’s claim of the interview being “congratulatory and synchophantic” seems to be a subjective judgement. I see it as somewhat synchophantic, but I don’t feel it is everyone’s job to help the US win a propaganda war and I disagree with the “congratulatory” label. Mr. Arnett did not discuss success or failure of any military conflicts or condone/condemn any tactics. If anything it was praising the common people(you remember them, right? The one’s we’re there to “liberate”?) of Iraq for keeping thier heads when their city is under bombardment. When it was London under bombardment we called it bravery and respected the discipline that kept the British from running in the streets. Was it because they feared Churchill would torture and murder them if they fled to the countryside? Why is it so hard to imagine the Iraqi people as being as proud and stubborn about “our island” as the British were? Why is it so hard to recognize their courage and resolve? Why would such recognition make someone an “arse-kisser”?
Make no mistake, they do have courage and resolve. We may believe that what they’re fighting for shouldn’t be defended, but that doesn’t negate courage on the part of the defender.
Mtgman – I think it was the sum of a number of comments that Jackmannii was responding to when he summarized
If you look at the transcript from CNN, these are comments such as"
Both of these can be construed to be either praise for the Iraqi defense led by Saddam, or praise for the Iraqi people who might be rising up in the cities against Saddam as well as their determination to survive, whatever happens. Particularly the second, where what he says can be read as either “we all know wink wink they’re really American missles” or “we all know wink wink they’re Iraqi missles”. Take your pick.
I saw those comments more along the lines of thinly veiled “I told you so’s” aimed at the Bush administration. War protestors did say the resistance would be stiffer than many of the American people were led(by both the media and the administration) to believe. I see simple truth in the statement that if civilian deaths rise that the Administration will face stiff opposition, both at home and on the international front.
I didn’t hear a audio broadcast of the interview and I don’t see “wink wink” in the transcript, so I’m not quite willing to buy the second interpretation at the moment. If I could hear it and heard “wink wink” type pauses or inflections then I might be willing to go that route, but I saw it more as a sad comment on both sides fighting for propaganda ground while it is the civilians who died(regardless of who actually caused it).
