THE ARNETT THING

As you probably remember a few days ago, war correspondent Peter Arnett, of MSNBC and National Geographic Explorer, was fired by NBC after giving an interview to Iraqi TV.

In the interview, shown by Iraq's satellite television, Arnett said the United States was 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."

As controversy grew back home, Arnett tried to distance himself from his action, characterizing it as "bad judgement". And insofar as it applies to desiring to keep a job as a correspondent for a major American news channel, or in this case MSNBC, I would agree: Arnett should not have expected to keep his job after such an action.

However, on grander scale, exactly what did he do wrong? All he did was tell the truth. Remember all those rosy pictures from proponents of the war about how Iraq would welcome our troops, laying down their arms, throwing roses and blowing kisses? All those two weeks ago? Remember? Given that Bush is now hinting that the war could go on for months -- "as long as it takes" as he put it -- Arnett just may be on to something here, hehe. And are we writing another war plan? Maybe, maybe not, but it seems that there is significant infighting not only between moderate Republicans and Bush, but the State and Defense departments as well.

Anyway, to conclude this post, here's Arnett's first piece for the Mirror.

UPDATE: Arnett gave an interview where he offered an opinion about the war, one shared by many here, including in the military. Geraldo Rivera, on the other hand, gave away very specific troop info and battle plans. Why is Arnett getting so much more coverage? Which one would you consider the worse offender?