|
|
|
In remarks ignored by the major media, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky called for correspondent Peter Arnett to be tried as a traitor to the U.S. "I think Mr. Arnett should be met at the border and arrested should he come back to America," he said.
In his speech on the Senate floor (most of the text of the speech follows this article), Bunning said the media didn't like to use the word "treason" in talking about Arnett's pro-Iraqi comments to Iraqi television. "That would be an indictment of one of their own and a pock on their profession," he said.
But some did so. New York Post columnist John Podhoretz called it treason, saying that Arnett's remarks about a failed U.S. war plan, civilian casualties, Iraqi resistance, and the anti-war protests in the U.S. "might stiffen" the Iraqi resolve "and lead them to hunker down against allied forces."
Columnist Jay Ambrose said Arnett's interview was "simultaneously stupid and traitorously, hatefully anti-American," while Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation wrote that Arnett's comments were "outrageous and possibly treasonous."
Professor David Lowenthal of Boston College told AIM that treason, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, means knowingly providing assistance to the enemy.
"Peter Arnett was certainly furnishing the Iraqis with assistance by bolstering their courage, by bolstering their resistance, by saying that the allies were faltering," he said. Lowenthal, the author of the book, Present Dangers, on how the courts have misinterpreted the first amendment to allow subversive and revolutionary activities, added, "It was a clear case. He was doing it in the Iraq television studio."
A key factor, he said, is whether Arnett, a naturalized American citizen reporting for NBC News, MSNBC and National Geographic, intended to betray his own country. Arnett may have simply been trying to curry favor with the regime to get an interview with Saddam.
"But the effect of what he did was certainly to give aid and comfort to the enemy," he said.
Arnett himself explained how his own "reporting" was helping Saddam's cause. "It is clear that within the United States there is a growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war," he said to Iraqi TV. "So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war, when you challenge the policy, to develop their arguments." Arnett's statements were broadcast to the Arab world.
Initially, NBC News President Neal Shapiro and Vice President Bill Wheatley defended Arnett's comments.
Americans have to be thankful that Arnett was wrong, that his anti-American campaign failed, and that our military forces scored such a brilliant and quick military victory in Iraq. But if the military campaign had been prolonged, and if the enemy had been more formidable, it's an open question whether some in the media and the anti-war movement would have undermined American political will to such an extent as to throw the outcome into doubt.
An assessment of the media's role in the war effort is critical if former CIA director James Woolsey is correct in saying that the U.S. is engaged in an ongoing World War against terrorism and Arab/Muslim regimes that could last decades.
On the positive side, the "embedded" reporters with U.S. forces provided generally excellent coverage. Several journalists, including conservative columnist Michael Kelly, were killed or died during the war, and they all deserve our thanks for putting their lives on the line as well. But, as the Arnett case demonstrated, some of the coverage was reminiscent of the Vietnam War stories that undermined morale, gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and led to our defeat in that conflict. The Arnett view was common among the international media.
The premature criticism of the military campaign by retired military officers-"embedded" in television studios, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it-was annoying. But at least they were on the U.S. side and some had legitimate questions about the strategy employed to win the war.
The withdrawal of Fox News journalist Geraldo Rivera from the war zone, after he identified military movements to a television audience, was a case of reckless stupidity. The real problem came from those, such as Arnett, who seemed to delight in undermining the American war effort.
MSNBC's use of Arnett, known as "Baghdad Pete" for his slanted coverage of the first Gulf War, was a strange decision that we criticized before the Iraq war started. His pro-Iraqi statements on Iraqi television on March 30 were so offensive that former CBS Evening News anchorman Walter Cronkite wrote an op-ed for the New York Times calling them "grossly irresponsible."
Ironically, however, Cronkite had helped turn U.S. public opinion against the war in Vietnam, paving the way for a U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia and the slaughter of millions by the communists.
Cronkite had himself opposed the Iraq war, calling President Bush "arrogant" for proposing to launch a "dark doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes against dictatorships with terrorist ties seeking weapons of mass destruction.
Arnett was aware that, on the streets of America, the protests against U.S. Iraq policy were organized more quickly and had attracted far more people than those against the Vietnam War during a comparable time period. Here, hundreds of thousands participated in the demonstrations, which often featured Hollywood personalities such as Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon. Millions turned out abroad, with one poll in France showing that 25 percent of the people there-and France has a large Muslim population-actually wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war.
Here, the mounting protests clearly played a role in the decision by several Democratic presidential candidates, such as Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry, to be openly critical of President Bush's leadership of the war and/or the war itself.
On the brink of war, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle himself denounced Bush for having "failed so miserably" at diplomacy.
At home, on April 7, the protests took a violent turn when hundreds of demonstrators illegally tried to block a road near Oakland's port, in an effort to block supplies being shipped to U.S. forces fighting in Iraq. Media coverage of the event through headlines such as "Cops Shoot Protesters" emphasized the minor injuries suffered by anti-war protesters dispersed by police firing wooden and rubber pellets.
While the Communist Party USA and Socialist Workers Party played key roles in the anti-Vietnam protests, it was the once-obscure communist Workers World Party (WWP) that took the leading role in the demonstrations against U.S. policy on Iraq. Iraqi officials frequently encouraged them to continue. Yet the major U.S. media consistently refused to explain the WWP role, its use of front groups such as International ANSWER and the International Action Center, and the fact that its top leaders had traveled to Havana, Baghdad, and Pyongyang. At best, the WWP was described as a "radical" or "socialist" group having a secondary role.
The major media showed no interest in where the money for the protests was coming from. But when Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation suggested a congressional investigation of the funding sources behind the WWP and the protests, civil libertarian and Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff immediately called the proposal "constitutionally un-American." But Hentoff then acknowledged to radio host Bob Grant that many of the Iraq protests were being organized by "old line communists."
"Some of the main marches have been organized by people in the shadows, who support North Korea [and] who think China was right in the massacre at Tiananmen Square," he said.
The House Committee on Internal Security investigated the WWP back in 1974 and produced a report noting the group's role in prison revolts and support for Arab terrorists. WWP leaders were pictured, including one who had traveled with the "Venceremos Brigade" to Cuba. WWP links to foreign communist regimes were also covered. But no congressional committee conducts such investigations today. Herbert Romerstein, an investigator for the committee and expert on communist subversion, says the FBI is still discouraged by bureaucratic rules and regulations from monitoring such organizations.
If the war against Iraq had dragged on for months or years, such protests here and abroad would have created the impression that more and more people were opposed to the American campaign, possibly leading to negotiations to end the conflict or even an American withdrawal.
Professor Lowenthal told AIM that, "During the Vietnam War, by allowing demonstrations to spread, what in effect we did was to weaken our war effort and give the enemy comfort, leading to our defeat. That's a very dangerous thing for any country. We suffered a very bad defeat after going into a war with very good motives. We were against communism and the spread of communism."
Lowenthal said that the anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam "had the effect of making it impossible to prosecute the war properly." They also helped influence liberals in Congress to cut funding for the war, ultimately leading to the U.S. defeat.
At an anti-war teach-in at the Low Library on the campus of Columbia University, anthropology professor Nicholas DeGenova said, "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." Newsday said DeGenova's comments about defeating the United States in Iraq were cheered by an audience of 3,000. He also told the gathering that he would like to see "a million Mogadishus"-referring to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 American servicemen.
At an anti-war demonstration in San Francisco, protesters were photographed holding a sign that said, "we support our troops who shoot their officers." This photo circulated on the Internet but we didn't see it in the major media.
This was too much for Lisa Dean, the Director of Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation. A civil libertarian who sometimes collaborates with the ACLU on privacy and first amendment issues, she said such sentiment crossed the line: "That banner isn't expressing dissent and it's not freedom of speech. It's supporting sedition and is downright treasonous."
The line between legitimate dissent and treason was obviously crossed when a black Muslim U.S. soldier, Sgt. Asan Akbar, was charged with killing two of his fellow soldiers by rolling grenades under their tents in Kuwait. Akbar is one of an estimated 15,000 Muslims in the U.S. military.
The Institute for Public Accuracy, a leftist group once funded by a foundation headed by Bill Moyers, responded with a release highlighting Luke Hiken of the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) as an "expert" for the media to consult on "fragging" (a soldier killing a commanding officer.)
Hiken had attended the 1971 trial of Billy Smith, a G.I. tried on U.S. soil for "fragging" two officers during the Vietnam War. The NLG features a Web site for its Military Law Task Force that hails Smith as someone who "exemplified" the revolutionary spirit of Che Guevara.
Some support for Akbar was actually expressed in the media. Writing in the San Francisco Bay View, a national black newspaper, James C. McIntosh offered a defense of Akbar's action, saying that because he had been "ordered to perform murderous illegal war crimes…" his attack on fellow soldiers could be viewed as "an option" that also served to protest racism in the Army.
Such coverage-and opposition to the war by black figures such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Rep. John Conyers-may help explain why only 49 percent of blacks, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll published on April 8, supported the war, while 77 percent of the public as a whole supported it.
At the same time, there was an effort by some key journalists in the media to undermine support for the war by raising questions about the motives behind the "Rallies for America" to support the troops.
Ignoring the fact that the first amendment applies to conservative talk radio, Tim Jones in the March 19 Chicago Tribune said the pro-America demonstrations had "raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles" because Glenn Beck had used his Premier radio network program to help organize several of them. Jones speculated that Premier radio network, which is owned by Clear Channel, had ties to the Bush administration through several board members, and that they were orchestrating the pro-America rallies. But the board also included former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan. Jones quoted Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, as saying she thought the company was supporting the rallies so it could get favorable decisions from the Federal Communications Commission and Congress. She offered no evidence for this charge.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on March 25 continued this line of attack, claiming that Clear Channel "appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation."
On March 26, Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post followed with his own column quoting Krugman under the headline, "'Rallies for America' Draw Scrutiny."
Many on the left insist that broadcasters are not responsive to the needs of citizens. But this demonstration of community involvement by a radio company was trashed because it was too patriotic. It was another indication that some in the media really didn't want the U.S. to win the war.
Senator Jim Bunning's statement, made on the Senate floor on April 1, was ignored by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the three broadcast network news programs. Fox News and CNN covered the speech, which included the following remarks:
"I rise today to comment on and express outrage over the recent actions and words of journalist Peter Arnett. In fact, I hesitate to even use the term 'journalist' when referring to Mr. Arnett. This word implies a certain degree of objectivity and balance, which this man knows absolutely nothing about. 'Traitor' is a better word to describe Mr. Arnett.
"This past weekend Mr. Arnett appeared on state-controlled Iraqi television. With a uniformed Iraqi anchor translating, Mr. Arnett told the Iraqi people that the American war plan had failed due to their continued resistance and that coalition forces were in the process of drafting new battle plans. To quote Arnett:
'Clearly, the American war plans misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces.'
"Saddam Hussein couldn't have written his script any better...
"This is the same man who reported in 1991 during the first gulf war that the United States had blown up a baby milk factory...The fact that Mr. Arnett conveniently left out was that this 'baby milk factory' was actually a biological weapons plant.
"I will never understand how and why Mr. Arnett always thinks he knows so much more than our military and intelligence officials...I hope Mr. Arnett is not getting his info from the same source who told him that U.S. forces used the nerve agent-sarin gas-against villagers in Laos during the Vietnam war.
"This story, reported in 1998 by Mr. Arnett, could hold no water and CNN rightly fired Arnett for his reckless words and actions. Now, six years after that bogus claim, Peter Arnett has once again found himself in search of employment.
"Both National Geographic Explorer and NBC News have fired Arnett for this latest stunt by Peter Arnett on Iraqi-controlled television. I am trying to figure out why these entities even hired him in the first place with his pathetic track record of recent years.
"We all firmly believe in the first amendment which protects the freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. However, no U.S. citizen should be allowed to provide aid, and comfort, through false information, to the enemy during wartime.
"Of course the media doesn't mention the word "treason" like many of us have over Mr. Arnett's comments. That would be an indictment of one of their own and a pock on their profession.
"Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a "useful idiot" for Saddam and his barbaric regime, but that's not enough for me and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans. I think Mr. Arnett should be met at the border and arrested should he come back to America.
"I dare Mr. Arnett to take a good look at our soldiers in uniform and tell them they have failed in this mission and objective.
"These men and women embody everything that is great about America and freedom...
"They love this nation and cherish its very idea so much that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to ensure that we can live in a country free of government tyranny like that under which those in Iraq have lived...
"Mr. Arnett, you need to retire or think about a second career as a fiction writer...To those news organizations that have already picked up Mr. Arnett, and others that may hire him, I have two things to say: One, you have every right to hire him. Two, we have every right to call your news organization a joke and a sympathizer to traitors.
"I believe it is about time we made an example of Mr. Arnett's lies and deceit and let the media know we are watching.
"While we are giving the media top access and protection in this war, we must demand that they not hang out to dry our soldiers and Americans. If they do so, there should be consequences.
"Some believe freedom of speech is an absolute right and that journalists have the right to say and report anything they want. I, and many others, do not believe this. I do not believe journalists should be allowed to lie and opine and aid our enemies in the time of a war.
"There is a line journalists are not meant to cross, and Mr. Arnett crossed this line many years ago, and he continues to do so. It is time we held this man accountable for his actions.
Please send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Mike Gallagher, Senator Jim Bunning, and NBC News President Neal Shapiro.
| CLIFF'S NOTES | By Cliff Kincaid |
WHEN CONGRESS BACKED THE USE OF FORCE AND PRESIDENT BUSH ordered war against Iraq, I believe it was our duty to support victory as quickly as possible. It did come fast. Who can forget those scenes of an American soldier putting an American flag over Saddam's face on that statue before it was toppled? Some commentators such as ABC's Peter Jennings, a Canadian, thought this made us look like occupiers rather than liberators. But many Iraqis themselves waved American flags. One of them had been made with white paper and magic marker. It would truly be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory if the U.N. flag is now hoisted over Baghdad in place of the Stars & Stripes.
THE COMMUNIST WORKERS WORLD PARTY HELD ANOTHER RALLY ON April 12 to protest the "pro-war" media. The cable news networks have sounded more patriotic lately. MSNBC took a big hit when Peter Arnett was fired as a correspondent, but it now runs "Let Freedom Ring" segments showing Iraqi children, and its "America's Bravest" segment features photos of our troops. It went after rival Fox News after Fox correspondent Geraldo Rivera was asked to leave the war zone after disclosing his location with the troops on a map he drew in the sand. MSNBC broadcast a promotional spot saying it would never "compromise military security or jeopardize a single American life." Fox retaliated with a spot about Arnett saying, "He spoke out against America's armed forces; he said America's war against terrorism had failed; he even vilified America's leadership. And he worked for MSNBC." As for CNN, Baghdad Pete's former network, chief news executive Eason Jordan wrote an April 11 New York Times op-ed admitting he had covered up horrible stories of torture by Iraqi officials over a 12-year period that he knew about first-hand because he wanted CNN in Baghdad to have access to the regime, and the truth would jeopardize the lives of Iraqis working for CNN. This means that CNN covered up Iraqi crimes so CNN could report Iraqi lies through Peter Arnett and others. What a disgrace.
ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ABOUT CNN'S MARTIN SAVIDGE, AN EMBEDDED TV-reporter with the 1st Marine battalion. The email said, "He was talking with 4 young Marines near his foxhole this morning. He had been telling the story of how well the Marines had been looking out for and taking care of him since the war started. He went on to tell about the many hardships the Marines had endured since the war began and how they all look after one another. He turned to the four and said he had cleared it with their commanders and they could use his videophone to call home. The 19-year old Marine next to him asked Martin if he would allow his platoon sergeant to use his call to call his pregnant wife back home whom he had not been able to talk to in three months. A stunned Savidge who was visibly moved by the request nodded his head and the young Marine ran off to get the sergeant. Savidge recovered after a few seconds and turned back to the three young Marines still sitting with him and asked which one of them would like to call home first. The Marine closest to him responded without a moment's hesitation, 'Sir, if it is all the same to you we would like to call the parents of a buddy of ours, Lance Cpl Brian Buesing of Cedar Key, Florida, who was killed near Nasiriyah, to see how they are doing.' At that, Martin Savidge totally broke down and was unable to speak. All he could get out before signing off was 'Where do they get young men like this?'"
BAGHDAD PETE WAS JEOPARDIZING THE LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS. YET NBC NEWS President Neal Shapiro initially defended him. We suggest writing him about that. Senator Bunning deserves a note of thanks for saying Arnett was guilty of treason. It might be debatable whether Arnett deliberately and intentionally tried to help the enemy killing Americans, but the case should be pursued. We should not shy away from the term "treason." Enemies of America organized the anti-war rallies and are giving support to the black Muslim soldier, Asan Akbar, who is charged with killing U.S. soldiers in a grenade attack.
WE DISCUSS THE MEDIA ATTACK ON GLENN BECK AND CLEAR CHANNEL/PREMIER RADIO for helping organize patriotic "Rallies for America." Dozens of these rallies were held around America and helped keep the morale of our troops high. Some drew tens of thousands. Others drew a few hundred. On March 29 several hundred turned out at West Brunswick High School's football stadium in Shallotte, North Carolina, to show support for the troops. A photo showed a local resident named Rick Moran holding a sign that said, "Save Some Ammo for France." Meanwhile, some reporters in Washington, D.C. were publishing doubts about the conduct of the war from various anonymous sources. A headline over a David E. Sanger story in the March 30 New York Times said, "As a Quick Victory Grows Less Likely, Doubts Are Quietly Voiced in Washington." Vice President Cheney was mocked in the story for saying that the streets of Baghdad would "erupt in joy," and that the war would be over in weeks rather than months. On April 2, the New York Times ran an op-ed by Joseph P. Hoar, a retired Marine general, under the headline "Why Aren't There enough Troops in Iraq?" He wrote, "Our leaders are preparing us for a long struggle." Baghdad fell in three weeks.
MIKE GALLAGHER OF SALEM RADIO IS ANOTHER RADIO HOST WHO DESERVES THANKS. He proposed and helped organize a May 1 "alternative" concert in Spartanburg, South Carolina, with the Marshall Tucker Band as a way to protest remarks made by Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines in London attacking President Bush over his Iraq policy. The Dixie Chickens, as they've come to be called, are holding their own concert that day in Greenville. The South Carolina House of Representatives adopted a resolution asking the Dixie Chicks to play a free concert for the troops and their families as a way of apologizing. The left-wing City Council in Madison, Wisconsin, passed a resolution in honor of the girl band, saying they would be given French wine if they ever visit the city, and urging they change their name to "Dairyland Chicks."
LEGENDARY COUNTRY MUSIC ENTERTAINER CHARLIE DANIELS BLASTED THOSE IN Hollywood who were opposing the war. If you get a chance, pick up his new hit song, "This ain't no rag it's a flag." It includes lyrics directed at the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9/11: "This ain't no rag it's a flag and we don't wear it on our heads. It's a symbol of the land where the good guys live-are you listening to what I said? You're a coward and a fool and you broke all the rules and you wounded our American pride. Now we're coming with a gun and we know you're gonna run but you can't find no place to hide…" Daniels says it was because of this song that his band didn't appear on the Country Music Television Country Freedom Concert for the Salvation Army to benefit the victims of 9/11. He was told the song would be offensive, and so the band pulled out.
WHILE THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA OPPOSED THE WAR, MANY CANADIANS expressed their support with their own Rallies for America on April 4 and April 12. Canadafreepress.com reports that the real crowd pleaser at the April 4 event was a young journalism student, Erica Basnicki, who was on the stage with her mother and brother. She lost her father Ken at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "My dad is not here in body," she said, "but he's here in spirit. And knowing my dad, if he could send a message to the people of the United States today, he would say 'Thank you for looking after my family for me.'" Canadian Arthur Weinreb urged "anti-government rallies" against the government of Canada "to show the displeasure of the silent majority of this country [at the] refusal to join its former allies in taking down the Butcher of Baghdad."
THE MEDIA WONDERED IF THERE REALLY WAS A LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11. Two U.S. Marines were photographed passing the wall of Iraq's abandoned military headquarters at Nasiriyah. On the wall was a mural in the form of what the New York Post described as "a sickening tribute" to the attacks. It showed one airplane crashing into the World Trade Center towers and another about to do so. The Post put the Getty Images photo on page one. The Washington Post ran it back on page 39 on March 28.