Arnett Living in Baghdad, Describes Hussein as "Very Elegant" --7/28/2005

1. Arnett Living in Baghdad, Describes Hussein as "Very Elegant"
Peter Arnett, who was dismissed as an NBC News correspondent after he went on Iraqi TV on March 30, 2003 to boost the Hussein regime's morale by insisting that "the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces" and so the U.S. was "re-writing the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance," told Craig Ferguson on Tuesday night's Late Late Show on CBS that he decided to stay in Baghdad because he presumed the U.S. would win quickly. But "this war is going on much longer than I thought -- it's two years with no end in sight." Arnett characterized the battle as "less a war than a sort of a coup d'etat because there was very little resistance from the Iraqi army." He asserted that Iraq is "on the brink of civil war" and that far from being the "Hitler of the Middle East" as U.S. "propaganda" had suggested, he found Saddam Hussein "to be a very elegant, diplomatic guy." Arnett also contended the war was unnecessary because Hussein and his two sons "were squabbling for power and really, even if there hadn't been a U.S. invasion, Saddam was on the way out." with audio

2. MSNBC's Stewart Frets: "Haven't Heard" Rove's "Name In Few Days"
Picking up on a Time magazine Web site report, the New York Post on Wednesday reported how "outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen," a $372 donation to the Bush-bashing group America Coming Together. But MSNBC's Countdown didn't mention that revelation in a Wednesday night segment devoted to the case. Fill-in anchor Alison Stewart plugged "new information that Robert Novak, the original leaker, was allegedly told twice by the CIA, 'You better not write her name, buddy.'" Interviewing a Washington Post reporter about the case, Stewart fretted: "And for so long, all the heat was on Karl Rove in terms of this case. Haven't heard his name in a few days. Why?"

3. Trudeau: Bush's Nicknaming People is "Very Aggressive...Bullying"
Reacting to the decision by a few newspapers to remove President Bush's nickname for Karl Rove ("turd blossom") from Tuesday's Doonesbury strip, Doonesbury creator Gary Trudeau, the husband of former NBC News star Jane Pauley, lashed out at Bush, telling USA today's Peter Johnson: "I thought it said something quite illuminating about Bush. Nicknaming people is a very aggressive form of bullying, and the sheer inventiveness of 'turd blossom' revealed just how nasty the President can be, even to people he is close to."

Arnett Living in Baghdad, Describes Hussein
as "Very Elegant"

The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance," told Craig Ferguson on Tuesday night's Late Late Show on CBS that he decided to stay in Baghdad because he presumed the U.S. would win quickly. But "this war is going on much longer than I thought -- it's two years with no end in sight." Arnett characterized the battle as "less a war than a sort of a coup d'etat because there was very little resistance from the Iraqi army." He asserted that Iraq is "on the brink of civil war" and that far from being the "Hitler of the Middle East" as U.S. "propaganda" had suggested, he found Saddam Hussein "to be a very elegant, diplomatic guy." Arnett also contended the war was unnecessary because Hussein and his two sons "were squabbling for power and really, even if there hadn't been a U.S. invasion, Saddam was on the way out."

Arnett revealed that he spends "most" of his "time these days in Iraq" where, Ferguson noted, "he's researching a book on the final days of Saddam Hussein's reign."

For background on Arnett, see the March 31 CyberAlert Extra, "Peter Arnett's Years as Conveyer of Enemy Propaganda," at: www.mediaresearch.org [3]

Highlights from Arnett's March 30, 2003 appearance on Iraqi TV:
"Within the United States, there is growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war. So our reports about civilian casualties here, about he resistance of the Iraqi forces are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war and it challenges the policy to develop their arguments.
"One other point, I've been mainly in Baghdad in the past few weeks, but clearly this is a city that is disciplined, the population is responsive to the government's requirements of discipline and my Iraqi friends tell me there's a growing sense of nationalism and resistance to what the United States and Britain is doing....
"Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces. And I personally do not understand how that happened, because I've been here many times and in my commentaries on television I would tell the Americans about the determination of the Iraqi forces, the determination of the government, and the willingness to fight for their country. But me, and others who felt the same way, were not listened to by the Bush administration.
"That is why now America is re-appraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and re-writing the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance; now they're trying to write another war plan."
That was a runner-up in the "Baghdad Bob Award for Parroting Enemy Propaganda" category at the MRC's DisHonors Awards presented in March of 2004. To watch a RealPlayer video clip of Arnett's claims, go to: www.mediaresearch.org [4]

After NBC dumped him, it took Arnett just a few hours to hook up with a far-left, virulently anti-American tabloid in London, the April 1, 2003 CyberAlert recounted: In his first piece for the Daily Mirror, Arnett charged that he lost his job because the U.S. government and "right-wing media" fear his "truth" telling. He blamed the end of his "successful NBC reporting career" on how "I stated the obvious to Iraqi television; that the U.S. war timetable has fallen by the wayside." Arnett elaborated on the conspiracy against him: "The right-wing media and politicians are looking for any opportunity to be critical of the reporters who are here." See: www.mediaresearch.org [5]

Back to Tuesday night's appearance on the Los Angeles-based Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. The MRC's Brain Boyd corrected a chunk of the July 26 interview against the closed-captioning text:

Ferguson: "Where do you live?"
Arnett: "McLean, Virginia. But I have a house in Baghdad also, so I spend most of my time these days in Iraq."
Ferguson: "You have a house in Baghdad? Uh-huh, a holiday house, a vacation property? What the hell do you have a house in Baghdad for?"
Arnett: "Most people, like you, think I'm crazy."
Ferguson: "Yes."
Arnett: "But actually there's -- excuse me. Let me have some water here. There we go. Thank you, thank you."
Ferguson: "You're welcome. Do you want some scotch or something?"
Arnett: "It's already in there."
Ferguson: "We can get you some of Barker's whiskey, Bob Barker. He drinks Jim Beam warm."
Arnett: "There's about 5,000 American civilians in Iraq and there's 200 or 300 media live there. So, you know, behind all those stories in the media you see, the television pictures and the headlines in the news and so forth, there are people, you know, trying to produce them. Most of the media live in protected hotels. Some even live in the Green Zone, which is the specially protected American area. But because I'm writing a book and sort of want to get access to real Iraqis I have a house downtown in the business district, a semi-gated community with very protective neighbors."

Arnett proceeded to describe how at the end of the war there was an influx 800,000 automobiles, most from entrepreneurs in Europe who exported old rental cars, so with two of three cars in Baghdad driven by the unemployed, for a dollar you can go anywhere in the city.

Arnett also relayed how he decided to stay on in Iraq and see the country develop "and I figured it's going to be over soon." He recalled that he made the same mistake in Vietnam, adding: "This war is going on much longer than I thought -- it's two years with no end in sight."

Following an ad break, Ferguson cued him up: "We were talking about the length -- I rather interrupted you rather rudely. Please forgive me. We were talking about the length of time that these wars seem to go on. How long do you think we're going to be in Iraq?"
Arnett: "A very long time."
Ferguson: "Really?"
Arnett: "And I'll tell you quickly why."
Ferguson: "That's horrible news, why?"
Arnett: "Tell you quickly why. Because the, unfortunately, while the war was very well fought, a 21 day successful conflict, it was, in my view, less a war than a sort of a coup d'etat because there was very little resistance from the Iraqi army. They all basically collapsed, they fled. And they were, a lot of them were under the impression, the Pentagon had signaled that after Saddam was gone they would reuse the Iraqi army and Iraqi intelligence in a new military. They'd dump the leaders and keep all the fighters. But what happened as policy evolved in the few months after the war, they fired everyone in the military and in intelligence. Suddenly there were 600,000 able bodied Iraqis on the streets with families to feed, with weapons and no future. And that really was part of the, that's where the insurgency started to develop. The other factor is that politically it is a difficult situation. You have the Kurdish, Shiite, Sunni people, three different peoples, all straining for recognition and power. So the country's on the brink of civil war. It's not me saying it, it's many experts saying it."
Ferguson: "I think it kind of is."
Arnett: "And it's a matter of, so the US is stuck there a long time just basically to prevent that. And if any U.S. withdrawal, you know, would make it harder on the American troops left behind. If they moved out 50,000, suddenly all these Americans are there, more vulnerable."
Ferguson: "Well, let me talk to you a little bit about the regime that they replaced because you, you're writing a book about Saddam. You met Saddam Hussein. He was in power when you met him. Was he crazy? Was he like biting the heads off puppies and stuff?"
Arnett: "Well, when I drove to the interview ten days into the first Gulf War, I had that impression because that's why propaganda sort of suggested. The Hitler of the Middle East and so forth. Actually, he turned out to be a very elegant, diplomatic guy. Of course, he said 'We're winning the war.' At that point Baghdad was in flames."
Ferguson: "And he's a homicidal maniac, but charming."
Arnett acceded to Ferguson's description: "Other than that, but a charming homicidal maniac. And he, the thing was at the end of the interview he basically was suing for peace. And they, you know, they did make a peace deal at the end of the first Gulf War. They did sign an agreement. He surrendered, officially. Now, this didn't happen after the second Gulf War. There was no surrender, officially. One of the problems. Now, in the years since that first Gulf War, Saddam basically retreated from, you know, operating as the powerful leader. He never visited any military bases. He was concerned about potential, you know, death threats and he sort of and he passed his power over really to his sons, Uday and Qusay, and they were squabbling for power and really, even if there hadn't been a U.S. invasion, Saddam was on the way out."
Ferguson: "So if we'd waited six months the whole thing would have fallen apart anyway."
Arnett: "Five years, definitely."
Ferguson wrapped up: "Alright, well, you live and learn. Peter, I wish we had more time to talk about this."

MSNBC's Stewart Frets: "Haven't Heard"
Rove's "Name In Few Days"

Picking up on a Time magazine Web site report, the New York Post on Wednesday reported how "outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen," a $372 donation to te Bush-bashing group America Coming Together. But MSNBC's Countdown didn't mention that revelation in a Wednesday night segment devoted to the case. Fill-in anchor Alison Stewart plugged "new information that Robert Novak, the original leaker, was allegedly told twice by the CIA, 'You better not write her name, buddy.'" Interviewing a Washington Post reporter about the case, Stewart fretted: "And for so long, all the heat was on Karl Rove in terms of this case. Haven't heard his name in a few days. Why?"

In fact, hosting Countdown on Monday night, just two days before, Olbermann repeatedly raised Rove's name. See: www.mediaresearch.org [6]

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth took down Stewart's plugs and subsequent segment on the July 27 program. She teased at the top: "The CIA leak: Robert Novak was told not once, but twice, before he outed agency officer Valerie Plame, that her name was off limits. So how will that affect the investigation?"

A plug before an ad break: "And the outing of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame. New information that Robert Novak, the original leaker, was allegedly told twice by the CIA, 'You better not write her name, buddy.'"

Another plug: "The headlines hurting Robert Novak today. Remember him? He's the guy that outed the CIA officer, Valerie Plame. Well, word came today, he was warned by the CIA that he shouldn't name her. That happened on two separate occasions."

Just past 8:30pm EDT Stewart arrived at the segment: "Since the CIA leak probe began a year and a half ago, one question has been obvious: Who leaked the name of a CIA covert operative? That's Valerie Plame. Not so obvious, whether the special prosecutor would ever be satisfied answering only that question. Our third story in the Countdown tonight, the what and the who of the CIA leak investigation apparently is broader than anyone knew. The Washington Post reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than previously known -- including former CIA Director George Tenet, Former Deputy Director John McLaughlin, and former CIA Spokesman Bill Harlow, as well as State Department officials. And Fitzgerald is not just interested in who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, he is interested in how the Bush administration shifted blame to the CIA for the claim that started the controversy in the first place. Those 16 words in the President's 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Africa.
"And the Washington Post report makes one other key element quite clear. According to its sources, former CIA Spokesman Bill Harlow confirmed that Valerie Plame was an undercover officer, and he did this before Robert Novak outed Plame on July 14, 2003. While Harlow did not describe Plame as undercover, he did tell Novak not to use her name. Walter Pinkus and Jim Vandehei of the Washington Post have been at the forefront of the reporting on this leak investigation, and we're joined now by Jim Vandehei, the White House correspondent for the Post. Jim, good evening to you. These ex-officials from the CIA that Fitzgerald's interviewed, what seems to be the main message there?"
Jim Vandehei, Washington Post, from Washington, DC: "Right, that clearly he was looking at least early on in this investigation at a much larger damage control effort by the White House to protect President Bush from any blame for including those now-famous 16 words in the State of the Union Address. Basically, he's trying to figure out how that leak, the leak of that CIA operative's name, fit into this larger effort, and what role the CIA played in this and what role the White House did."
Stewart: "There have been so many twists and turns in this case, including someone who apparently approached Robert Novak on the street about this. Explain to people this part of the story." [Vandehei]
Stewart: "Now, if Robert Novak was not told point-blank that Valerie Plame was undercover, is it still a problem for him that he leaked her name?"
Vandehei: "It's not a problem for him legally. The leak investigation centers on 'did any government officials,' because if you look at the law, the law says, 'Did any government official knowingly leak the name of a covert CIA operative knowing that the government was trying to protect the identity?' I think what we learned from the CIA spokesman, who told us on the record for the first time, was that he did warn Bob Novak. Before, we had heard -- I think Bob Novak either wrote a column about it in October of 2003 or that he was told, that he did not get any signals that it could put her in harm's way or that he should not report her name. And what Harlow told us was that he said it in as certain terms as he could given that he cannot himself out a CIA operative, warned Bob Novak not to use her name."
Stewart: "And for so long, all the heat was on Karl Rove in terms of this case. Haven't heard his name in a few days. Why?"

An excerpt from the July 27 New York Post story, Plame's Anti-W. Money," by Washington, DC bureau reporter Deborah Orin:

Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen, it was revealed last night.

It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.

The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together, first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets.

The Federal Election Commission record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."...

CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows....

America Coming Together is one of the anti-Bush activist groups bankrolled by Bush-hating billionaire George Soros. He gave the group around $10 million....

A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report found that Plame did arrange her husband's trip even though he repeatedly denied it.

END of Excerpt

For the story in full: www.nypost.com [7]

For the July 26 Time posting, which didn't get to Plame's political donation until the last paragraph: www.time.com [8]

Trudeau: Bush's Nicknaming People is
"Very Aggressive...Bullying"

Reacting to the decision by a few newspapers to remove President Bush's nickname for Karl Rove ("turd blossom") from Tuesday's Doonesbury strip, Doonesbury creator Gary Trudeau, the husband of former NBC News star Jane Pauley, lashed out at Bush, telling USA today's Peter Johnson: "I thought it said something quite illuminating about Bush. Nicknaming people is a very aggressive form of bullying, and the sheer inventiveness of a 'turd blossom' revealed just how nasty the President can be, even to people he is close to."

Or, it could just be that over the years Bush found it a good way, for someone who didn't excel at athletics, academics or business, to endear himself with influential people.

An excerpt from Peter Johnson's "Media Mix" column in the July 27 USA Today:

The Kansas City Star dropped Tuesday's syndicated Doonesbury because of a salty nickname that President Bush calls aide Karl Rove. Others edited out the word they found offensive.

In the strip (www.ucomics.com/doonesbury [9]), Bush says that Rove, who is embroiled in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, has "sure been earnin' his nickname lately."

"Boy genius?" someone says, using one nickname.

"Hey turd blossom, get in here!" Bush responds, using another.

In an e-mail Tuesday, creator Garry Trudeau said he used the nickname since it "had been widely reported" and "many people would already know it. I thought it said something quite illuminating about Bush. Nicknaming people is a very aggressive form of bullying, and the sheer inventiveness of a 'turd blossom' revealed just how nasty the president can be, even to people he is close to."

In response, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Trudeau's comments "do not dignify a response." But in an interview last year with ABC's Barbara Walters, Rove didn't appear to take offense at the nickname. "It's a Texas phrase. In the west Texas plains, wildflowers will spring up through nature's natural fertilizer, shall we say."...

END of Excerpt

For the USA Today article in full: www.usatoday.com [10]

To see the Doonesbury strip in question, from July 26: www.ucomics.com [11]

For a bio of Trudeau: www.ucomics.com [12]

For a picture of him: www.nndb.com [13]

-- Brent Baker