PETER ARNETT HELD HOSTAGE?

You have to wonder what the deal is with Peter Arnett. He has to know a gruesome and probably traitorous TV appearance for Saddam would likely result in his being fired by National Geographic. Forget MSNBC. He is single-handedly destroying a pristine 115-year-old brand name. Or do they still support him? Maybe we should call or email National Geographic to ask them if his bombshell interview produced shock or simply awe in their offices. While MSNBC was just trying to regain their own brand name strength, Arnett suddenly undercut any chance they had. Though NBC just gave him the kiss of death and praised his "outstanding" reporting, I expect both companies to start running away from him faster than a hot white dot in an AC-130 gun camera video. He's killing 'em.

Matt Drudge just posited that Arnett might have Stockholm Syndrome like Elizabeth Smart was said to have. I'm glad someone caught on to the official JYB framework for understanding Saddam's stubborn followers. The scariest thing about Arnett though is, while his comments do sound over the top, we've been hearing pretty much the same thing for a week from other stateside reporters who think they can create a new Vietnam just by unilaterally declaring the war plan a "failure" and producing "evidence." We have a nation of boomer reporters experiencing a TV-war-induced acid flashback to the Nixon presidency. If someone is short an MRE, the war lasts over a week, Iraqis have a temporary water shortage and are still afraid of being murdered by Saddam's gang of Patty Hearsts, or Rumsfeld did his job as a civilian overseer of the military, it freaks them out and causes a cold Nixonian sweat. Those stories are barely worth even discussing, let alone the Watergate or Vietnam blockbusters they think. Although, collectively, they illuminate how desperate our media bigs in NYC and D.C. are to put a fresh damaging hit on 21st century America and our great military in the middle of a potential chemical war. They're sick individuals. Listen carefully to the tone they use in their questions and reports. Most don't really care if we miscalculated and troops falter in the field, the war then becomes a years-long Vietnam, or angry Iraqis die of thirst and executions. They're almost salivating for it all -- to prove the war was a mistake and to prevent Bush from being re-elected.

When we have most liberals sounding like Peter Arnett in Baghdad, practically thrilled about how Saddam's Genocidal Fedayeen Forces are supposedly showing Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks a thing or two about how to fight a Just War, we have the very national scandal they seek. The media has been caught pushing intentionally deceptive propaganda while we have millions of people whose lives now depend on the truth being told. Ironically our military, who should really be the ones telling some lies to protect our forces, is jeopardizing some lives with pure truth. They feel the need to protect themselves from the salivating media looking to catch them making the slightest mistake or telling the smallest tactical lie.

UPDATE: As I predicted, NBC's unqualified endorsement of their reporter was simply the kiss of death. He was fired within 24 hours from NBC, MCNBC, and National Geographic Explorer. Let's see how long it takes for NationalGeographic.com to pull his face off their front page.

Here's a timely reminder about his past firing from CNN:

The aftermath of that phony nerve-gas story was not only that CNN was virtually ruined from an integrity standpoint (not that Peter really cared), but that was the straw that broke the back of the fragile international consensus that kept the United Nations' weapons inspectors in Iraq. For it was Arnett's little introductory speech for that pack of calculated lies that asserted that now the United States had no moral position to deny Iraq chemical weapons.

He's the journalistic equivalent of a comparatively benign arsonist-fireman.

UPDATE: 9:00 am EST Monday morning -- Peter Arnett's smiling face just yanked off the front page of NationalGeographic.com Will Saddam's propaganda remain?