Perhaps He Could Room with George Galloway

John McCaslin reports this morning that disgraced journalist Peter Arnett thinks the Iraq war was unnecessary because Saddam was checking out soon anyway:

Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett, who was fired by NBC in 2003 after declaring on Iraqi TV that the U.S. war plan in Iraq had "failed," suggested yesterday that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was unnecessary because "Saddam was on his way out."

Surfacing early yesterday morning on CBS' "The Late Late Show," Mr. Arnett told host Craig Ferguson that he thinks Saddam Hussein, who awaits trial in Iraq, would have been knocked from power within "five years" even without U.S. troops entering Baghdad.

Asked how long he thought the U.S. military would need to remain in Iraq, the war correspondent, who divides his time between homes in Virginia and Baghdad, said "a very long time" because, as he put it, "the country is on the brink of civil war."

Mr. Arnett told the host that while most reporters live in Baghdad's heavily secured green zone, he resides in downtown Baghdad's "business district," surrounded by what he calls "protective neighbors."

For transportation, the correspondent whom critics accused of being a "stooge" of Saddam said he simply walks out onto the street and hails a taxi, explaining, "Terrorists don't want to blow up a $200 taxi; their explosives cost more."

"It's worked so far," Mr. Arnett said.

Asked whether Saddam was what "propaganda" had made him out to be — "a guy who bit the head off of puppies," said Mr. Ferguson — Mr. Arnett said the first time he interviewed Saddam during the 1991 Persian Gulf War he found him to be a "very elegant, diplomatic guy."

An "elegant, diplomatic guy"? Never let it be said that Peter Arnett isn't loyal to his friends.

More: McCaslin's column this morning is the gift that keeps on giving. Seems that a thirsty Brit somehow mistook a profound, intellectually ponderous work of art by American hack Wayne Hill for a bottle of water. Perhaps that's because the "art" was, well, a bottle of water.

Amidst their struggles with terrorists, British residents had cause to chuckle this week when an exhibit "sculpture" on global warming — a plastic bottle of water from melted ice in the Antarctic — was misinterpreted by a presumably thirsty visitor.

Steven Morris wrote in yesterday's edition of the Guardian that although the sculpture was "intended to be a telling comment on the dangers of global warming ... the visitor is believed to have drunk the piece."

"The sculpture was the creation of the American-born artist and writer Wayne Hill," Mr. Morris said. "He brought back two litres of melt water from the west Antarctic and designed a bottle to hold it."

Tracked down, Mr. Hill said: "If you put something in a frame or on a plinth people usually recognize it's a piece of art and treat it with respect."

Police in Devon and Cornwall have been called in to investigate. A spokesman confirmed: "We are looking at the possibility someone drank the water without knowing it was a piece of art."

Hill had valued the "art" at L42,500, according to the BBC. I like Hill's method, so I'm declaring this blog entry's value to be $50,000. Please send your money using the "Paypal" button on the left.