Wanker of the week - Ralph Peters
Ralph Peters has a real identity crisis. He can't decide whether he is Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley. He writes brillant scholarly articles for the Royal Australian Air Force, and Washington Monthly. He has appeared on PBS's Frontline. All those times as a thoughtful, intellectual commentator.
But something happened to Ralph Peters. Apparently, he sold his soul to the evil empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Media Matters has twelve references on him. Don't worry, it will soon be thirteen, I forwarded the e-mail to them.
Imagine my reaction when I received a copy of his October 20, NY Post column in my email. It made my blood boil. Here are some selected quotes from it:
Unable to convince the Bush administration or our troops to cut and run, the American left is waging its campaign of support for Islamist terror through our all-too-cooperative media. And you're the duck in the anti-war movement's shooting gallery.
Apparently he doesn't understand what liberalism is. Here's a refresher: Liberalism is the opposite of Islamism. Liberals believe in equality of all people regardless of their religion. Liberals believe that people should be able to worship or not worship any god they choose. Liberals believe in the free enterprise system. Liberals believe that health care is a right not a privilege. Liberals believe that men and women are equals and should be able to choose their life paths. Liberals believe the sex lives of consenting adults are no business of the government. Liberals believe how many children a couple choose to have or not have is none of the government's business. Liberals believe that people are responsible for their actions and once they take responsibility for and accept the consequences of their actions they should be forgiven by society.
Compare that with Islamism, remember how the Taliban treated women? What about sex laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran? Last time I checked adultery was a capital crime. Freedom of religion is an alien concept in Saudi Arabia and Iran too.
So Ralph why would liberals want the Islamists to win? Do you think that's the reason we will be celebrating the death of the 2000th death in Iraq is to
"exploit dead soldiers and Marines for partisan purposes is worse than grave-robbing: Ghouls only take gold rings and decaying flesh; the left wants to rob our war dead of their sacrifices and their achievements, their honor and their pride."That is BULLSHIT, we are angry that they have made the ultimate sacrifice for a lie. In other words, WHERE THE FUCK IS OSAMA BIN LADIN?
Those who died in Iraq have not died in vain. Even should Iraq fail itself in the end, our courageous effort to give one Middle-Eastern Muslim population a chance to create a rule-of-law democracy has been worth the cost — for their sake, but also for ours. Without a transformation of the Middle East, we shall see no end of terror.Umm, you are contradicting yourself Ralphie. So what happens if Iraq becomes an Islamic Republic like Iran? Is that failure? Did we really send our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to Iraq to die for the creation of a new Iran? I believe if we exerted half the effort of hunting down and capturing Saddam Hussein and his cronies to find and arrest Osama bin Ladin and destroying the infrastructure of al-Qaeda. Afghanistan would be a stable democracy right now and we would have justice for the families of the 3000 Americans who died on Septermber 11, 2001.
Two generations of politicians and pundits suffer from their avoidance of military service. They speak of war in ignorance and view our troops — whom they quietly despise — as nothing more than tools of their own ambitions. After deploring body counts during their Vietnam-era protest years, today our leftists revel in the American body count in Iraq.Is that why you participated in the smear of John Kerry and endorsed George W. Bush in last year's presidential election? I guess being a draft dodger only matters in you're a Democrat. Military service means nothing if you are a liberal or a democrat. Gee, this veteran thanks you for smearing her.
The left has been infuriated by its inability to incite an anti-war movement in our military — forgetting that this is an all-volunteer force whose members believe in service to our country. The best the Democrats can do is to trot out poor Wes Clark, an ethically challenged retired general who will say anything, anywhere, anytime in return for five more seconds in the spotlight.
Well I guess you never heard of this organization or saw this website. Or maybe he should read the blogs of this soldier or this soldier or this soldier.
If the American left and its media sympathizers want someone to blame for our combat losses, they should begin with themselves. Their irresponsible demands for troop withdrawals provide powerful encouragement to Muslim fanatics to keep on killing as many American service members as possible. On the worst days the terrorists suffer in Iraq, our "anti-war" fellow citizens keep the cause of Islamist fascism alive. Their support is worth far more to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi than any amount of Saudi money.
The problem is, when the United States invaded Iraq it justified all of Al-Qaeda's propaganda. The war in Iraq is giving the Islamists huge recruiting opportunities. There's a term for that, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Oh, we could have killed Zarqawi without an invasion. As for we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq, so we don't have to fight them here. I'm sure the ordinary Iraqis appreciate the car bombs and the civil war we brought. It's the old stab in the back theory. Our troops aren't winning because the liberals won't let them. And the Viet Nam analogies just keep coming. Sorry Ralphie, it wasn't a liberal, left-wing president that made the decision to invade Iraq. It wasn't a liberal SecDef who said, "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want", in response to a soldier's question about inadequate body and vehicle armor. It was a conservative right-wing president who ignored the advice of his top generals that the number of troops needed was three times the number used for the peacekeeping after the invasion. See, if we had the adequate number of troops needed for the invasion and the immediate aftermath we wouldn't have the problems we do now. If we had secured the arms depot at al QaaQaa, maybe the Iraqi resistance would have a harder time finding weapons. If we had the adequate number of troops to establish law and order (something conservatives are big on), the wholesale looting that happened wouldn't have. That would have sent a more powerful message to any terrorists. Hmmm, why does something tell me that al QaaQaa was looted?
A s a matter of fact, the media were some of the biggest cheerleaders in the run up to the war. Check out Judith Miller's articles in the New York Times in 2002 and 2003. The media engages in a lot of self censorship. We do not see a lot of dead soldiers on Fox, or CNN or MSNBC. Where are the pictures of the flag-draped coffins? Before Hurricane Katrina, the leading news story was about a missing teenager in Aruba. Yep, it was 24/7 Natalee Holloway. (It was beginning to get annoying, I was starting to lose all sympathy for Natalee's family) Before that, it was Lacy Peterson and Dru Sjodin. It wasn't about the War in Iraq, other than a two second blurb about another soldier dying. By the way, they do not report on the deaths of contractors or private security company employees (except for that incident in Fallujah). If an alien from outer space was watching any of the three cable news networks, it would think there was a war on missing white women not on terrorists. The liberal media did not put pictures of dead Iraqis on the internet for the liberal media to find. The liberal media did not mistreat prisoners at abu Ghraib. It just reports the story. And who does Ralph Peters think he's working for? Um, he writes a newspaper column, so he is part of the media. Hmm, Ralphie, I think you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Like I said, the Viet Nam metaphors just keep coming.
And Vietnam wasn't remotely as important to our national security. The terrorists we face today are more implacable than any of the enemies from our past. Even the Germans didn't dream of eradicating our entire population. The Japanese hoped to master Asia, not to massacre every man, woman and child in America.
You just dissed the Viet Nam veterans and the Greatest Generation. Oh yeah, that's right, you don't like veterans who are liberal and vote Democrat. So I guess an invasion of Japan was justified because they didn't have suicide bombers. My bad they did, they were called kamikaze. I guess those atomic bombs weren't needed after all. Gee, there is term for that, historic revisionism. I thought that was something conservatives despised. I guess not.