From a May 26 New York Post op-ed by Ralph Peters:
Yesterday, The New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document. This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Gee, thanks. We really needed to know that. The world's a better place now.
Yet the Times' sin was the lesser one. The paper has long since given up any pretense of patriotism. (Ugh! Yuck!) Its editors are just publishing and perishing as citizens of the world.
It's whoever leaked the document that bears the burn-in-hell blame.
We must be able to keep secrets in wartime. But we can't. Because domestic political agendas trump national security in every administration nowadays.
The document was handed over in a cynical attempt to score political points. There's no other plausible explanation. Some party hack with a security clearance believed this order would show that the Obama administration's doing something about Iran.
The only question is whether this betrayal was the act of an individual, or if it was orchestrated.
I'd hang the leaker by the neck, then cut down the body and give it a fair trial. But nobody's going to be punished. High-ranking officials can get away with manslaughter, if not murder. An Army captain would go to prison. A political appointee can expect a promotion.
From the May 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the May 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...
Open up the New York Post today and you'll learn that columnist Ralph Peters and suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad have something in common -- they're both blaming president Obama for Shahzad's attempted attack, sharing the same dismal lack of credibility.
Peters, who pretty clearly harbors a reactionary animosity toward Islam and toward the president, wrote a fact-free column applying the analytic skills of a junior high school student to the recent bombing attempt. It goes like this:
Appeasement doesn't work. It doesn't work with dictators, and it doesn't work with terrorists. The attempted Times Square bombing was yet more proof.
We've allowed Islamist extremists to dictate what we can say, print or portray. We don't want to offend them. The First Amendment bows before Islam.
The Obama administration has ducked all unwelcome evidence that such appeasement doesn't work. Instead, it goes to absurd lengths to convince Muslim radicals that we respect their views.
Our counterfactual assumption is that, if we're really, really nice, the fanatics will stop being grumpy and blowing us up. But Islamist extremists haven't read our actions (or inactions) as an admirable exercise in tolerance. They read our bowing and scraping and apologizing as weakness.
The mean-dog law applies: Let that pit bull sense that you're afraid, and you're going to feel its teeth.
The dogs of terror smell fear. Terror's response to our president's Cairo valentine to fanaticism last year was the Fort Hood massacre, the attempted Christmas Day bombing, now the botched bombing of Times Square -- and a swelling number of foiled plots.
From Ralph Peters' April 24 New York Post column:
A superb piece of reporting in Friday's Washington Post captured our self-delusion. Bewildered by the lack of local support for our efforts to "help," Gen. Stan McChrystal and his staff decided that our problems in the Taliban stronghold, Kandahar, are all about electricity shortages.
So, with the fate of our ballyhooed Kandahar offensive in doubt before it starts, the general wants to spend $200 million on generators and diesel fuel to improve the power supply.
It's a desperate ploy to make our politically correct counterinsurgency doctrine succeed: If we do nice things, the locals are supposed to rally to us and solve our problems with a minimum of violence. The only problem is that it doesn't work.
Would Kandaharis like to have more juice in their shambolic power grid? You bet. But the Eliot Spitzer Law of Foreign Affairs applies: You can't buy enduring love, just quick sex. And in Afghanistan, quick sex can get ugly.
Fiercely traditional Kandahar is the birthplace of the Taliban. Membership is a family affair. And Afghans don't turn against their own kind just because the lights stay on longer. We've gone from fighting the Taliban to fighting human nature.
The David Horowitz organization has historically been touchy about being criticized, so it's no surprise that my blog post detailing the craziness of Ralph Peters' wild attack on immigration reform at Horowitz's FrontPageMag drew a response.
In his April 6 FrontPageMag article, Rich Trzupek kicked things off with ad hominem attacks, calling Media Matters "George Soros' steno pool" and calling Peters "a real American hero who spent ten years in military intelligence defending this nation in ways that journalists like Terry Krepel could not imagine." In contrast to what he calls Media Matters' depiction of Peters as a "racist, extremist, blood-thirsty lunatic," Trzupek further defends Peters as "an unapologetic advocate of taking and keeping America's gloves off while fighting the war on terror."
Actually, Peters has done a bit of what could be called apologizing. Last year, Peters smeared a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan captured by the Taliban, claiming that if he was a deserter, "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills" by killing him. After the Pentagon said that Peters' comments could further endanger the captured soldier, Peters tried to walk it back.
Asking if the Obama administration's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) will "be the inspiration for an engineered plague that someday scythes through human kind," Ralph Peters misleadingly wrote that the NPR says "if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will not respond with nukes." In fact, the NPR provides a limited and narrow role for nuclear weapons, but does not eliminate the use of such weapons in response to attacks.
It could technically be described as criticism of comprehensive immigration reform, but it's really just one long screed against giving undocumented immigrants voting rights -- something no one has proposed doing:
President Barack Obama's greatest crime against our flag and the republic for which it stands isn't his administration's health-care theft bill. That's mere shoplifting compared to what's coming next.
Obama and the leftwing of the Democratic Party intend to turn ten to eleven million illegal immigrants into voters as expeditiously as possible, giving them a permanent national electoral majority based upon a beholden Lumpenproletariat. If they succeed, our country will face mob rule.
No individual who broke the law to enter this country should ever be allowed to decide who becomes our president, governor, senator -- or town council member. If there is one message patriotic Americans must act upon during the remainder of Obama's reign, it's this: No voting rights for illegals.
No other issue of our time matters remotely as much -- not our lukewarm struggle with Islamist terror or even our metastasizing deficits. This isn't about tax increases or where to hold terror trials. It's about preserving our democratic institutions for law-abiding citizens.
Again: Nobody, let alone Obama, is proposing to allow undocumented immigrants to vote. Peters barely attempts to make the argument that creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, who would then be allowed to vote, is a bad thing. But Peters is on a roll: No voting rights for illegals! Mob rule! Never mind that President Reagan's granting amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants didn't exactly result in "mob rule."
From the March 26 edition of Fox News' America Live:
Loading the player reg...
From Ralph Peters' March 18 New York Post column:
The president's glee in humiliating the Brits stems from his ties to Kenya at an impressionable age, back when liberation rhetoric was in vogue. He behaves as if the Brits still rule in Nairobi, whipping servants and potting lions from the veranda. (This freeze-dried activist world-view also nudges Obama into emotional sympathy with the likes of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and imbues him with a rosy picture of Russia.)
Regarding Israel, a lifetime of extremist associations has infected Obama with an emotional loathing for the Jewish state and a romantic vision of Palestinian terrorists as freedom fighters. (Anti-Israeli and naked anti-Jewish rhetoric is endemic within left-wing hate-church congregations, such as that led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.)
Betraying Israel may give you emotional satisfaction, sir, but it will bring us no lasting benefits. Israel is, literally, flesh of our flesh. Don't stick a knife in it.
The Post posted a photo of Jeremiah Wright with Peters' column, with a caption stating: "Obama: Did he imbibe distaste for Israel from pal Rev. Wright?":
During an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Ralph Peters attacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal's tactical directive meant to reduce civilian deaths in Afghanistan by asking, "Can we win any kind of war without killing the enemy?" However, in the directive, McChrystal stated, "We must fight the insurgents, and will use the tools at our disposal to both defeat the enemy and protect our forces."
Since August, Fox News has hosted "Fox News strategic analyst" Ralph Peters at least 31 times, despite his suggestion last July that the Taliban should kill a captured U.S. soldier. In his most recent Fox appearance, Peters called for the firing of attorney general Eric Holder because he "seems to have never met a terrorist he didn't want to hug."
In a July 2009 Fox appearance, Peters blasted the Taliban-captured Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl as a "liar, we're not sure if he's a deserter." Peters added that if Bergdahl is a deserter, "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."
Peters' remarks set off a flurry of angry reaction from military and veteran quarters. The Pentagon reportedly said that his remarks "could endanger" the captured soldier. Then-Vice Chairman of VoteVets.org Brandon Friedman, who now works at the Department of Veterans Affairs, wrote that "proposing that an American soldier should be executed by the Taliban is extraordinarily inappropriate at best -- regardless of whether or not the soldier is a deserter." Twenty-three veterans in Congress (Republicans and Democrats) criticized Peters and Fox News; Congressman and retired Navy Commander Eric Massa called on Fox to fire Peters.
On August 29, Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade exclaimed, "I always love talking" to Peters. The feeling is mutual: Between August 1, 2009, and February 3, Peters appeared on Fox News and Fox Business Network shows at least 31 times.* During his appearances, Peters claimed that Obama is "too vain" to fire "politically correct appoint[ee]" Janet Napolitano; Obama "doesn't think" [9-11] was "any big deal"; and "I'm sick of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace," "It's clear that the problem is Islam."
The New York Post, which, like Fox News, is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., publishes Peters as a columnist. Peters is also a regular guest on Fox News Radio.
During his appearances on the network, Fox News helped Peters sell his science fiction book, The War After Armageddon.
Peters' continued appearances on Fox beg the question: just what does someone have to do to get fired by Fox?
*America's Nightly Scoreboard (FBN): December 2, February 3. Cavuto (FBN): September 25, November 24. Fox & Friends: August 1, August 29, September 5, September 16, September 20, September 30, October 7, October 10, November 7, November 14, November 29, December 2, December 12, January 16, January 24. Glenn Beck: December 3. The O'Reilly Factor: August 7, September 3, September 10, September 15, September 24, November 6, November 10, December 28, January 7. Money for Breakfast (FBN): August 14. Your World with Neil Cavuto: November 9.
From the February 3 edition of Fox Business Network's America's Nightly Scoreboard:
Loading the player reg...
Following the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight, Fox News has repeatedly discussed terrorism with analysts who have proved themselves not credible to discuss American foreign policy by making false or outrageous statements about foreign policy or terrorism. For example, Fox hosted Stephen Hayes, whose false comments about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda had to be corrected by the Pentagon; Michael Scheuer, who said that "the only chance we have" is for Osama bin Laden to "detonate a major weapon" in the United States; Ralph Peters, who previously said on Fox News that if the soldier the Taliban captured had deserted his post, then "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles"; and Judith Miller, who reported a series of stories on Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction that the Times later corrected in an editor's note.
From a January 8 FrontPageMag.com interview of Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters:
FP: How much confidence, exactly, do you have in this administration providing safety to Americans against our enemies?
Peters: Unfortunately, I have no faith-none-in the administration's seriousness, when it comes to protecting Americans. A president who insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that every next terrorist is just an "isolated extremist" with no connection to Islam isn't interested in solving the problem.
FP: Your view of Janet Napolitano? Why is she still heading Homeland Security?
Peters: I'd rather not view Janet Napolitano at all. This woman is so far out of her depth that it can't be measured with Newtonian metrics. She was a politically correct appointment, period. On the positive side, word is that she'll be gone in the next few months-Obama's too vain to fire her right now, while the administration's under fire over the Christmas terror attempt, but he realizes what a political liability she's become.
There's another, unfortunate, side to this. When representing our country, especially on security matters, appearance and physical presence matter. It would be great if that were not so, but facts are facts. Even if Napolitano were a security genius, she doesn't project a forceful, capable image to our deadly enemies (or to our allies). Again, every one of Obama's cabinet-level appointments has been about domestic politics, not about their effectiveness on the world stage.
Well, at least he can't blame Bush for Napolitano.