New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

Some Call It Treason:

Another broadside from Ralph Peters:

IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.
We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?

And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?

Has he seen the situation with his own eyes? I'll gladly tell him how to get there. I'll even be his guide. And he can smell what remains of Saddam's mass graves — with new ones still being discovered. He can taste the joy of freedom among the Kurds. He can see the bustling commerce throughout the country — despite the violence that alone makes headlines.

Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness.

But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.
Peters, an analyst Kevin Drum called "military analyst generally respected by both left and right," has a point. I refuse to call it treason: a man has the right to speak his mind, and if this what Kerry believes, he's got every right to say it. Of course, so does Mr. Peters.

UPDATE: And so does InstaPundit, who also links to the Peters piece at the end of a long post about other propaganda coming from the Kerry camp. InstaPundit cites "a pattern of behavior," including the recent (unapologized-for) remarks to the Australians by the Kerrys, the constant slurs against our real allies ("the coalition of the bribed and coerced"; the 'fake coalition'), and now the remarks against PM Allawi by a campaign that couldn't even be bothered to meet with him or attend his address to Congress.

They did find time to describe him as a puppet: "'[Y]ou can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips,' said Joe Lockhart." That, once again, is precisely the line being used by the enemy, except that they describe him as a CIA puppet rather than Bush's. Both intend to discredit him, and with him the provisional government. I have seen little evidence that Allawi is anyone's puppet -- to me he looks like an operator who realizes that he needs US support, and is trying to earn it. That means he is the one pulling the strings -- the heartstrings.

Yet both the enemy, and the Kerry camp, try to discredit him by saying he is the tool of the administration. Surely they have different reasons. The enemy wishes to destroy the Iraqi government; the Kerry camp has already written it off. They are willing to participate in its destabilization and destruction, in order to achieve political victory at home. On this point they have sided with the enemy in Iraq: not because they want the enemy to win, but because they expect to achieve their own political goals through the same events.

Yes, these are harsh words. They are entirely deserved. The success of the Iraqi transition depends in part on the provisional government's survival. A great number of American lives are at risk today, defending that hope. Kerry and his camp are intentionally undermining it for political gain. For that they deserve condemnation.

It is not treason to say what you believe to be true.
[H]e made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?
It is easy to say where they are not.

No comments: