The Conservative Society of Slobbering War Mongers has a new hero today in the form of freshly minted West Point Academy professor. William Bradford has been with the academy less than a month and has already embarrassed it profusely.
As reported in The Guardian, Bradford is arguing for the deliberate destruction of Islamic holy sites, without regard for civilian “collateral” damage, in a campaign that would mirror the mindless brutality of ISIS. But his sadistic savagery doesn’t stop there. He also accuses critics of the war on terrorism of being a treasonous “fifth column” who are subject to attack as if they were the same as any other enemy combatants. Those critics include “law school facilities, scholars’ home offices and media outlets where they give interviews.” Bradford characterized legal scholars as a…
“…super-weapon that supports Islamist military operations” aimed at “American political will” to fight. They are supported by “compliant journalists” marked by “defeatism, instinctive antipathy to war, and empathy for American adversaries”
So Bradford believes that having dissenting views, particularly those aimed at peaceful resolutions to international conflict, are tantamount to treason. He believes, therefore, that American academics and lawyers who have views that differ from the Masters of War can lawfully be terminated in their homes and offices by military bombing raids. And their accomplices in the media who exercise the constitutionally protected freedom of the press are equally at risk for the same deadly fate. This is a view so perverse that Bradford’s superiors at West Point are already distancing themselves from his bloodthirsty lunacy saying that…
“The views in the article are solely those of Dr Bradford and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the United States army, the United States Military Academy.”
Furthermore, the National Security Law Journal where Bradford’s tirade was published is now calling it a “mistake” and an “egregious breach of professional decorum,” along with this apology that was posted on their website:
“We cannot ‘unpublish’ it, of course, but we can and do acknowledge that the article was not presentable for publication when we published it, and that we therefore repudiate it with sincere apologies to our readers.”
It is surprising that this slimeball would be employed at West Point in any capacity. Particularly after discovering that he lied about his previous employment as an associate professor at the National Defense University (which NDU denies). Even worse, he was caught stealing the honor of legitimate veterans by claiming to have served in Iraq during Desert Storm and being awarded a Silver Star. None of which is true.
A far better place of employment for him would be Fox News where he could join the reprehensible Lt. Col. Ralph Peters as a strategic analyst and contributor. Peters has long held that the killing of non-combatants, women, children, allies. and even our own troops, was justifiable in war. He believed that the U.S. would be irresponsible if it did not adopt the tactics of our enemies, atrocities and all. And his barbaric philosophy also included support for military attacks on the media saying…
“…the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar. […] Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”
Bradford and Peters share the same noxious disregard for humanity. Their open indifference to murdering the innocent, and especially their fellow Americans who happen to be lawyers, educators, and journalists, ought to be sufficient to banish them to the fringes of society with the rest of the depraved vermin who lust for another holocaust. They certainly should not be teaching at West Point or bloviating on television.
Fox News has a deep bench of repulsive characters to call upon whenever they need to insult President Obama or lie about a progressive initiative that would help the nation. But perhaps the most noxious of the bunch is Col. Ralph Peters, a man who has distinguished himself as a world-class Obama hater.
Ralph Peters (whose name translates to “vomiting penises” in Slanglish) is the purveyor of some truly nauseating notions that include: advocating military strikes on the American media; that there aren’t enough civilian casualties in war; that the U.S. should be more like ISIS; that the Taliban should have been allowed to execute an American soldier; and many more horrendous pronouncements.
The latest Peterism is a nearly incomprehensible perversion of an old proverb that goes “The enemy of my enemy is friend.” Its plain meaning is that two parties with a common foe have good reason to unite in order to achieve victory. But last night on Sean Hannity’s program Peters, cribbing off of Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, turned this into a slap at Obama saying that…
“Obama is incapable of learning […] For Americans, the most important point that Bibi Netanyahu made today was that in the Middle East today, dealing with Iran and Islamic State, ‘The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.’ Obama just can’t figure that out.”
Neither can any other person with functional cognitive abilities. Let’s break it down. The enemy, in this case, can be presumed to be the so-called Islamic State. IS has many enemies, but for this demonstration we’ll just pick one, say…England. Therefore, if the enemy (England) of my enemy (IS) is my enemy, then England is my enemy. And that would go for just about every western nation, as well as many Middle Eastern nations. That’s how pathetically shallow the thought processes are for Peters and Netanyahu and the terrorist enablers at Fox News.
Peters went on to dig deep into Obama’s soul and dredge up what he thinks our President feels about the fate of Israel. Never mind that Obama has repeatedly stated that Israel’s security is of paramount interest to the national security of the United States and that America will always defend Israel and its right to exist, Peters ralphed up this vile commentary without any support other than his she-male intuition:
“Obama is so desperate, so desperate, for this deal for his legacy, that he is willing to give Israel up. Let’s face it, if Israel disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow Obama would not shed a tear.”
Remember, Peters is the cretin who wouldn’t shed a tear for American journalists and soldiers, and civilians of any nationality, who are killed by the terrorist military policies he would impose on U.S. forces. It’s people like Peters who are the real enemies of peace because they hunger so fiercely for the blood of their perceived foes. His philosophy is one of perpetual war and demonization of those he regards as alien to his ideal of Euro-supremacy. That poisonous creed needs to be eradicated from the world and the eradication needs to start with Fox News.
You really have to wonder whose side these cretins are on. When Fox News turns to one of their many retired military officers (turned wingnut pundits) for some insight into the war on terror, they frequently call Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (whose name translates to “vomiting penises” in Slanglish).
Peters is a particularly disgusting choice for commentary about the heinous assault on French publishers considering that Peters has advocated for censorship and, worse, military strikes on U.S. media. A few years ago he said that…
“Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar. […] Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”
Nevertheless, Fox News recruited him again to spew his repugnant views on the tragic murders of the staff of the satirical Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris. And the primary theme of his analysis is that the terrorists won.
“The terrorists scored yet another terrific victory by taking the entire global media hostage for, not only two and a half days, but we’re still their hostage. We’re still talking about it this morning.”
The notion that the terrorists were victorious due to the fact that they succeeded in killing some innocent people is a tribute that only a deranged Foxoid could concoct. This act of mindless brutality did not advance any goal of the terrorists, much less provide a victory by any definition. In fact, it incited Muslims around the world to repudiate the killers, including the governments of Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Egypt, Iran, and many more. There has never been more agreement between Muslim nations and the West than there is today, at least with regard to the activities of a few extremist jihadis.
What’s more, Peters made a fool of himself by criticizing the media for reporting these events, even as he was rambling on about them incoherently. It takes a special kind of stupid to castigate people for continuing to talk about it while he was still talking about it. And he went to portray the coverage of this major international news story as PR for the terrorists:
“We have to cover the news. We must discuss it. but they leveraged us, they judo’ed us into being, pro-bono, the greatest PR firm in history for terror.”
Of course, It was Peters himself who was providing the positive PR with his declaration that the terrorists had won. The bad guys must have loved that judgment being broadcast on American television by a former Army officer. Most of the rest of the press condemned the perpetrators and showered sympathy on the victims. But for Peters and Fox every opportunity to demean President Obama (and consequently, the American military’s response to terrorism) is too good to pass up. And so we get more of this kind of ranting:
“We’ve never tried the basic thing you do in war, which is killing your enemy in large numbers and continue to kill them until they quit. […] President Obama uses drones to kill terrorists. That’s great, except that he only kills the people he doesn’t want to have to send to Guantanamo.”
Huh? So there are some terrorists that Obama has to send to Guantanamo and others that he doesn’t have to send there? And the ones he doesn’t have to send are getting a pass on the drone treatment? Can anyone explain how that makes any sense at all?
Setting aside the fact that Peters directly contradicts himself in those remarks, he seems to be implying that the terrorists killed by drones would have otherwise been collected and transported to Guantanamo. That’s just plain idiotic. Is Peters suggesting that Obama should have sent soldiers into harms way to capture the terrorists? The one thing that we can be certain of is that Peters loves the fact that the drones produce civilian casualties. He comes right out and says so.
“Get the lawyers out of the fight. Accept that there is collateral damage in war. You don’t apologize for it. […] You leave behind smoking ruins and screaming widows.”
This isn’t the first time that Peters has praised the loss of innocent lives. In the same article referenced above he lamented that America’s tolerance for “acceptable casualties – hostile, civilian and our own – continue to narrow fatefully.” Note that he includes in his lament that America is too concerned about even “our own” casualties. Peters then went on to laud the “greatest generation” of World War II veterans for firebombing Germany and killing soldiers and their families. He also praised the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, which killed tens of thousands of civilian men, women, and children.
This man is a sociopathic maniac with a lust for blood – even that of Americans. And the fact that Fox News repeatedly invites him on the air to articulate that message of hate and genocide is a lot worse than their typical unfair and unbalanced political propaganda. It is an admission that the editors and executives at Fox agree with him and have the same hostility for the values that most Americans hold dear.
This morning there was a gruesome terrorist attack in Paris that took the lives of twelve people at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. It was the sort of assault that generally stirs both outrage and an international commitment to unity in bringing the assailants to justice and preventing anything like it from occurring again.
For the most part that has been true. The governments of the world have expressed sympathy and solidarity for the victims and their families, the people of France, and journalists worldwide who are too often the targets of such violence.
“I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that has reportedly killed 12 people. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time.”
But leave it to Fox News to take this tragedy and politicize it in the most nauseating way possible. Before the blood stains on the floor have even dried, Fox News set out to grab political advantage by laying blame on the usual targets of their wrath. And, of course, it begins with attacks on Obama. Fox contributor Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online spent several minutes castigating Obama for his depiction of the attack, saying that it was not enough to call it terrorism, but it must also be labeled Islamic – even before there is any investigation that establishes whether that’s true.
And Goldberg was not alone in shifting the dialog from the attack and its victims to rank politics. Fox’s K.T. McFarland took the same path saying that “This is radical Muslim extremists […] Let’s take the political correctness away and call it what it is.” The abhorrent Ralph Peters (who has advocated for the rampant slaughter of civilians as a tactic in the war on terror) also demanded that the President specifically use the term “Islamist terror.” That was after he took a swipe at Sen. Diane Feinstein and the Senate’s report condemning the use of torture. Peters said that “These terrorists who did this monstrous attack in Paris are the people Sen. Feinstein doesn’t even want to waterboard.” Peters not only condones torture, but he has specifically called for military attacks against the media, which makes him an especially vulgar choice to interview after a tragedy like this.
Monica Crowley took up the political correctness theme in a segment with Fox’s Gretchen Carlson. Afterward, Carlson devoted the whole of her “My Take” commentary to criticizing Obama for not calling the Paris attack terrorism – which of course, is precisely what he called it. She ended by asking whether the United States will be the next victim of a terrorist attack. She must have forgotten that the U.S. was already a victim back in 2001, and that we have been on alert ever since. But there’s nothing like a little fear mongering to brighten up the Fox News morning.
Then there were the Kurvy Kouch Potatoes of Fox & Friends, who turned their bony fingers toward New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio. Elisabeth Hasselbeck said that “As soon as police act they’re painted with a racist brush, even by, in fact, our own mayor here.” What that had to do with anything is a complete mystery. But perhaps the worst offender was Fox’s military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney. He was prompted by co-host Brian Kilmeade to address some unattributed Tweets that alleged that in France “most cops choose not even to carry a gun.” Kilmeade added “That, thankfully, is not the case in New York.” to which McInerney responded…
“This is a classical radical Islamist attack. […] With the current leadership in New York — and I’m referring to the mayor, the communist mayor you have up there — that may change. […] The political correctness is killing us.”
For Chrissake! This imbecile is absolving the terrorists of responsibility for these attacks and assigning it to Mayor De Blasio and political correctness. What’s more, he holds the utterly delusional belief that De Blasio is planning to let NYPD officers choose whether or not to carry guns. Where does he get that idiot notion from? And finally, his incongruous and despicable insult that the mayor is a communist is the sort of stuff that is generally left to wingnut, conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.
The political correctness argument that Fox is so fond of is a thinly veiled desire for racist policies that accuse all Muslims of being terrorists. The insistence that acts of violent extremism be called, not just terrorism, but Islamic terrorism, is a demand that is rarely heard for any other act of violence. Why for instance, didn’t Fox News refer to the murder of Dr. George Tiller as Christian terrorism? And what about Eric Rudolph’s bombing of the Centennial Olympic Park? Or the bombings of Planned Parenthood offices? Or the murder of 77 children in Norway by radical Christian Anders Breivik? Or the Tea Party terrorists who murdered two police officers in Las Vegas? Or the entire history of the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity movements? [The SPLC has a more complete list here]
These are all examples of what could be called Christian terrorism if the Fox News model of journalism were applied fairly. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. For the radical partisans at Fox the only priority is how can this or any event be exploited to inflict political pain on their ideological enemies. They don’t care about the victims of terrorism or the safety of society or even justice. They only care about slandering the President and other Democrats in pursuit of their ultra right-wing agenda. And if that means twisting a tragedy into a partisan political screed, then that’s what they will do. It’s shameful and contrary to every code of ethics for journalism or common decency.
The hopelessly hysterical war hawks and fear mongers that populate Fox News seem to have no bar too low to slither under. Their primary mission is to lambaste President Obama no matter what he does. The President is in a perpetual no-win spiral of knee-jerk negativity from his robo-critics on the right.
As an example, following the horrific beheadings by ISIL terrorists, panicky conservatives demanded that Obama respond without hesitation. Never mind developing a plan or assembling allies, the need to act was more urgent than the need to act effectively. Consequently, Fox News contributor and bloodthirsty former diplomat, John Bolton, accused Obama of orchestrating a politically motivated October Surprise.
Bolton: I have the sinking feeling, based on six years of performance, particularly the timing of this attack, last night had more to do for the President’s politics than for national security.
Setting aside the fact that it is still September, Bolton’s unfounded criticism comes after being one of those who complained that if action were not taken immediately it would be tantamount to dereliction of duty. So the President acts and all of sudden his action is denounced as political. In Bolton’s twisted view, any delay until after the November election would be treasonous, but any strike prior to it is electioneering. As noted above, the President cannot win with these nutcases.
However, the new standard for nauseating tirades was unleashed later in the day when an utterly deranged rant on the Sean Hannity program was delivered by Fox News strategic analyst, Ralph Peters (video below). The dripping bile in his painfully falsetto caterwauling was steaming with rancid hostility as he proposed that the United States emulate the ruthless brutality of our enemies.
Peters: Another thing we’ve gotta get over. This nonsense about you can’t have any civilian casualties. War is ugly, sloppy, and messy, and sometimes there are civilian casualties, especially when your enemy uses human shields. If you’re gonna go after ISIS you gotta suck it up and do what’s right. And by the way, civilian casualties? Look what ISIS is doing and it’s actually gaining them recruits as they slaughter civilians.
There you have it. If ISIS can attract new recruits by slaughtering civilians, then why shouldn’t America do it? After all, we are seeking the same sort of psychologically demented murderers that ISIS is, and leaving a trail civilian corpses throughout Syria and the Middle East would only endear us to the regional population. Right?
This isn’t the first time that Peters has suggested something so inhumane and contrary to American values. He has advocated for letting terrorists murder American soldiers (Bowe Bergdahl). He accused Obama of seeking common ground with terrorists. Indeed, on last night’s Hannity he asserted that the airstrikes in Syria were “designed to limit terrorist casualties.” But his repeated advocacy of what amounts to international war crimes is what sets him apart from your run of the mill wingnut. Here are a few quotes from Peters:
“We must dispose of one last mantra that has been too broadly and uncritically accepted: the nonsense that, if we win by fighting as fiercely as our enemies, we will ‘become just like them.'”
“Sometimes a heavy hand and brutality works. [The Russians] don’t do stop-and-frisk, they do stop-and-frisk and beat the hell out of you. And you know what? It’s brutal, it’s ugly, and sometimes it works.”
[In calling for attacks on the media] “Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.”
Pair this with the idiocy of Bill O’Reilly’s recent plan to build an army of mercenaries to combat terrorists around the world, because what could be better than legions of paid fighters with no loyalty to anything but their paycheck? And of course, their moral standards would be out of our control. O’Reilly seems to think these sort of characters would be immune to accepting a higher bid for their services and turning on their American bosses. He also rejected the criticisms of military experts on his own program who called the idea “ridiculous.” Even his pal Charles Krauthammer couldn’t dissuade him from his crackpot theory.
The tendency of right-wingers with undisguised blood-lust to tolerate, and even advocate, barbarism and criminal atrocity exposes them for the heathens they are. They want to turn America’s sons and daughters in the armed forces into savages and then expect them to come home and live normal lives. And they believe that by acting like terrorists, America can eradicate terrorism. That’s how irreparably delusional they are. It is more than wrong, it is dangerous. And it doesn’t belong in the discourse of a civilized society.
Good news was released today about an American soldier who has been held captive for five years. As reported by the Washington Post…
“Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban Saturday evening, local time, in an area of eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. Officials said the exchange was not violent and the 28-year-old Bergdahl was in good condition and able to walk.”
The release was part of a swap that sent five Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to Qatar. So not only have we secured the freedom of a captive American, we reduced the population of Gitmo, hopefully leading to its eventual closure. President Obama issued a statement upon Bergdahl’s release saying that…
“Today the American people are pleased that we will be able to welcome home Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, held captive for nearly five years. On behalf of the American people, I was honored to call his parents to express our joy that they can expect his safe return, mindful of their courage and sacrifice throughout this ordeal. Today we also remember the many troops held captive and whom remain missing or unaccounted for in America’s past wars. Sergeant Bergdahl’s recovery is a reminder of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield. And as we find relief in Bowe’s recovery, our thoughts and prayers are with those other Americans whose release we continue to pursue.”
Sadly, not everyone will be pleased about Bergdahl’s homecoming. When it was first reported that he had been captured, Fox News brought in their “strategic analyst” Lt. Col. Ralph Peters to offer his opinion on the matter. Whereupon Peters, without any evidence, declared that Bergdahl was a liar, a deserter, and that “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” presumably by killing him. (Watch here)
Peters also appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show where they both demeaned Bergdahl as “crazy,” showing little sympathy for his plight or the suffering of his family. This prompted a bipartisan assembly of congressional veterans to speak out about Peters’ viciously unpatriotic remarks. They sent a letter to Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes saying in part…
“As members of Congress and veterans of the United States Armed Forces, it was with incredulity and disgust that we watched Fox News Strategic Analyst Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (Ret.) suggest on your airwaves that Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, ‘abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post, and just walked off,’ and stated that, if this is true, ‘the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.’” […]
“We demand an apology to PFC Bergdahl’s family and to the thousands of soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country. As a member of the military family, Mr. Peters should measure his remarks and remember that the United States will never abandon one of its own.”
They never received an apology, so presumably Peters still wishes that Bergdahl had been executed by our enemies rather than being freed and sent home. O’Reilly never apologized either. Instead, he hosted Peters just a couple of days ago and, barely containing his slobber, told Peters that he should be the successor to outgoing Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki.
As repugnant as Peters is, the fact that Fox News keeps him on the payroll despite these repeated, anti-American commentaries, is unfathomable. Apparently Peters fits in well with the cretinous world view of his Fox comrades Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.
With no new scandal bait emerging over the weekend for Fox News to exploit, they may consider this a slow news day. But in the 24/7 world of cable news the show must go on. Consequently, the editorial team over at Fox was forced to scrape up some chum for their ravenously disgruntled audience. And this is what they came up with:
The Clinton Suck-Up
There’s a new book that contains flattering remarks about Hillary Clinton by Gen. David Petraeus. He says that “she’d make a tremendous president,” and sites as an example of her qualifications a reason that is certain to rattle your average Foxie:
Petreaus: “Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times. In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.”
Uh oh. A respected general who was revered by the right, and even solicited by Fox News CEO Roger Ailes to run for president in 2012, has high praise for Clinton and her handling of Fox’s favorite anti-Clinton cudgel, Benghazi. Fox’s response was to rush John Bolton into the studio for his reaction. Bolton seemed a bit confused as he struggled to find the meaning of this development. He eventually settled for claiming that Petraeus must have made a mistake or that he was sucking up to Clinton. That was about the best they could do on short notice as they sought to walk the fine line between their reverence for Petraeus and their hatred for Clinton.
Trapped In ObamaCare
If Clinton and Benghazi are Fox’s favorite punching bags, ObamaCare is a close second. They have spent countless hours trying to sabotage the program and frighten their viewers from participating in it. This morning they brought in Fox Business anchor Melissa Francis to discuss what they called an “ObamaCare Coverage Gap.” In reality what they were describing were people whose income fell below the threshold to qualify for ObamaCare subsidies.
Originally these people were supposed to become eligible for Medicaid, but last year the Supreme Court issued a ruling that made that provision voluntary in each state. It is in mostly Republican controlled states where they declined to take advantage of the billions of federal dollars available to expand their Medicaid programs. As a result, the low income residents of those states have been left without any coverage at all. So the coverage gap that Fox attributes to ObamaCare is actually the fault of GOP governors and legislatures who were more interested in scoring a political blow than they were in the well being of their citizens. For some reason Fox left that detail out of their report.
The Olympic Terrorist Bombing
On Fox News Sunday this weekend, the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Mike McCaul (R-TX), discussed his concerns about terrorism at the Sochi Olympics and said that “There’s a high degree of probability that something will detonate, something will go off.” This is a concern that has been articulated by many people, especially after a couple of actual terrorist bombings in southern Russia. But few officials have gone so far as to say that it is “probable.”[For the record, the last terrorist bombing that occurred during the Olympics was in the United States at the games held in Atlanta. The bomber was a right-wing extremist upset by socialism and abortion. Before being caught he bombed a couple of family planning clinics.]
Which brings us to the appearance this morning by Fox contributor Ralph Peters. For those who are unfamiliar with him, he has a long record of vile commentary that includes advocating torture and accusing President Obama of seeking “common ground” with Al Qaeda. Asked to respond to McCaul’s prediction, Peters went on a bender of his own. After agreeing that the risk in Sochi is real, Peters offered some praise for how the Russians handle these sort of affairs.
Peters: “Sometimes a heavy hand and brutality works. [The Russians] don’t do stop-and-frisk, they do stop-and-frisk and beat the hell out of you. And you know what? It’s brutal, it’s ugly, and sometimes it works.”
Obviously Peters approves of the exercise of brutality. And this is not the first time he has said so. He believes that American soldiers should use the same tactics that are used against them by enemy forces and terrorists. In his view there is no place for preserving the values and humane principles that most Americans revere. And by repeatedly inviting Peters onto their network, Fox News is just as bad.
That’s how the morning went at Fox News. It was fairly typical and filled with the sort of lies and animus that is characteristic of the network. No doubt they will escalate their hostile rhetoric as the day proceeds. The morning crew is setting a pretty high bar for the prime timers, O’Reilly and Kelly and Hannity, to clear later today.
Over the years Fox News has given their airtime to some of the most disreputable and irresponsible sleaze merchants to ever appear on television. From Ann Coulter to Erick Erickson to Glenn Beck to Sarah Palin and so many more. But it is hard to find anyone that sinks to the disgustingly low levels of the loathsome Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.
Peters is an unabashed hater of American principles and will stoop to any depth to slander those with whom he disagrees. His past commentaries have included arguing that the United States should fight back against our enemies with the same tactics they use against us – by which he means terror and torture. Peters also yearns for the blood of journalists whom he regards as terrorist worshiping infidels. He literally called for military attacks on media targets saying that…
“Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar. […] Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”
And in a fit of treasonous lust, Peters even took the side of our foes in Afghanistan by suggesting, without evidence, that a missing American soldier was a deserter and that “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” presumably by killing him.
So it should come as no surprise that Peters has opened his repulsive crap-hole to utter more idiotic inanities, and that Fox News gave him the platform to do so. On this morning’s edition of America Live, Peters was invited to discuss the terror attack in the mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Of course, he is entirely incapable of focusing on any subject without diverting to some outlandish and imbecilic assault on President Obama or any of his other ideological enemies. Today was no exception when he went off on the President saying…
“You cannot deny that Al Qaeda is out to kill Christians and Jews and, by the way Shia Muslims, and any Sunni Muslims who don’t live up to their standards. It’s one of the most murderous cults in history and the Obama administration is still looking for common ground with these guys.”
From what chasm of bile-soaked stupid did Peters get the notion that Obama is looking for common ground with Al Qaeda? But he wasn’t done there. Peters went on to smear millions of people when he referenced what he called the “American left” and maligned them all as “apologists for terror.”
Obviously there are crackpots like Peters all over the place. They show up regularly on Glenn Beck’s cavalcade of crazy, or over at WorldNetDaily, or in Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory bunker. But for Fox News to repeatedly feature someone this revolting is inexcusable. Peters makes a habit of spewing the most abhorrent and nauseating rhetoric, and he keeps getting return invitations from Fox.
This is more evidence that Fox is not in any way a credible news enterprise. They have no more integrity than Beck or Jones or Coulter or the deranged troll that lives under Rupert Murdoch’s porch (oh wait, I already said Beck).
One of the propaganda tactics most favored by Fox News is the snipping of a comment by President Obama and regurgitating it in a negative, and wholly dishonest, light. They did it last year on behalf of the Romney campaign numerous times with silliness like “You didn’t build that,” and other blatant misrepresentations.
Today Fox News is premiering their latest rhetorical deception by fixating on remarks the President made in a press availability with Vietnam President Truong Tan Sang. While describing the discussion Obama had with Sang, he noted that…
“At the conclusion of the meeting, President Sang shared with me a copy of a letter sent by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman. And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”
That’s it. Nothing praising Ho Chi Minh at all. Just a simple recitation of unarguable facts. No one on Fox or the right-wing fruitcake brigade disputes that Ho Chi Minh revered the people and ideas that inspired the birth of the United States. He used the Declaration of Independence as the model for Vietnam’s quest for its own independence from France.
Nevertheless, Fox News is now attempting to twist Obama’s words into something that he never said or even implied. And the “fair and balanced” network brought on two revolting characters with sordid pasts to advance the distortions. Oliver North is the convicted Reaganite who illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure funding to support fascist rebels in Nicaragua, which was prohibited by congress. Ralph Peters is the Fox strategic analyst who called on the Taliban to “save us a lot of legal hassles” by executing an American soldier. He also advocated military attacks on the media. These two traitorous miscreants spent several unopposed minutes on Fox lambasting Obama as “stupid” and “evil” as they lied about what he said.
Anyone who seriously regards Fox as a credible news source should seek professional help. The unadulterated lie that Obama praised Ho Chi Minh can also be juxtaposed with the documented fact that Fox did indeed praise the Unabomber. This is the level of cognitive disconnect that exists at Fox, and it is the reason that their audience is so pathetically ignorant. It’s a good thing that their viewers are so small in number (less than 1% of the population) and so close to their judgment day (the oldest skewing audience in television).
Every media organization has had to, at one time or another, discipline staff who crossed an ethical line. If a reporter loses his or her cool and becomes offensive in the course of their work, they must be held accountable to some set of professional standards. Ideally the standards would be a set of objective criteria that focused on verifiable breaches of honesty or civility. A credible news organization must never tolerate a reporter lying or engaging in personal attacks. I repeat, a “credible” news organization…
Unfortunately, there is a disturbing lack of oversight in this regard. Often offenders are excused without consequence or, conversely, punishment is meted out to an innocent party. For example, NPR terminated their relationship with a couple of executives who were victims of false allegations in a video produced by James O’Keefe, the criminally convicted, right-wing activist best known for deceptively edited videos.
This past week presented a revealing lesson in contrast as to how different media enterprises deal differently with anchors and other editorial personnel who fail the test of principles that ought to govern all journalists.
CNN was put to the test this week when Roland Martin posted a Tweet that appeared to advocate violence against gays. Martin pointed out that it was not meant seriously and wasn’t even directed at gays, but at the sport of soccer. Nevertheless, CNN acted quickly to suspend Martin indefinitely.
By contrast, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta delivered a commentary on Sunday berating women in the military for complaining that they get raped too much (Trotta did not define what an “acceptable” amount of rape is). The news that triggered this revolting commentary was a Pentagon report that rape and sexual assault had increased 64%, a statistic that Trotta cavalierly dismissed. She further asserted that servicewomen should “expect” to be raped because they work closely with men. Fox News has had no comment on this matter despite fierce criticism from women’s groups and veterans offended by the assertion that male soldiers are innately animals and female soldiers should quietly accept assault as a part of military life.
These two examples illustrate the differences between a news enterprise that attempts to act responsibly and one that disregards such restraints in order to forge ahead with a sensationalistic approach and to pander to the scandal-lust of their viewers. CNN has faced this dilemma in the past by meting out punishments for ethical infractions to Lou Dobbs, Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, Susan Roesgen, Peter Arnett, and Eason Jordan. MSNBC has done the same to Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Mark Halperin, Markos Moulitsas, and Pat Buchanan. Some of these chastisements were warranted (Dobbs, Buchanan), and some were executions of petulant grudges (Markos), and CNN still inexplicably employs miscreants like Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch. So CNN and MSNBC should not necessarily be held up as models of morality. But at least there is some evidence of an internal criteria for ethical behavior of some sort.
Fox News, however, has yet to make any news staffer pay a price for professional indiscretions, despite the fact that things got so bad at Fox they had to distribute a memo asserting a “Zero Tolerance Policy” that warned of “letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination.” The memo was issued after numerous, embarrassing on-air blunders by Fox reporters and producers. But rather than undergoing discipline, Fox News bent over backwards to reward reporters who behaved badly. In fact, while other networks were firing such violators, Fox seems to be on a mission to recruit them. For instance: Juan Williams, Don Imus, Doug McKelway, and Lou Dobbs were all put on the Fox payroll after having been terminated for cause at other networks. Even Glenn Beck who, while no longer hosting his own program, appears regularly with Bill O’Reilly and others.
Fox maintains a clubby environment for recalcitrant reporters, and there remains a full stable of them on the air. Here is a selection of some of the more obviously repulsive people that Fox News should have fired for their absence of morality and professionalism, but to date have not even had their wrists slapped. And make no mistake, the job security enjoyed by these weasels is not due to carelessness on the part of Fox News. Controversy, hostility, and rabid right-wing advocacy are the hallmarks of Fox’s business model. It’s how they cultivate and reward the loyalty of their audience. What other explanation could justify this:
Todd Starnes: Unsurprisingly, Fox News has smeared the Occupy Movement from its inception. They have disparaged them as everything from unfocused to unclean to un-American. But it took Starnes, the host of Fox News & Commentary on Fox Radio, to equate them to mass murderers by asking, “What should be done with the domestic terrorists who are occupying our cities and college campuses?” By comparing Occupiers to the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Starnes is engaging in rhetorical terrorism and insulting hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans.
Cody Willard: This Fox Business reporter brazenly exposed his bias when he attended a Tea Party rally and feverishly barked at the camera this call to arms against the U.S. government, “Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?”
Andrew Napolitano: The “Judge” is a notorious 9/11 Truther who believes that the attack on the World Trade Center towers was an inside job, orchestrated by agents of the United States government. That’s a position considered so crazy by Fox Newsers that it was instrumental in their campaign to get Van Jones fired from his post as a green jobs adviser to President Obama. But, in typical Foxian hypocrisy, it has no impact on the employment of Napolitano. [Note: The entire primetime schedule of the Fox Business Network, including Napolitano, Eric Bolling and David Asman, was recently canceled. But it was due to poor ratings, not content. And all remain active Fox News contributors.]
Bill Sammon: The Fox News Washington managing editor was recorded admitting to a friendly audience on a conservative cruise that he would go on air and “mischievously” cast Obama as a socialist even though he didn’t believe it himself. In other words, he lied to defame the President and rile up his gullible viewers. That would be cause for termination at most news networks, but probably earned Sammon a bonus at Fox.
Eric Bolling: Hoping to sustain Fox’s leadership in inappropriate Nazi references, Bolling accused President Obama of engaging in class warfare that was “forged in Marxist Germany.” And if that wasn’t asinine enough, he sided with Iran against the U.S. by accusing the American hikers who were held in an Iranian prison of being spies and said that Iran should have kept them.
Bill O’Reilly: Dr. George Tiller, a family physician in Kansas, was murdered by an anti-abortion extremist who may have been incited to violence by rhetoric like this from O’Reilly: “Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies.” O’Reilly regards the acquittal of a doctor for performing legal medical services “bad news,” and the services themselves “murder.” But he never took any responsibility for fanning the flames of violent incivility that led to the actual murder of Dr. Tiller.
Col. Ralph Peters (Ret): In a rant that argued that the United States should fight back against our enemies with the same tactics they use against us, Peters turned the media into military targets: “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. And like Bolling, Peters also took the side of our foes by suggesting, without evidence, that a missing American soldier was a deserter and that “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” presumably by killing him.
Michael Scheuer: This former CIA analyst was concerned that the American people were not sufficiently afraid of future terrorist attacks. He regards that absence of fear as dangerous complacency. But he has a solution: “The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
Roger Ailes: The CEO of Fox News proves that a fish stinks from its head. In response to NPR’s firing of Juan Willimas for bigoted remarks about Muslims, Ailes let loose a tirade wherein he viciously attacked the NPR executives saying that… “They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism.”
Liz Trotta: Ending up where we began, this abhorrent attempt at comedy simply could not be left off of this list. What started out as a verbal stumble became a call for assassination when Trotta said, “Now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, umm, Obama. Well, both if we could.”
It’s difficult to believe that anyone could retain a job in the media after making statements like those above. These were not mistakes or misunderstandings. They are not out of context. They were considered, deliberate expressions of opinion that represented the reporter’s views at the time. Yet all of these people are still employed and active at Fox News.
To be fair, there is an example of Fox News firing reporters who crossed a line that even Fox could not abide. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre investigated a story that detailed the health risks posed by the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive manufactured by chemical giant Monsanto. Fox objected to the story’s negative portrayal of a major advertiser and ordered the reporters to make modifications that they knew were false. When the reporters refused they were fired. In the subsequent litigation Fox argued in court that the network had a right to determine the content of their stories, and even to lie, and that employees who declined to comply could be terminated as insubordinate.
So while Fox News has no problem with their analysts advocating terrorism against Americans, they draw the line when it comes to suppressing their Constitutional right to lie. Fox has taken great care to set their priorities and to draw their ethical lines in sand that is always under the prevailing tide.
[Update] This week racist Pat Buchanan was sacked by MSNBC and radio schlock jocks John & Ken were suspended for calling Whitney Houston a “crack ho”. But Liz Trotta, Eric Bolling, et al are still happily working at Fox.