Ralph Peters Wants The Taliban To Kill An American Soldier (updated)

Wonder if Peters has a yellow ribbon magnet on his SUV.

Amazing.  This jerk (Ralph Peters) starts with “we should wait for all the facts,” and then proceeds to call Bowe Bergdahl deserter and a liar, and says that as far as he’s concerned, “the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills,” leaving hanging in the air the implication that if the Taliban kills Bergdahl, it would be just fine with him.

Here’s Cenk on The Young Turks showing Mr Peters saying that the prisoners at Gitmo should be killed:

Mr Peters, I think you’re an un-American death-fetishist asshole.  But we’ll wait for all the facts…

UPDATE:  Our Mr Peters (sorry, I won’t call him by his military rank after he called for the death of Pfc Bergdhl) is more of a loose cannon than we knew.  The Wonk Room has a lovely piece regarding Peters’ ideas for dealing with the Somali pirates:

Attack their harbors with land, sea and air power. Kill pirates, sink their vessels (including those dual-use fishing boats) and wreck their support infrastructure. The clans behind the pirates must feel sufficient pain to rein in their young thugs. The price for piracy should be stunning.

And we don’t need to stay to rebuild Somalia. End the fix-it fetish now. We need to leave while their boats are still burning down to the waterline.

Also, Matthew Yglesias posted a video of Mr Peters’ “unhinged rant” about the DHS memo regarding rightwing extremism:

Rock on, dude.

I think we now have enough evidence to say quite conclusively that Peters is in fact an un-American death-fetishist asshole.

About these ads

24 thoughts on “Ralph Peters Wants The Taliban To Kill An American Soldier (updated)

  1. Here’s a little something from Schuylkill County Pennsylvania. This should give you an idea of what some of the people from the “coal region” are like.

  2. The first words out of Peters mouth are that we must wait intil “all” the facts are in. He also goes on to say that so far from his sources(which I trust are better than yours) that no one he has spoken to so far on this base is offering this guy any support.
    So tell me, if this soldier did desert his post and collaborate with the enemy would you object to him being harmed ?

    You would think that you would at least also wait for some facts before you guys go off on your bashing spree. But, thats what I get for thinking when it comes to liberals..

    Remember, Peters only said “IF” about ten times.
    So why dont you all just kick back a little and wait for the facts to role in before you go getting all excited.

    Yellow ribbons ?
    Yeah, you guys can cover your car in yellow ribbons but it wont make up for the fact that as much as the left likes to claim they support the troops you take the cake when it comes to denegrating our troops by calling them murderers, fighting an illegal/immoral war, asking them to pay for their own injuries, appease our enemies, hide their ballots.
    Remeber, most soldiers are registered republicans who did not vote for Obama and are there because thay answered the call of the Bush administration. They were under no disillusion as to what they would be doing when they volunteered

  3. The first words out of Peters mouth are that we must wait intil “all” the facts are in. … He also goes on to say that so far from his sources(which I trust are better than yours) You would think that you would at least also wait for some facts before you guys go off on your bashing spree.

    Oh the irony…

  4. micky2 – you just demonstrated how ill informed you are. Most military are registered as “Independents” because they serve our nation and not a political party. What do you serve? Certainly not our military. Besides, you can prove that Peters sources are reputable. Maybe his source is from the C Street Gang. You obviously wouldn’t be upset if the Taliban murders this soldier. It was the Republicans that wanted to withhold funding for the VA and not the Democrats. Your home schooling shows your lack of knowledge.

  5. Yeah, you guys can cover your car in yellow ribbons but it wont make up for the fact that the neocons that worship money above all else have no issues with sending Americans off to die as long as they are making more money. Support the troops? What’s that? Neocons are like the christians that go to church on Sunday and then commit insurance fraud on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday etc… . You get the picture. All talk and no action.

  6. I would comment further, but I’m waiting for Micky2 to provide the facts….

  7. I think he is going back for more talking points. He missed a few.

    And overlooked the idea that bringing all the troops home is the ultimate support we can give them. War games for chickenhawk chubbies is no way to run a country.

    • I was listening to Thom Hartman on the drive home, and he had Peters on his show for a short segment.

      Peters said that he didn’t want the Taliban to kill Pfc Bergdahl, but couldn’t explain what he meant about the Taliban saving us a whole bunch of legal hassles and bills. Basically, he was just saying he was refuting his prior statement, but he didn’t actually mean to refute anything.

      He spent a lot of time trying to talk over Thom, and kept saying that Thom wasn’t saying anything that had anything to do with facts.

      Peters said that he was angry when he said that the Taliban could take care of Bergdahl because someone was trying to make Bergdahl out to be some sort of hero, but that the REAL heroes are the dead and wounded. And even though we don’t actually know the facts around how Bergdahl got into the Taliban’s hands, Peters seems quite comfortable with his assumption that Bergdahl is a deserter.

      I’m not sure where the living troops come in on the Peters Hero Scale.

      I stand by my assertion that Peters is an un-American death-fetishist asshole. No facts have refuted this, and Peters has not yet denied it. ;)

  8. The fact is that none of us know what the pertinent facts are yet, as only what the media has reported and what weve seen on a staged video is whats evident so far.
    What’s a fact is that Peters has more inside intel, knows more about protocol and procedure in the field along with also having more connections on that particular base than any of us. He does know for a fact that a trooper in this situation should not of either been alone, lagging behind or abandoned his post. If any of that is true and this trooper is collaborating or in cahouts with the enemy, then Peters anger is justified.
    If it turns out that the trooper was kidnapped and is in fact a propogandized victim of radical Muslims/Taliban forces then Peters is a contemptuous prick and I’d be the first to tell him to his face.
    Maybe we should all hold off on convicting anyone before on of us ends up with a healthy serving of crow ?
    I myself am leaning towards the opion that this trooper maybe wasnt all that bright, wrong place, wrong time, naive, whatever.
    What confusing to me is that as long as I’ve listened to Peters give his contributions they’ve always been highly accurate and substantive. Until now I’ve never seen him as hostile as this towards a trooper.
    If I’m correct, this is the first time any trooper has been kidnapped inside Afghanistan, that right there gives license to a big question mark.

    Cats.

    Your wrong.
    Most military votes republican/conservative for two resons.
    1) Republican administrations give more raises to the military than liberal administrations.
    2)
    They share the same ideology as the commnader in chief which is why so many volunteered after 911 on top of having the same ideology as the right.

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

    http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/military_defensefunding_070725w/

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/

    “McCain, R-Ariz., handily defeated Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 68 percent to 23 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,293 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers and former subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.”

    • The fact is that Ralph Peters has no inside information. He’s guessing. And even though he admits he’s guessing, he still goes on to smear Pfc Bergdahl by calling him a deserter and a liar.

      That is absolutely astonishing.

      The Bergdahl family has surely heard of what Peters said, and it pains me to know that they will have to endure further pain because of this idiot.

  9. micky2 – young people signed up for the military after 9/11 not because of conservative values. They signed up to fight our enemies. I know. Because they are my clients. I rehab veterans, too. And yes, most military are Independents, except maybe in the South and Alaska where the Bush supporters would run off a cliff if Bush asked them to do so.

    Peters is an ignorant asshole. If waiting for the facts is the issue then he should have kept his mouth shut and said nothing at all. Instead, he once again made an ass of himself in public.

  10. They share the same ideology as the commnader in chief which is why so many volunteered after 911 on top of having the same ideology as the right.

    Interesting. If they are sharing the same ideology as their commander in chief, then they support President Obama. They looked really please to see President Obama when he visited Iraq, both times. Once as a Senator and then again as President.

  11. They share the same ideology as the commnader in chief which is why so many volunteered after 911 on top of having the same ideology as the right.

    FALSE… McCain and the right wing Republicans in Congress did NOT support the Democrat Webb’s bill to increase funding to our military and our veterans.

    As for the Military Times article… you should have read the complete article.
    The results of the Military Times 2008 Election Poll are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The group surveyed is older, more senior in rank and less ethnically diverse than the overall armed services.

    Sounds like Military Times polled more old white men who identify with the party of old white men.

  12. “They signed up to fight our enemies. ”

    Yes.
    And how many of them signed up after we invaded Iraq ? Certainly not the liberals who believed that the whole case for war was a lie. Did liberals sign up to fight an immoral and unethical imperialistic invasion just for oil ? I doubt it.
    The majority of troops in Iraq volunteered because they believe they are fighting, risking their lives for the right thing

    • The entire case for the Iraq War was a lie, micky2.

      George W. Bush admitted it himself: Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Iraq did not have WMD.

      The troops (and many others) believed it when the Bush administration lied about their reasons for going to war. They were not stupid, they trusted people who were supposed to be honest with them. 4300+ troops are dead in Iraq for no good reason. That is unforgivable.

      I thought you were interested in facts. Tell me, what is this “right thing” the troops are fighting and dying for in Iraq?

  13. “The entire case for the Iraq War was a lie, micky2. ”

    No.
    Not the “entire case”
    With or without WMDs there wer still at least 1200 other reasons to go in. Those being the 1200 shots fired at our pilots in no fly zones which were viloations of the peace treaties enacted after Saddam surrender in Desert storm.
    Other violations , justifiable and legal reasons were the trading of oil foor cash instead of the food for the people it was intended to feed. To which Clinton watched starve and did nothing but shoot a missle.
    Sending suicide bombers into Israel at a payement to theuir families of 2500 ea. was an act of war. Attemtinp the assination of an American president was an act of war.
    The lies I assume you’re refering to is the information gathered not only by US intelligence but 21 other countries that were in addition later members of the coalition that inavded based on all the same intel which was true with the exception of finding WMDs.
    Congress bought it. 75% of your own party bought it. It was not a “LIE”
    I lie is when you knowing pass along something as true that has knowingly been prove false.

    “George W. Bush admitted it himself: Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Iraq did not have WMD. ”

    yes, after the fact.

    “The troops (and many others) believed it when the Bush administration lied about their reasons for going to war. They were not stupid, they trusted people who were supposed to be honest with them. 4300+ troops are dead in Iraq for no good reason. That is unforgivable. ”

    Many of the troop were on reienlisted from Desert storm and knew exactlt whay kind of monster Saddam was. and believed the case as i mentioned above.
    How then do you explain the continued volunteerism after no WMDs were found ?
    NO good reason ?
    How dare you say that the lives of soldiers were all for nothing ?
    At least find it your heart to make the case that there are Iraqis living a free and democraric soveriegn state now. That the threat of Saddam carrying out any of his future visions is gone forever.
    How long befor Saddam tried agaion to invade some neigboring state therebt diminishing security in the midddle east as a whole furthering instability and more threat to us ?
    Look at the big picture please instead of this tunnel visioned worl where soldiers diesd only because you think a man lied on purpose.
    The oil argument ? Not so much anymore huh ? Yeah, right now the Iraqis are arguing amongst the threee sectors how to divide the revenues while also trying to figure oput which Iraqi sent billions of oil revenues off to caymen acounts. Doesnt sound like we got our hands on that stuff.
    Halliburton ? Ho hum. Any contractor sent there would of faced the same criticism from any anti capitalistic moonbat group seeing as how a conservative hired them

    “I thought you were interested in facts. Tell me, what is this “right thing” the troops are fighting and dying for in Iraq? ”

    Its not just about hearts and minds. More than one bird can be killed with one stone.
    take into account what was mentioned above.
    Afghanistan did not hold the needed commerce or capitalistic infastructure to put in place what could needed be done anywhere else in the middle east.
    50,000 troops are not being left in place in Iraq for the hell of it. We did not build the largest embassy in history ever in Iraq for the hell of it. We did not leave in place a functioning democratic country with a military trained to our standards and ethics just only for the idealism behind spreading democracy
    We needed a functioning complient ally in the middle east. We needed to plant our asses right smack in the middle of what has been a festering problem for our national security for decades now.
    The geographic placement, the abilty for relations in the future is all a perfect plan.
    Then theres the people in Iran. They see whats happening in Iraq and they’re asking themselves why oits not possible for them to have the same opportunities that have come and are in store for Iraq. if Iran falls, Hamas and Hizzbolla fall, Syria, etc..

    Think about it

Comments are closed.