Kerry's responsible

I tried very hard not to post today, working on some deadlines at work, but this piece really caught my attention. Ralph Peters over at the New York Post submits this opinion piece about how Kerry's campaign for president is giving aid to the enemy in time of war. An excerpt:

In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility.

If Kerry were insisting, without caveats, that we're going to stay the course and win, while backing up his criticisms with convincing details of how he would improve our efforts, that would be fine. But his mad claims of disaster and his inability to maintain a firm position unquestionably give aid and comfort to the enemy.

The terrorists and their allies already intended to increase the level of violence in Iraq before November. But Kerry's pandering has encouraged them to pull out all the stops. I wish it were otherwise, that our election process had more integrity, but the truth is that every roadside blast and car bomb in Iraq is meant to support John Kerry.

Contrast this with what the Iraqi President is saying about our efforts and progress. I read some numbers yesterday (sorry, no link) saying that if Iraq were California (and they're about the same size), the cities in turmoil add up to about the equivalent of Los Angeles. There's an awful lot of California outside Los Angeles. Come to think of it, I think it's safe to predict the worst parts of Los Angeles are much worse than the best parts of Fallujah. I wonder how many people die from gunfire each day in LA, New York, Chicago or Boston? Why isn't the press reporting those body counts?