Anti-Warrior Exposed as Fake Ranger
This is
typical:
In the Style section last summer we profiled a Los Angeles writer named Micah Ian Wright, who'd just published a shrill antiwar poster book called "You Back the Attack! We'll Bomb Who We Want!" In his book, he described himself as a veteran of combat, a former Army Ranger whose experiences during the 1989 invasion of Panama turned him into a peacenik. In interviews with The Post and other media, he played up that background.
Wright, it turns out, is a liar. He never served in the military -- and confessed that last week to his publisher, Seven Stories Press, after we insisted on evidence of his service. Pursuing a tip from real Rangers who'd never heard of Wright, we filed three Freedom of Information Act requests with separate Army commands -- and last month finally confirmed that Wright never served.
As I have discussed in the past, this is how the left mainstreams itself--it lies. Mr Wright knew that he had greater credibility as an anti-warrior if he claimed to have been inside the military himself. Typical of these wannabe heroes, he was not satisfied claiming he was a soldier. No, he had to be one of the elite soldiers, a Ranger. Let me tell you, you meet up with somebody who says he was a cook or a radioman or in a supply unit, odds are he's telling the truth. You meet a Ranger or a Navy Seal, and the odds are quite a bit less likely.
The story states that Wright promised to publish an apology on his
website. So far no sign of it. Update--Here's the
first version, here's the
second.
Comic Book tie-in: Wright has written about 30 issues of Stormwatch: Team Achilles. Not familiar with the title, but his bio also notes that he did or is doing a 6 issue miniseries on the 1980s DC character The Vigilante.
Oh, and just so there's no confusion: I am not a vet myself. This story tied more into two longtime interests of mine--comics and lying lefties, and of course a recent interest of mine, the Army Rangers.
Update: Lots of
attention to this
story in
other blogs. Turns out that, in typical leftist style, Wright used his supposed service as a club with which to
beat his critics.
What blows my mind about this is the shallowness of thought used by Wright and others (particularly Democrats who thought Kerry was electable). They don't really think that only those who served in the military can criticize the use of the military, do they? Of course not, because then there'd be nobody to protest the war. But they do vaguely sense that their opposition would have greater credibility on the right if they can say they fought. Nobody then will think they're one of the mindless anti-military crowd, although that is exactly what they are.
Note too that in the both versions of the apology, Wright claims that his decision to reveal his fraudulent claims is guilt, especially following the death of Pat Tillman. However, the initial story I linked to above, makes it clear that it was actually the fact that the Washington Post had the scoop on his "Stolen Valor", and his initial apology, mentioning Tillman, was backdated to April 15th. Unfortunately for Wright, he backdated it a bit too much, as Tillman's death was reported on April 23rd.
