UPDATE 01/24/12: Here is the main reason why NO ONE — neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Christian nor Muslim — should have ANY problem with Marines pissing on dead Taliban terrorists: Images: Taliban Proudly Murder 15 Pakistanis
According to the meme of the Left, it is time to ‘frog march’ Obama and Biden to GTMO over this. Afterall, they sanctioned this ‘desecration of corpses’ with their policies. Isn’t that what the Left said about Abu Graib?
Also according to the Left, when Muslims cut off heads of journalists and contractors (Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg) and captured hostages; burn the corpses of US contractors, parade them through town and hang them from bridges (Fallujah); commit ‘honor killings’; stone their women; throw acid in the faces of their girls… none of this is representative of Muslims as a whole. And the acts themselves are not outrageous; what is outrageous is that people are smearing all Muslims, because of the acts of a few. So, of course, I’m sure that the Left is now saying that the act of these Marines is not outrageous, what is outrageous is that people are smearing the US Marine Corps, because of the acts of a few. Right?
Nope, of course not. Liberals are throwing their usual hissy fits and throwing their usual vitriolic hate and bile towards the only government institution they hate: the US military. Especially when this involves the part of the US military they hate the most: the US Marines.
And, of course, who can forget the most famous quote from the leader of the liberal movement regarding the murder and desecration of US contractors in Fallujah:
“I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.” – Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos)
Got that? When America’s enemies, evil terrorists, murder and desecrate the bodies of Americans, liberals side with our enemies. When Americans piss on the bodies our of enemies, evil terrorists, liberals once again side with our enemies.
Well… piss on liberals. (pun intended)
We’re not talking about fellow citizens of a foreign country who are called to arms by their government to fight in a war. We’re talking about despicable, vile terrorists hell bent on murder who are doing the bidding of an evil cult of death masquerading as a ‘religion’. Of course, I guess we shouldn’t expect liberals to know the difference, considering they worship mass murderers like Che Guevera, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and consider people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to be evil.
“Pee on a Crucifix, you’re an ‘artist.’
Pee on The American Flag, you’re a ‘Liberal Free Thinker.’
Pee on a Police Car, you’re an ‘Occupy Wall Street Protestor Hero.’
Pee on the dead Taliban Piece Of **** that just tried to kill you and your fellow Marines, you’re a ‘Villian.'”
And that pretty much sums up the Left. Interesting priorities they have…
I agree with Debow at Blackfive: The Nature of Warriors
Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know.
I know that our grandfathers in B-17 crews over Germany, in the forests of the Ruhr Valley and at Tarawa, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima felt that thirst for revenge. Our fathers certainly felt it in places like Khe Sanh, Hue City, and the Ia Drang Valley when they were walking point, carrying a machine gun or patrolling the rivers. Who among them didn’t add that extra burst of machine gun fire even though they saw the Messerschmitt they had just shot down only smoking a little as it limped away or put another 40mm round into a bunker, you know, just to make sure. There were many who did not succumb to the temptation to exact revenge, but there were probably some who did…
And now there is talk that this could put a crimp in the peaceful style of the “grab the ankles and run away” exit strategy that the OinC has in mind for Afghanistan; certainly timed to go along with his class warfare “eat the rich” super-dee-duper successful campaign strategy. Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS’s from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.
The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.
Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely.
As well as with Congressman Allen West:
Congressman Allen West view:
“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?
“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.
“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”
And, amazingly enough, Bill Maher and I are also in agreement. Granted, liberals are kind of like broken clocks, so…
Here we have 19/20-somethings fighting and seeing their buddies killed, or seeing videos of this enemy beheading Americans [reporters, contractors, Soldiers and Marines]. They urinated on the Taliban dead. This is regrettable. After a tough battle even a leader would be tempted to do such a thing. Big deal! Hell, Patton urinated into the Rhine River and it was captured on film! What is so honorable about this bestial enemy that brutalizes his own family with atrocity, and mutilates his women relatives? So, peeing on a corpse is an atrocity now? Horse-puckey! Give them a Battalion Level punishment. Do not ruin the rest of their lives!
As to Secretaries [who never served, never were warriors]: Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest, I say talk is cheap. What hypocrites you are; you crooked politicians! You wear white-washed robes but you are rotten underneath. You talk about honor but you have no pedigree in the subject, and no moral righteousness for this trumped-up indignation. Go ahead, apologize to the Taliban, you idiots. Shame on you for continually persecuting and demoralizing your own warriors. Go ahead, finish off the world’s best enforcers and defenders of peace … you jerks. This is the real crime!
King David, using Goliath’s sword, cut off the head of Goliath after he had killed him, and God blessed King David and the Israelites. I say God Bless the US Armed Forces and the US Marines for taking the fight to the sworn Taliban enemies of civilization and the United States, and killing them!
[H/T Vinnie at The Jawa Report]
Also see: Taliban Urinegate and Vampire Movies
So now we have a videotape of some marines breaking the rules and taping it. It’s curious why they did that, and now it’s gotten out. Snerdley, which do you think is more offensive, a greater transgression: Abu Ghraib photos or the urination on corpses of the Taliban. Abu Ghraib far worse. Abu Ghraib far worse than urinating on Taliban corpses. I know we don’t know when this happened. The details are sketchy. So as a discussion matter, we’ll take it as it is. But get this Reuters story: “Taliban Says Marine Tape Will not Hurt Afghanistan Talks.” Now, what does that tell you? What does that tell you?
All of a sudden you have something that, if they wanted to, the left could exploit as another Abu Ghraib. That goes without saying, Abu Ghraib blamed on Bush, why isn’t this blamed on Obama? Nothing can go wrong. This will be blamed on the individuals, not Obama. When a president is Republican, everything that the government does is blamed on him. But the more important question here, the Taliban, those, according to the story, was their people who were dead who were the urinatees. And the Taliban says that that tape is not gonna hurt anything, we’re not bothered by that. I’m simply asking, what does that tell you? (interruption) No. It doesn’t tell us that they’re tired of being hit by drones.
It tells us that they’re winning and they’re close and if they start raising hell about this, it’s gonna delay the ultimate. Karzai is out there saying one thing or another. A senior member of the Afghan government’s High Peace Council said, “Such action will leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts.” But the Taliban says, ah, not gonna hurt anything here. Taliban must think they’re close to winning. Taliban must think they’re pretty close to taking over Afghanistan. There are peace talks going on, and the Taliban must think that we’re pretty close to surrendering it to ’em and getting out, and they don’t want this to come along and stop that process and delay. That’s how I interpret it. This would be my wild guess.
Obviously Urinegate will not interrupt the process of turning the country over to the Taliban. If they wanted to they could go after Obama. They could be out there saying that Panetta should resign. Where is CODEPINK? Where are all these anti-war groups? Where are these people who hate the military compared to way they were around at Abu Ghraib? You remember the fake stories about flushing a Koran down the toilet from Michael Isikoff. They wanted to frog march Bush and Cheney into jail over Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times above the fold, get this, for 32 straight days. Urinegate, ah, what’s the big deal? No big deal. We can’t even pinpoint when it happened. We’ll deal with it internally. Panetta gets away with talking about how outraged he is. He won’t put up with it. Okay, fine, that’s all we need to hear, let’s move on, nothing to see here.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Sunday defended the four Marines who were depicted in a viral video last week urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents, arguing “what’s really disturbing to me is just, kind of, the over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”
“Obviously, 18, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often, and that’s what’s occurred here,” the Republican presidential candidate told Candy Crowley on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ “But, you know, when you’re in war, and history kind of backs up — there’s a picture of General Patton doing basically the same thing in the Rhine River. And although there’s not a picture, Churchill did the same thing on the Siegfried line.”
“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses,” Loesch said during her radio program on FM News Talk 97.1. “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”
So now, our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left want her fired. For saying she’d pee on a terrorist. They’re really, really angry about that. They’ve been shrieking at her on Twitter for days. I don’t know if I would’ve worded it exactly like she did, and personally I’d prefer if our guys would stick to just killing the bad guys instead of making latrines out of them. They should be subject to whatever disciplinary action is coming their way, and you can bet they will be. But I have no problem with Loesch’s sentiment. I mean, it’s the Taliban. If she’d said she wouldn’t mind peeing on Hitler’s carcass, would the left be freaking out at her like they’ve been doing?
You might be a liberal if…
You think Bill Maher was a hero after 9/11 for saying terrorists are brave, and Dana Loesch is a villain for insulting them. (He agrees with her on this one, BTW.)
You insist you don’t sympathize with terrorists, but you fly into a rage when somebody disrespects them.
Your reply to criticism of Obama is “Oh yeah, well, who killed Bin Laden?”, but you become furious when Bin Laden’s pals are humiliated.
Let this be a lesson to everyone: If you want to pee on a dead terrorist, first wrap him in an American flag. Then Keith Olbermann, Eric Boehlert, and other leading lights of liberalism will cheer you on.
Via the Maha Rushie:
If your spouse has three different versions of a night out with the girls, she’s hiding something, right? No question about it, right? If your spouse has three different versions of a night out with the boys, he’s hiding something. Probably. Either that or he or she was so drunk they can’t remember and they have to make up different stories, but probably they’re hiding something.
Now, based on what everybody heard on this increasingly popular, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds radio program yesterday the reason the regime’s story keeps changing is they don’t want to say Obama ordered an assassination. Well, Holder goes out there and claims it was self-defense; they’re twisting themselves here in lot of different ways. But the fact is as we pointed out yesterday there was no way they were gonna take Bin Laden alive because that would have put them in an impossible political position. They’re not gonna subject Bin Laden to their own sissified policies.
They’re not gonna send him over here, not gonna give him an ACLU lawyer and not gonna promise him a trial, they’re not gonna do that to themselves. They would not do that. So apparently Obama was willing to pass up a possible treasure trove of information if Osama was taken alive. The political situation had to be certain here. We found Bin Laden. He was available for a kill shot any number of ways. He was defenseless. We caught him totally by surprise. It was important to say that Osama’s death was the result of some contorted version of self-defense. I mean, they tried out wearing a suicide vest under the pajamas!
They gave up on that and said, “Oh, there was an AK-47 within arm’s reach.” (chuckles) Now, we’ve been told that Bin Laden had been there for quite some time. The SEALs were there to kill him. The Reuters story, I believe. It was a kill mission. Like we care. But Obama cares, his base cares, he can’t admit it. So here’s where we are. Now, follow me on this. He ordered an assassination, and he can’t say it. He put us on a path to socialized medicine, and he can’t say it. The stimulus bill was a slush fund for public sector unions. He can’t say it. EPA regulations are back door cap and tax. He can’t say it.
He’s a card-carrying member of the radical left. He can’t say it. He has a leftist-inspired prejudice against the private sector. He can’t say it. Bill Ayers was his good friend. He can’t say it. He listened to every word in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. He can’t say it. And he has a real problem with Israel, but he can’t say it. That is why Obama has so many lame, phony, nonsensical versions of answers to simple questions: Because he can’t say what’s really going on. He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing. That’s all that needs to be said.
He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing — and he is “the most transparent president ever.” He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing, and that truth — that undeniable truth — is on display every day. How many versions are we on now in the aftermath here of what happened?
Not that this was ever in doubt, but the America-hating, military-hating Communist hags at CODE PINK prove once again that they are idiots.
This commenter at AoSHQ lays it all out:
I know Code Pink is full of hopeless, idiotic bints, but when president Obama said things like:
“One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq war but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda.” -June 2007
“We’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” -August 2007
“As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.” -July 2008
“The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.” -July, 2008
Did they somehow not understand that meant he was campaigning on continuing and winning in Afghanistan? How can you figure that fits in with “this is not the change we voted for?” Yes, that’s exactly what you voted for, assuming you could even figure out how to vote, you brainless twit.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 06, 2009 10:03 AM
I just looked up “brainless twit” in the dictionary, and Medea Benjamin was given as an example. I also looked up “hopeless, idiotic bints” and, whaddayaknow, CODE PINK is listed as an example.
“You put your left foot in
You take your left foot out
You put your left foot in
Then you shake it all about
Do the Hokey-Pokey and you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!”
That’s the song that comes to mind upon reading this about the Ditherer-in-Chief’s Afghanistan policy, which he finally — after 10+ months of dithering on it — announced tonight:
Now, he says that his dithering didn’t cost any troops any reinforcements because, supposedly, not a single plan presented to him called for troops before 2010.
First of all: What?
Second of all: It will take about nine months just to get these surge troops into place (I base this on the Iraq experience taking five months — and they had seaports and good roads). So there will be a delay — McCrystal said we had a year to win this thing, and that was three months ago. Obama’s dithering means that we won’t have the troops in place before McCrystal’s war’s-over date.
Third: He says in almost the next breath all troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2011.
As a commenter points out — this means the troops will just be built up in-country by the middle/late 2010 and then he’s going to immediately start evacuating them out again.
Most of the speech was directed to the left, which I guess is expected. I don’t mind explaining this to the left. I mind throwing them substantive bones like cheaping out on the military and promising, effectively, to begin evacuating the moment we’ve just gotten all the surge troops in place.
“You put 30,000 troops in,
you pull 30,000 troops out.
You put 30,000 troops in,
And then you shake them all about.
Have them do the Hokey Pokey
and then turn them right around.
That’s what it’s all about.”
Yep, that’s what it’s all about: Obama using 30,000 troops as political pawns to do the hokey-pokey in Afghanistan.
You know, every time that Obama and his frat-boy spokestool Gibbs say “unprecedented”, I think they mean to say “Un-Presidential”.
What an absolute piece-of-sh!t Obama is to use our military in this manner. God help them, and their families, survive this Un-President.
Is it 2012 yet?
Brilliant post and series by Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette about the lies Barack Obama has been telling about the drawdown of troops in Iraq and how the mass media is covering up for him. Here’s his summary in Diversions (III):
Let’s recap the salient points here:
1. In September, 2008, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) – after months of preparation – is ordered to Iraq. (One of two SBCTs that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq)
2. In February, 2009, President Obama announces his Iraq drawdown/Afghanistan surge – the 5th SBCT will be diverted to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.
3. March, 2009, the DoD announces the 4th SBCT will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule replacing the 5th SBCT in the rotation in order to maintain two Stryker Brigades in Iraq.
For the record, I’m in favor of commanders on the ground getting the forces they need to get the job done. I have no doubt that two Stryker Brigades are needed in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.
I’m deeply concerned when I see troop rotations “adjusted” in what appears to be an effort to fool the American public. But I appreciate that the Obama administration can do that in plain sight, even providing press releases detailing exactly how they’re doing it.
I’m even more concerned that those efforts – and the ramifications thereof – are obvious to an American media assumed to be independent of the Executive Branch but apparently unconcerned about reporting its activities. Item two above was headline grabbing/TV news lead story material – item three indicates it was a fraud.
One year ago that would have been a hell of a story, don’t you think?
Yep, it would have been. In the comments, someone mentioned that when President Bush decided to send some troops early to Iraq, the mass media and the Democrats were freaking out and made it a HUGE story, whining and wringing their hands that the troops weren’t properly trained yet and President Bush was being completely irresponsible, etc etc etc. But now when Obama does this? Crickets…
Be sure to read the entire series by Greyhawk on this lying BS by Obama.
And here is an absolutely brilliant smackdown of Leftist BS in the comments section by commentor “ECM”:
Instead of posting a bunch of non-sequitirs and revising history, can you just answer the following questions:
1. Are you happy that Obama *isn’t* drawing down troop levels in Iraq?
2. Are you happy that, as it turns out, he LIED to you about this fact?
3. Are you at all bothered that because of this little political shell game, that there are troops that are now UNDER-PREPARED for Afghanistan and are going to be put in harm’s way?
4. Are you at all bothered that because of this little political shell game, that there are troops that are now UNDER-PREPARED for Iraq and are going to be put in harm’s way?
5. Does it even matter if we ARE a bunch of knuckle-dragging, war-profiteering, troglodytes working for Halliburton? Who cares if we’re a bunch of hypocrites?! What difference does it make in the context of what is going on here and now?
Here’s my answers and you tell me if I’m being a ‘pacifist’ or a ‘dissenter’ just because there’s a (D) after the prez’s name:
1. No, actually I’m pissed because a lot of fine men and women (and their families) were expecting them home and/or not expecting to see them leave so early.
2. No, actually I’m pissed because HE FUCKING LIED TO YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROPE-A-DOPE AND, APPARENTLY, ABC AT LEAST, WENT RIGHT ALONG FOR THE RIDE.
3. Yes, I’m pissed and upset because he’s going to send under-trained troops into a war zone where, thanks to said under-training, they face worse odds of coming home alive and/or in one piece ALL IN ORDER TO APPEASE BRAINDEAD ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO, ALL OF A SUDDEN, DON’T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS AT ALL (since, you know, you’ve been screeching for nearly a decade that you love the troops, but hate the war).
4. See answer 3 plus: we know you hate the troops, hate Bush, hate Iraq, hatehatehatehate and don’t care if another bunch of ‘knuckle-dragging, war-profiteering, troglodytes working for Halliburton’ marches off to an untimely death because you never cared about the troops and ONLY care about your precious Obama (who, incidentally, fucked you over in front of the world!)
5. None of this should matter if you give a damn about our men and women in uniform (which you don’t) because they’re the ones being fucked in this deal, regardless if we’re every bit as bad as you think we are. It doesnt matter how cartoonishly monstrous we are IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS MORE THAN YOUR PRECIOUS OBAMA (who, incidentally, fucked you over in front of the world!)
The ‘best’ part is, he made ALL Americans in general look like the bunch of rubes you’ve been calling us in the ‘Red States’ for the past 8 years and at the expense of our soldiers’ lives, you asshole. And the biggest joke is that, instead of being upset about the little political theater he gave you (before he gave you the hook), you’re mad at us because we don’t want to see the troops take it like you like it.
Posted by ECM at March 9, 2009 04:14 AM