Is Obama responsible for those marines who urinated on dead Taliban bodies--bodies of people the marines had appparently just KILLED?
Let me put it this way: Obama is just as responsible for those marines urinating on dead bodies (and the video) as President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld were for Abu Ghaib games by military guards with Muslim prisoners (also recorded on video).
NO. It is a LIE to say that President Bush and Rumsfeld were shown to be involved in the Abu Ghraib matter. There was NO EVIDENCE that the matter was anything more than a case of indificual soldiers getting carried away.
This brings us to CNN, The Liar Network (at least, I think it was CNN, although these networks are all the same--including the unfair and unbalanced network--this could have been MSNBC). The interviewee was one of those retired generals who make you glad most of these generls have little to do with actual military operatons. These gusy are PARTISAN POLITICAL HACKS, and probably got to be generals by political gamesmanship raither than military competence. "Skip, you can't say that about our generals." Hey, I just did. And if you doubt that generals can be incompetnet, you need to brush up on your Civil War history--especailly the hisotory of Lincoln's experience with Unioin generls put in charge of the Army of the Ptotomac before Grant. I digress (sort of). Back to this partisan political hack of a general.
This gneral made a point out of saying something that was FALSE--without any contradicton from the CNN (or MSNBC) host: "The difference between Abu Ghraib and this incident of marines urinating on dead Taliban is that Abu Ghraib was a matter of POLICY . This incident with the marines was jsut those marines breaking the discipline of their training. General, you are a LIAR. Yep. I just called a former United States geneal a LIEAR, and I stand by it. Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Abu Ghraib videotaped abuse of prisoners (albeit without physical injury--more mental abuse through physical humiliation) was "policy", or in aid of any official policy any more than what the maires did in Afghanistan was in aid of Obama's official policy. In fact, the EVIDENCE is that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib VIOOLATED POLICY jsut as much as the marines in Afhanistan who urinated on dead bodies. Again, general, you are a LIAR. I fear for any troops ever under your command. I often get that feeling about Wesley Clark, by the way, altough I don't think (not entirely sure) this general was Wesley Clark).
You know and I know why the media wanted to HANG Bush and Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib, and want to COVER UP for Obama on the matter of these marines (not that a "cover up" is really necessary but the media has gone out of its way to shot down even the idea of any possible responsibility on the part of Obama) . You know, and I know, that Abu Ghraib was just an excuse for the media to GO AFTGER Bush and Rumsfeld because the media was opposed to the Iraq war, as well as Bush generally. In contrast, even if the media may not like the war in Afghanistan, the media FAVORS Barack Obama, and does not even want an "issue" reaised as to Obama. Let us go back to CNN (The Liar Network) and John King, as I set forth in a previous article. King and CNN took the posion that there was NO EVIDENCE of "wrondoing" as to the OBAmA Sllyndra scandal. What that means is that CNN did not see CONCLUSIVE evidence that OBAMA did anything CRIMINALLY wrong with regard to Solyndra. Contrast that wiht how CCNN treated Bush and Rumsfeld, and is still treating them, with regard to AbuGhraib. In fact, of course, there is all kinds of "evidence' of "wrongdoing" on the part of the Obama Administration with regard to Solyndra--including violateing the law requriing American taxpayers to be FIRST in line before other creditors--and the fact that Obama may not have committed an impeachable offense is hardly the pont.
Okay, what is the MEDIA 'party line" on these marines. Yep, this general expresed that too, but this was repeated on EVERY NETWORK. And it is HOGWASH. It is part of a whitewashing of both Obama (the reason it is not challenged now, when it was at Abu Ghraib) and the military (which does not need this kind of whitewasing). This "party line' is that our marines are the best trained and most disciplined solidiers to ever exist on this Earth, and that this VIDO shows an aberration that ws limited to these particular marines. The 'party line' is that it is almsot impossible to imagine marines as well trained as ours are disregarding their trainging and discipline to this extent, and "going rogue". Again, HOGWASH.
Am I saying that our marines are not well trained? Of course not. However, I was in the Untied States Army during the middle of the Vietnam War (although I never served in Vietnam) . Further, myh son-in-law was a marine for more than 8 years, and served in Iraq (now separated from my daughter, although I always admired him for telling my daugher, FROM IRAQ, that he thought he "needed more space", which happened years before the separation in a rather stormy marriage). Marines especailly, but soldiers in general, are TRAINED TO KILL. In additon, they are HUMAN BEINGS. More than most, they are also YOUNG MEN with (usuallly) a healthy dose of testosterone. Again, I feel sorry for uor troops if they are being led by generals who really believe that it is hard to imagine our troops urinating on dead bodies. I coudl easily imagine my son-in-law doing it, while he was in the marines, and his rather macho persona would have led you to believe he was capable of it too. The same was true when I was in the army at the time of Vietnam. No, I don't think most of our military in Vietnam were like William Calley and his crew, shooting HUNDREDS of defenseless peole in a ditch. I generally have a lot of respect for professonal military men, and did so at the time of Vietnam (when I was in the army, and afterward). But I NEVER confused these men with ANGELS. They were generally not angels to start with, and the STRESS (and sometimes exhileration, of war makes it easy for men to do what they would not do if they were not int the excitement of the moment.
All these marines did was urinate on men they had just KILLED. See my planned next article on the OVEREACTION by our media. These men have the "example" of Presidetnt Obama crowing over killing Osama bin Laden (as Obama had a right to do). They have the example of the Navy SEALS killing Osam bin Laden and summarily disposing of the body 9as I HNOPE they did, rahter than give bin Laden the "honors' of a Muslim burial)). Could yo uimagine the Navy SEALS SPITRTING ON bin Laden? I certainly could. And I woould not even think badly of them for it.
The 'problem" here is the VIDO Nope. I absolutely do not believe that this kind of thing does not happen fairly regularly with young soldiers. The 'pary line' made much of the fact that this was an "elite " sniper team specially trained. Does not ARROGANCE necessarily go with that kind of elite team? Damn right it does. It is a little distressing that these men let a VIDEO be made., but do you really believe that similar things do not happen regularly NOT RECOREDED ON VIDEO? Give me a break. Of course they happen. And those sanctimonous propagandists who say that this kind of thing is almost impossible are spouting nonsense. And they mostly know it.
Agai, see the next article, whre I examine the actual CONDUCT. I tend to think the conduct otf these oyoung men is not nearly as bad as those lying hypocrites who are crucifying them. Of course they have to be disciplined. That is now you maintain discipline. But we killed some huge number of Pastani SOLIDERS with an erroneous drone strike. And we go tis wildover urinating on DEAD bodies, which wil remain just as ded? See what I mean by HYPOCRISY. These men ar taught to KILL with macho pride, and then we don't understand when they get carried away? Again, give me a break. yep. They have to be disciplined. That is HOW you maintain discipline. However, I refuse to be "hnorrified" by what these marines did.
Then there is Obama. Every time anythng happens, Obama promises a "full investigationi". The media duly reports this as if it means something. It does NOT. Have you ever heard the results of the "full investigation" of the Ft. Hood shooting incident? Have you ever heard the results of the "ful investiagtion" of the "Fast and Furious" program? The Christmas day bomber? Oh, things happen after these events, but usually as the result of invetigation by OTHERS. This TRIPEW about a "full investigation" is just that: TRIPE that "sounds good".
In this particular case, I don't even think an huge, "full investigation" is appropriate, excpet maybe into the VIDEO . Again, see the next article. What is there to "investigaate"? Are we REALLY going to "investigate" whether oung marines may do this sort of thing more often than we would like? Give me a break.
Do you see why I feel like cring because we jsut can't deal with simple facts, without letting agenda obscure everything? It really accomplishes nothing to falsely suggest that there is "no way" young men taught to be killes should ever go "off the beam"--especaily in this MINOR way. President Bush is not to blame for Abu Ghraib just because you don't like his Iraq policy, and Obama is not FREE of blame for thsese marines just becuse you like Obama (albeit he is free of blame for the sam reason President Bush is free of blame for Abu Ghraib). Military men are NOT agnels, and never will be. Nor are they devils. They have good training, but no amount of training can prepare you for the reality of combat. I don't know that from personal experience, but I do know it from people who do have personal experience. Did our soldiers in World War II never spit on "Japs" or Nazis, or even urinate on them? I would be shocked if that did not happen. No, you don't have to APPROVE of it. As stated, discipline is important. See, again, the next article. But to go around moaning about how you "don't understand" how these particular marines could go so far of f of the beam is NUTS. I don't have respect for peole who do things like that. I liked Rick Perry more than I have in the past when I saw a headline about how Perry had DEFENDED the marines accused of this breach of discipline. Good for Rick Perry.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).