Negative Consequence Of War #844: Broken Families

You know, a good way to support the troops is to not keep sending them into the war zone over and over and over again until their personal lives fall apart around them. You know, divorce, domestic violence, infidelity, PTSD, kids having nightmares, not to mention the worst-case scenario, suicide, or rather, murder-suicide. Yeah, it's just great what the Republicans are doing for the troops, heckuva job!

For The Republicans And War Profiteers

♫
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

— Bob Dylan - Masters of War (1963)

Osama Bin Laden As Emmanuel Goldstein?

So here's an interesting theory I just came up with. You remember how McCain campaign advisor and superlobbyist Charlie Black recently said that another terrorist attack, like the one on 9/11, would be a "big advantage" for McCain? Well McCain has also made a similar comment right before the 2004 election about a tape from Osama bin Laden that had just been released:

But as McCain greets two breakfast-eating business partners, one from Stamford and the other from Bridgeport, the topic turns to the presidential race. The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"....

The two men, who requested anonymity, nod their heads in agreement. Later, while riding with Shays on an RV to a rally at the Stamford Government Center, McCain further explains, "(The video) is helpful to President Bush because it puts the focus on the war on terrorism."

(Read: It makes people afraid, and Republicans benefit when people are afraid)

Alright, so it is pretty obvious that Republicans believe terrorist attacks and threats, and anything that can scare Americans into voting against their own self-interest benefit Republicans. One could say they welcome such events, from the perspective of political strategizing. Do they welcome them enough to "accidentally" let a terrorist attack "slip" right before an election when it looks like their party is heading for their second landslide defeat in a row? Perhaps. Personally, I think you would have to have been living under a rock for the last 8 years to dismiss the possibility outright.

But here is something else I thought up, in light of this 2004 quote from McCain, what if they don't want to catch bin Laden? Does it serve the Republican interest to have him always lurking in the periphery of the voters' consciousness? Does he play the role of Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's 1984, the omnipresent evil, the target of the Three Minute Hate, the ready propaganda tool to overwhelm citizens with fear? We know the Republicans created this idea of the War on Terror, the war without bounds, without objectives, without an end, an infinite war against a tactic, an emotion, so that they can perpetually exploit this fear of terror to justify extraordinary violations of civil liberties, and an extraordinary expansion of the military-industrial complex which pumps the likes of Halliburton and DynCorp with floods of taxpayer money for their own profits.

But if we actually caught or killed bin Laden, wouldn't that make it much harder to keep the public fearful of the omnipresent War on Terror? It seems to me that politically, capturing bin Laden would be the worst thing for the Republicans, which may explain why they haven't done it in the 7 years since he killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Or it could just be appalling incompetence, as they clearly have more than enough of that to go around. It could be that they really just can't hunt down a single person despite the most powerful military and most advanced intelligence service in the history of the world, and it could be that needlessly dumping resources into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror, contributed to our failure to ever capture our public enemy number one.

Or maybe they just want you to be afraid.

Maybe they want to play political games with American lives, so they keep the terrorist mastermind alive and well so he can do to Americans what he does best: terrorize.

Republican War Crimes

I wrote a few months ago about the four-day Winter Soldier event held by Iraq Veterans Against The War which brought together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence to give an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground. Here is some chilling video from the event:



There can be no doubt that the individual soldiers who committed these atrocities are, or were, monsters. But they were also kids, kids who were exploited by the US military, who were reconditioned to be killers, sociopaths, so that they could further the commercial and political agendas of the Republicans and the corporate elite. These individual actions are why I refuse to give a blanket endorsement to "the troops", because I refuse to blindly proclaim my support of those committing these atrocities. These individual actions are also why I believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others involved in orchestrating this war are guilty of war crimes, because they aren't just snapshots of a few bad apples, this behavior is systematic, institutionalized, endemic in our occupation. These men and women will have to live with the psychological scars of their actions for the rest of their lives, yet those who are truly to blame will most likely never face any sort of punishment, not even a slap on the wrist. It is criminal what they have done to Iraq, and it is criminal what they did to these soldiers.

And this is what McCain wants to continue for at least 5 more years. Nothing less than war crimes, terrorism.

War is terrorism.

McCain And The Republicans Reward The Troops By Denying Them Benefits

It has been a reoccurring theme for the last 7 years that everyone a Republican talks about "supporting the troops" they are talking about supporting their own failed policies, and actually screwing over the troops. Those stupid little jingoistic "support the troops" car magnets came to mean nothing more than "I blindly support the policies that are getting our troops killed".

We saw this from the very beginning, when the Republicans (with the help of some spineless/hawkish Democrats) "supported the troops" by sending them over to Iraq to get killed, maimed and mentally scarred for life. They've supported over 4,000 troops all the way to the grave a little over 5 years later. They've supported the wounding of tens of thousands of troops, the breaking up of families, the emotional scars that tens, or even hundreds of thousands of Americans will carry with them for the rest of their lives, that is unless it becomes too much and they kill themselves, which happens quite frequently.

Then they "supported the troops" by not providing them with adequate armor, and by handing out support services in no-bid contracts for corporations linked to Cheney and other prominent Republicans, which gave us rotting tents and tainted water and electric shows and other kinds of mischief. And it made many corporations and investors very very wealthy in the process.

Then they "supported the troops" by extending their tours of duty, by sending them out on second, third, forth, fifth tours.

Then they "supported the troops" by letting the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center deteriorate to the point where recovering soldiers were plagued by rats, cockroaches and dangerous black mold which is responsible for over 100 types of lung disorders.

Then when soldiers finally come home they "support the troops" by cutting veterans benefits.

But not to be outdone, today Republicans voted against the "21st Century GI Bill" sponsored by Jim Webb and co-sponsored by 58 Senators, including Obama. This bill would have allowed these men and women who have been sent into harms way by our government* to receive a free four-year education at state universities for their trouble. That's it. Yet many Republicans opposed it, apparently the troops are good enough to be used as fodder overseas, but not deserving enough to get educated when they return. John McCain was among the Republicans who "supported the troops" by opposing the GI Bill, by opposing educational benefits to returning soldiers. While Obama made it back to the Senate to vote for the bill, McCain spent the day in California.

And meanwhile:

US army suicides at record level
US veterans sue over 'poor care'
Veterans 'quarter of US homeless'

Howard Dean hit McCain for not supporting the bill:

America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home. The men and women in who volunteer to put on the uniform of the United States of America risk their lives to defend our freedoms*, and we should do everything we can to help them be successful when they come home. While Senator McCain talks about supporting our troops and veterans on the campaign trail, his real record tells a much different story. While we honor his service to our country, Senator McCain's double talk on veterans' benefits is one more reason he is the wrong choice for America's future.

And so did Obama:

I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

Once again, "supporting the troops" is nothing but a slogan for the Republicans, in fact, no one has done more harm to the troops than the Republicans, not al-Qaeda, not Iraqis, no one. The ones who sent the troops over there are the ones to blame for every death, every wound, every terrorist their war recruits. The Democrats have been the only ones supporting the troops for the last 7 years. Many, like Obama, opposed the war from the very beginning. They opposed no-bid contracts, they fought for oversight, they fought for body armor and fought to bring the troops home. They fought the conditions at Walter Reed and they fought for increased veterans benefits, and now they are fighting to give American soldiers an education when they return home.

*Note: I won't say that our soldiers are risking their lives to protect our freedoms, because frankly, they aren't. I actually hate it when people say that, although I understand politicians pretty much have to. It is wrong, and it just perpetuates the myth that they are there to make us safer, which they aren't, at least not in this war. The war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with making America safer, because Iraq was no risk to us. Indeed, this war has actually made us LESS safe, which is something the CIA even acknowledges. So ideally soldiers would only be put in harm's way when Americans were in danger, but that isn't what this war is about. So no, I'm sorry, but the troops aren't risking their lives for "our freedom", they are risking them for a failed policy that was meant to reap huge profits for corporations while increasing the power of the Republican Party. We shouldn't betray that truth with flowery rhetoric about why our soldiers are dying.

Republicans Make Asses Of Themselves, Democrats Come Together

American politicians generally make a point of not attacking fellow Americans while overseas on diplomatic trips. In fact it is quite frowned upon, for obvious reasons, pretty unusual and taboo. Well leave it to Bush to not rest on tradition. While delivering an address yesterday before the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists, simply because Obama, like many foreign policy experts, believes that diplomacy is a sign on strength, and we can only make progress if we will engage our enemies as well as our allies. CNN reported that Bush compared Obama to "other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis" for his willingness to actually talk to leaders we disagree with (something Bush has strongly opposed for almost 8 years, and look how great that worked out). Bush wasn’t the first person to attack Obama for this, that honor goes to Hillary Clinton, in what was basically the first negative attack of the Democratic primary (fittingly it came from her), when Obama first stated that he would be willing to meet with foreign leaders who don’t agree with us, and Hillary attacked him as naïve and inexperienced, even though his position made absolute sense. Obama didn’t back down, and many foreign policy experts agreed with Obama’s policy of strength through diplomacy. Hillary eventually quieted her attacks on that topic after it became obvious she was on the wrong side of that argument, but Bush apparently thought it was a good one (not the first or the last time Hillary and Republicans will share talking points), so he fired this off yesterday in front of the Israeli Parliament:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Okay, so I’m going to ignore the fact that Bush just quoted Republican Senator William Edgar Borah there, and move on to point out that diplomacy, talking to your enemies, is not appeasement, and that is not what emboldened Hitler during the events running up to the start of the Second World War. This is something Republicans, ever fond of talking out their asses, don’t seem to understand, as Chris Matthews showed amazingly well last night when he put a right-wing radio host in his place after he spouted a bunch of ignorant nonsense:



That was probably one of the greatest things I’ve seen since:



Anyway, then, not surprisingly, McCain jumps on board:

Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

Now it cannot be denied that Ahmadinejad is an unsavory character, but the US government has offered no evidence that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, or responsible for killing Americans. In 2007 the Republicans (and hawkish Democrats like Hillary) took the unprecedented step of labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of a foreign government’s standing army (focused on homeland security and defense), a terrorist organization, again, with no evidence to back that up. But that doesn’t make it true, you still need facts to back that claim up, especially such a serious claim. And I have to say that if the use of force by militaries of sovereign countries can now be interpreted as terrorism (as it should, when they actually do harm, war is terrorism), the United States, and to a lesser extent Israel, would be the largest terrorist organizations operating in the world, by the logic of McCain, Bush, the Republicans and hawkish Democrats like Hillary. That is why their throwing around the term terrorism like that was unprecedented, and very unwise—which actually makes Hillary’s (and the Republican’s) positions on foreign policy extremely reckless, irresponsible and ignorant—not Obama’s.

Oh yeah, and then you have McCain two years ago, sounding more like Jimmy Carter than George Bush, saying that we need to negotiate with Hamas, because they represent the Palestinians and we have to deal with the realities of the situation if we want to solve anything, thus proving that the Clintons don’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy and doublespeak after all:

Q: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

[video here]

And then we had former Democrat Joe Lieberman, the GOP’s favorite puppet and McCain’s top cheerleader adding to the pile on against Obama:

President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.

Again, we see that the preferred method of conflict resolution from conservatives is bloodshed before diplomacy. Why try to resolve conflicts peacefully when you can fight til the last one standing, which is essentially what they are all advocating. If they didn’t fight til the last man (or woman or child) was standing, then that would mean that at some point the fighting would end is a cease fire, and they would come together and talk to make peace, which is exactly what they are saying cannot happen. Ceasefires are tools of the weak for McCain and the rest of the hawks, so it wouldn’t make any sense to ever cease fighting, because if you eventually have to stop and make peace through diplomacy, there would have been absolutely no reason to not try diplomacy first, you know, before thousands or millions of civilians were slaughtered, maimed and displaced.

So Obama fired back at Bush, specifically on the issue of engagement with actual terrorists:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

And then Obama’s Democratic posse, which has been coalescing around him since his wins in North Carolina and Indiana got his back, first Senator Biden, with color:

This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.

He is the guy who has weakened us. He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.

Well said. Next, Speaker Pelosi went after Bush’s choice of venue, and took a shot at McCain:

We have a protocol, sort of a custom, informally around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil.

I think what the president said in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.

I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks who aspires to leadership in our country.

And then Senator Kerry added his criticism:

What an irony to have the current president in Israel blasting Democrats from the Knesset when his policies have actually seen al-Qaeda get strengthened, they've seen al-Qaeda be reconstructed, they've seen Hezbollah get stronger, they've seen Hamas get stronger, Israel more threatened, Iran is stronger and Iraq is in chaos.
This is a disgraceful statement by the president ... He ought to apologize to the American people for going to Israel and using the Knesset and the celebration of the 60th anniversary of a state and a people that we all support and that we're all proud of and using it for politics.

Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation's history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.

And Howard Dean rounds out the Democratic leadership by going after McCain:

On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America's greatest allies. Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible.

But of course we know he didn’t denounce them, he parroted them, and then his parrot in turn played the echo chamber. And amazingly enough, Hillary came to the defense of Obama and Democrats for a change, even though she was the first one to raise similar right-wing attacks:

President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

I applaud her for that, and for not adding "Obama isn’t a Nazi appeaser or terrorist, as far as I know" at the end.

In the end it was a good exchange, because it highlighted how very wrong the Republicans are on foreign policy, like everything else, and it was an occasion for the biggest show of Party unity from the Democrats in quite some time. If we keep our eye on the prize and everything in perspective, we can do some great things come November and beyond. All this gives me hope.

Note: Word on the street is that Obama will "respond forcefully" to Bush today in a speech.

Update: And here is Obama's response:



This is where it is a very good thing that our candidate didn't vote for the war, or vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. He couldn't go after Bush, McCain and the Republicans nearly as effectively if he was complicit in their worst mistakes.

Update #2: McCain responds with his characteristic distortions:

Earlier today, Sen. Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America. No issue is more important. Sen. Obama claimed all I had to offer was the ‘naive and irresponsible belief’ that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Sen. Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ‘stinking corpse’ and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.

It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.

And Obama responds with a complete smackdown:

What's reckless is continuing the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has cost us thousands of lives and a trillion dollars in Iraq, strengthened Iran, enabled Hamas to take Gaza, took our eye off al Qaeda, failed to capture Osama bin Laden, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and left us less safe and less respected in the world. No amount of utterly predictable fear-mongering and tough talk can change the fact that John McCain is running to continue the most disastrous foreign policy in recent American history.

BAM!! I suggest McCain take the rest of the weekend off to recover from that verbal lashing. He'll need to be nice and rested for his next dose.

Olbermann Eviscerates Bush

On The Countdown last night, Keith Olbermann straight up eviscerated Bush over a recent interview in which he lied about the administrations distortions of the intelligence and their campaign to lead a deceived nation to war. He also lambasted Bush for his comments that he gave up golf out of respect to the soldiers who have died in Iraq, and then goes on to prove that Bush had lied, and was photographed golfing just a few months later. An understandably outraged Olbermann closed with telling Bush to "shut the hell up." Definitely not something you want to miss:



Update (5/15): Olbermann follows up on the "giving up golf" lie, here.

The High Prices We Pay For Wars Fought For Greed

Over a million Iraqis have lost their lives because of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Around 4.5 million have been pushed from their homes and turned into refugees. The cultural heritage of the birthplace of civilization was looted as US soldiers watched and provided protection to one place, the ministry of oil. Over four thousand American soldiers have died, more than a thousand contractors have been killed, tens of thousands of American soldiers and contractors were wounded, and will bear the scars of war, the disabilities, traumas and psychological pain, for the rest of their lives. By the end of this war it is estimated that the US taxpayers will have wasted $3 trillion, all the while our country's infrastructure is crumbling, our education system is failing, our health care system is languishing, jobs are being lost, and poverty is skyrocketing. But Bush hasn't been free of sacrifice either:

Bush had to give up golf:

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"

Although he still managed to set a record for most vacation ever taken by a president, in large part thanks to all the vacation he took before September 11th, 2001 while the CIA was trying to warn him Osama bin Laden was planning terrorist attacks in the United States.

But I guess that is the price to pay for an illegal and unnecessary war for corporate profits and the extension of Israel's hawkish foreign policy goals.

Oh, and I'd like to thank John McCain for supporting the war, and wanting to keep it going for years to come. And of course a smaller shout out to Hillary Clinton, who also followed Bush like a sheep and supported the war for years, but at least she stopped supporting it when the polls told her it wasn't popular anymore. Way to lead!

Update: Keith Olbermann exposed Bush golfing after he said he gave it up out of respect to the dead American soldiers.

Update (5/15): Olbermann follows up on the "giving up golf" lie, here.

What Would You Do With $3 Trillion?

I bought universal health care and a scooter for every American, and solar power for every American household, and I had money left over.

What would you do with $3 trillion?

Update: Here is how John Cusack spent his.

War, What Is It Good For? (Creating Sociopaths)

So I just saw one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen, really the kind of thing that puts any number of girls and any number of cups to shame. Here is a video of a US soldier lobbing a helpless little puppy off a cliff. It is disgusting.

It also says something about the state of our society, our country, and obviously our military. We create monsters, total sociopaths to go off and kill in the name of our country, supposedly "protecting "freedom" and "spreading democracy", but we are really propping up our own neocolonial interests (or, in this case, the neocolonial interests of Israel) all over the world to expand power, privilege and the pocketbooks of corporate CEO's and their allies. We create killers, who can't be turned on and off like lights, they are killers for life, and many have shown they have little problem torturing and killing civilians, there have been countless reports of all kinds of despicable and depraved acts from the US military, just as there were coming out of Vietnam.

Of course throwing a puppy off of a cliff isn't as bad as other horrible acts of violence they have committed, but it does speak volumes of their disregard for life, their sick enjoyment of violence and destruction, their absolute lack of compassion or empathy, and not just from the person doing it, but all involved who instead of stepping in to stop it, just laughed and filmed. Experts in abuse have long known that there is a very strong link between animal abusers and human abusers, each being a very strong indicator of the other. It takes the same kind of person to commit violence against animals as it does to commit violence against people. Here is a human story, one of the most grotesque and appalling examples of brutality I've heard come out of Iraq, about how three soldiers took turns raping a 14 year old girl in Iraq, and then killed her and her family, and this is no doubt not a unique event:

The girl and three family members were allegedly killed by four US soldiers.

The four are alleged to have helped a former private - Steven Green, who has since left the army - plan, carry out and cover up the attack. Mr Green has pleaded not guilty in a federal court and will be tried separately in the US.

A fifth soldier is alleged to have lied to cover up for his colleagues.

One of the soldiers, Steven Green, said he "wanted to go to a house and kill some Iraqis," it alleged.

The four eventually went to a house about 200 metres (yards) away and put the parents and their five-year old daughter in the bedroom, but kept the older girl in the living room.

According to Mr Barker's statement, he and Mr Cortez took it in turns to rape or attempt to rape her.

Mr Barker heard shots from the bedroom, and Steven Green emerged with an AK-47 in his hand saying "They're all dead. I just killed them."

According to the testimony, Mr Green then also raped the girl and shot her dead.

Her body was doused in kerosene and set alight.

Update: Apparently the puppy killer's name is David Motari. You can read an article about the response to the video here.

Update (6/12): David Motari has been kicked out of the Marine Corps (I'm hoping dishonorably) for his murder/torture of the puppy:

A U.S. Marine videotaped throwing a puppy over a cliff while on patrol in Iraq has been kicked out of the Corps, and a second Marine involved has been disciplined, according to a statement released by the Marines.

YouTube.com removed the video for violating the Web site's terms of use.

Lance Cpl. David Motari, based in Hawaii with the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, is being "processed for separation" and received non-judicial punishment, officials said in the statement Wednesday night. The Marine Corps would not specify what that punishment was because of privacy regulations.

The statement said Motari received the punishment for his role in the episode that generated international attention.

"The actions seen in the Internet video are contrary to the high standards we expect of every Marine and will not be tolerated," according to the statement.

Yes, yet if the puppy had been an Iraqi he probably would have gotten a pat on the back. So much for high standards. At the very least the incident highlighted the power of the internet to make a difference. I suppose the label "puppy killer" (that will live on forever on the internet, if nothing else) is probably the only real punishment he'll face.