Questioning the patriotism of the "loyal opposition?" Yeah, you could say that.

This film illustrates in crystal clear detail why the U.S. military needs to recruit very dumb, totally uneducated, and mostly southern cracker soldiers who are already racist bastards who have never left their hometowns and believe all the garbage they are taught in school about how we are the good guys, and everything we do is just and right. The Army can then brainwash them to treat other human beings in such a grotesque and inhuman manner. Anyone who had any previous education, intelligence or just plain decency, would never consent to treat people in the unbelievably harsh manner in which these prisoners, most of which were just swept up in raids and had nothing to do with he Taliban, were treated.

Let's not forget, though, that their intelligence is also very much in question:

You read that the suspects were not connected to al-Qaida, and you're confused for a moment. Maybe it won't be over if they get Osama bin Laden (provided he isn't really in an supersecret Idaho prison). What if the "terrorists" hate you for their own reasons? The evildoer-in-chief said "they hate our freedoms" -- as if we have freedoms, really, just try and get a bike-messenger job that has full health benefits. But what if rights and mixed-sex education and an economy based on sustainable hemp-based art installations mean nothing to them?

Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on them. They are having a bad day, what with Zarqawi getting killed and taking Haditha off the front page for a minute or two and with the Canadians making a bust of a huge international terrorist ring with the help of US intelligence techniques that they so despise (in spite of their widespread use in the Socialist Utopias of Europe). Of course, these "alleged terrorists" who represent a broad strata of society are entitled to a presumption of innocence, unlike our Marines.

You remember this guy, right? The terrorist in Iraq who was there before the Iraq war even though there supposedly weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we drew them there by going to war? Well, one things is for sure - he isn't there now.

Forgive the loonie lefties who can't even be bothered to take note of this, they are busy mourning Juan Cole's rejection by Yale, who by God owes them for having accepted W. Funny to me is that Yale will take a confirmed member of the Taliban in, but Cole is too hard core even for them.

They are also busy raging with indignation at Ann Coulter for her just nasty words about 4 of the 9/11 widows and Cindy Sheehan. Funny, they didn't seem nearly as outraged when Ted Rall was engaging in the same behavior, and even worse behavior.

Anyway, it won't be long before the atypical alleged behavior of a few will again be used to overshadow the heroics of the many and smear the good name of a whole country, by those who are all the while lamenting the "barbaric" killing of another terrorist - you know, terrorists - the guys that have a policy of deliberately targeting women, children, civilians, whomever. The ones engaging in guerilla warfare and hiding in houses with women and children. Not Marines, terrorists. See the difference - one thinks they are legitimate targets, the other is investigated and prosecuted if and when this type of thing happens.

Oh, didn't have to wait too long - it's already starting.

But don't question their patriotism. They know the bad guy when they see him.

Update: Time for a quick litmus test.

Consider this statement from a Sunni intellectual in Iraq:

"Goddamn that motherfucker for what he has done to Iraq."

Is the subject of this statement George W. Bush or Abu al-Zarqawi?

If you suspect that this gentleman is speaking of Bush rather than Zarqawi, you are a barking moonbat. If you suspect this gentleman is speaking of Zarqawi, not only are you right, but you are not a moonbat.

(hat tip to INDC Journal)