Confederate Yankee
December 01, 2007
TNR Folds
It took fourteen pages--13 of those geared towards Franklin' Foer's attempt to keep his job--but here's the punchline:
When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.
Stay tuned. I'll have much more later, including why Franklin Foer said nothing to justify keeping his job.
Update: As promised.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:24 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
without yourr efforts this wouldn't have happened at all.
everyone who respects truth and demands it from the MSM owes YOU a debt of gratitude.
THANK YOU!
Posted by: reliapundit at December 01, 2007 03:46 PM (ji18q)
2
This is (at best) strike 2 for TNR. Foer aside, I don't see how TNR stays in business after this. Your headline is very prescient.
Thanks for your perseverance.
Posted by: capitano at December 01, 2007 03:46 PM (+NO33)
3
Hope you lead the outrage against National Review for publishing the lies of W. Thomas Smith Jr. with the same vigor you showed against TNR! Let us know who advertises at National Review so we can start boycotting them!
Posted by: tachyon at December 01, 2007 03:48 PM (WNde0)
4
About freaking time. Nicely done, Bob. Kudos to Mike Goldfarb as well.
tachyon, you got a case to make?
Posted by: Pablo at December 01, 2007 03:53 PM (yTndK)
5
I'm always amazed at people demanding OTHERS cover stories they think are important. You can get a free blog, tachyon, so you can do this for yourself.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at December 01, 2007 03:54 PM (FX4AI)
Posted by: Kaitian at December 01, 2007 03:55 PM (S5mm4)
7
tachyon,
What the hell are you talking about?
A troll without bait is just an idiot mumbling to himself.
Posted by: open_channel_d at December 01, 2007 03:56 PM (OlDcQ)
8
Someone should do a word count, to see how long it took to get to what is the whole story
". . . we cannot stand by these stories."
Still disregarding the first rule of holes at TNR.
PS - nice try Tachyon, but have read NRO's statements?
Posted by: Interested Conservative at December 01, 2007 03:57 PM (sfS+u)
9
Tachyon: Blogger offers free blogs.
Spew your hatred of conservatives there.
But be sure to tell me the name of your blog, so I can go there and post things like this post in your comments section to make you look like a complete fool... unless and until you ban me for making you look like a complete fool.
Okay, enough feeding the trolls.
Bob, congrats! Got a silver platter handy for Foer's head?
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 04:08 PM (SoUge)
10
The final nail in the coffin for the phony tales of a real (disgraced) soldier.
I hope we have seen the last of these for this war. Too many phony soliers and phony and exaggerated stories all aimed at hurting the war effort. The saddest thing of all is that most of it originated not from the enemy but from our own side, or at least our own countrymen I should say.
Posted by: Sam at December 01, 2007 04:13 PM (JMLfo)
11
Where are W. Thomas Smith Jr.'s lies, tachyon?
Please, enlighten me with a few. Otherwise, keep you unfounded ad hominem entertainment in your pocket.
Posted by: Steve Schippert at December 01, 2007 04:15 PM (dk6Rv)
Posted by: vanderleun at December 01, 2007 04:19 PM (ULUsu)
13
"Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more "
He REGRETS the allegedly high standards of his publication?
Posted by: jmurphy at December 01, 2007 04:22 PM (CYuxe)
14
Keeping current on Foer's malodorous efforts to escape responsibility for TNR's self-induced Beauchamp follies reminds us that seditious libel and slander should entail moral if not economic or legal consequences.
By now, we're entitled to consider CanWest an accomplice in this sad-sack's ongoing campaign to deny the undeniable. Foer and his Know Nothing ilk deserve exposure at every opportunity. Your service is invaluable: Thanks.
Posted by: John Blake at December 01, 2007 04:23 PM (RoXf8)
15
For the Smith controversy, see the statements by Mr. Smith and Kathryn Jean Lopez. That NRO's standards are much higher than TNR's will be evident to any fair-minded reader.
Posted by: Tom Veal at December 01, 2007 04:24 PM (CAzoA)
16
After 30+ years in the newspaper business it still amazes me how childishly peevish journalists are when caught fictionalizing their accounts. His homophobic epithet thrown at Matt Sanchez is the sign of another lib who never graduated, emotionally, from 4th grade.
Posted by: Don Surber at December 01, 2007 04:26 PM (YkgNr)
17
NOW they can't stand behind the story? NOW?
Posted by: MagicalPat at December 01, 2007 04:28 PM (98Uei)
18
Thank you for the continuing efforts that ultimately forced The New Republic to admit their negligence.
Unfortunately in journalism and politics (to name a couple of occupations) we are witnessing an increasing amount of lying in order to justify the desired ending.
It is dedicated people like you who are our heroes.
Posted by: Larry at December 01, 2007 04:40 PM (Ssr0C)
19
Hurrah for the Confederate Yankee!
Posted by: Looking Glass at December 01, 2007 04:46 PM (p3bw6)
20
"Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that."
Would TNR please publish those standards?
I looked quite a bit at the time of the story's original publication and couldn't find them. Until such point the operative assumption is that they have none, or make them up as they go along.
Posted by: ajacksonian at December 01, 2007 04:52 PM (oy1lQ)
21
I plowed through the entire TNR story and it seems like they still can't quite believe a bunch of redneck good ol' boys enlisted in the Army could pull this over on them. I mean if they were smart, stayed in school and worked hard, they wouldn't be stuck in Iraq, right? So how did they pull a fast one on such obviously better-educated, sophisticated city slickers? Huh? I wonder if the staff spends most of the day answering emails from Nigeria just waiting for the millions to be wired transferred to their accounts. At best, they were gullible and careless beyond belief.
Posted by: jmurphy at December 01, 2007 04:53 PM (CYuxe)
Posted by: Grey Fox at December 01, 2007 04:53 PM (mPkJd)
23
GOOD WORK, BOB!
Perhaps a letter writing campaign to TNR's advertisers telling them what we think of its editorial practices might be in order? I sure wouldn't want my goods or services affiliated with such sloppy (at best) journalism practices...
If I put out a product like theirs, I'd be out of business before long. A word to the wise????
(and while we're at it, a letter to NYT advertisers too...) might be enuf to push both publications over the financial cliff...
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea Shea King at December 01, 2007 04:54 PM (1JIVC)
24
in 14 pages tnr makes numerous allegations about bloggers and other writers - where are the links to these bloggers & other writers. Does tnr expect us to just believe them because they say so without any evidence. My guess is that tnr does not want to use any links so that they 'hit & run' with their allegations.
Posted by: pippolino at December 01, 2007 04:59 PM (fz90b)
25
Sadly, leftists are pretty good at denial, even to themselves. So unless the head office sees otherwise good chance is Foer will pay any consequences for his bull headedness. The other question is of course what of Beauchcamp's wife? She was front an center as to the cause of this flap. Does she get away scot free?
Posted by: johnmc at December 01, 2007 05:00 PM (zAUn9)
26
Thanks for the pursuit...
I noted that no comments were posted at TNR... Censorship-? Whatever. It's their website. I posted and urged them to read the MilBlogs-and PAY the milbloggers for their tales-After fact checking. That is -IF- they truly wished to report on the war in Iraq.
The question is not about keeping a job. The question is about maintaining a business. How many liars, fabululists, dreamers, wanna-be Norman Mailer drunks-and-wife-beaters, can they peddle and still meet payroll-?
There is a role for the Establishment Media to use their reach and expand the tales of truth and honest horror coming forth in the blogs. Read it and see America's youth in action. This generation of military is better trained, better equipped, better educated, smarter and better led than any military we have ever fielded before. These are amazing people... They are also the tip of the iceberg of a new type of American taking over the nation. These are the idealists. They are not motivated by money...
They value honesty very highly. They are cynical, skeptical, jaundiced and play by different rules. Their attitude towards authority is more respectful and rebellious-at the same time- than the Boomers. They value and respect honest integrity more than the Boomers ever did.
TNR and the NYC/Hollywood Establishment (media and entertainment) do them a tremendous disservice by portraying them as a continuation of the Vietnam era cultural battles. It fits a familiar pattern. It's comfortable. The outcome is known. The good guys are identified and the bad guys are the same... BUT that was yesterday's war... This is a new world. New enemies. New dangers. New weapons. New potential unpleasant outcomes.
They say that "Generals always fight the last war"... It looks like the whole Eastern -Yankee- intellectual establishment is fighting a war that was over 35 years ago...
Boomers are no longer the center of attention. Squawking and whining, lying and deceiving, will not change that...
Keep up the good work...
Posted by: AndyJ at December 01, 2007 05:15 PM (8U3dx)
27
Well done, Bob, (and can't forget Mike Goldfarb). The two of you owned this story, and you've pwn3d Foer so thoroughly that Jesse Jackson will be advising him on filing a slavery-reparations lawsuit against you.
Did you notice, in the IM exchange selectively released by Fabricating Franklin, the charming nickname Fab Frank uses for the (nonexistent, actually) disfigured woman? "The Crypt Keeper."
Given that Foer was perhaps the only man on Earth who still believed in the existence of a scarred, unhappy woman, the nickname is a beacon into the mineshaft depths of his character. Only in a world where Scott Beauchamp is a brilliant author, could Franklin Foer be a class act.
Another little detail worth noting is Foer's belated admission that using Ellie Reeve to "factcheck" Scott was an issue. Uh, ya think? Foer, in fact, did all he did to keep this "fact" from being checked by anyone outside the cozy embrace of TNR-dom, including a spite-firing of the employee who disclosed it.
Class act, squared. (Compounded by apparently making Reeve walk the plank in Foer's stead).
Can we go for a cube? Sure we can. Remember the Foer hissy outrage (amusing, like a drag queen emoting over a broken nail) when someone dared to release the transcript of discussions with Scott I-Wanna-Be-Hemingway that showed that Foer had been dissembling about his "investigation?" Upset over publishing fabrications: nil. Upset over people unearthing his carefully buried evidence, evidence that he knew he was standing behind fabrications: boundless. Irony: priceless.
And let's just throw one last one in there. How about the "re-reporting" which was exposed as, having Ellie Reeve and the TNR "fact checkers" call and mislead people into giving quotes that could be misrepresented as supporting Beauchamp. Class act to the fourth power, that's Fabricating Franklin Foer.
I can honestly say I haven't followed a link to TNR on any subject since this broke. Why should I? Who can trust them not to just make stuff up like Glass, Eve Fairbanks, Beauchamp and Foer have systematically done? It's not like there aren't alternative sources of opinion on the net -- any random blog chosen by lot is likely to have higher standards than Peretz/Zengerle/Foer.
I particularly salute you for wading in that cesspool for all these months, waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at December 01, 2007 05:18 PM (LkeNv)
28
So, do we know for certain if Foer's job is actually in jeopardy here? I know it should be, at least in a sane world.
Of course, in a sane world, Dan Rather would have been fired for journalistic incompetence (not to mention crappy ratings) sometime around 1985.
Posted by: OregonMuse at December 01, 2007 05:21 PM (JpJT3)
29
Notice what Foer did not say in his fourteen pages of rambling.
- He offered no apology to anyone.
- He mentioned no plans for disciplinary action against anyone on the TNR staff. Apparently they are all blameless victims who were overwhelmed by Beauchamp's Jedi mind tricks. None of this fiasco is their fault.
- He promised no corrective measures to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. (Yes, he did say "we've imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest." But he provided no details. This amounts to nothing more than "Trust us, we've fixed the problem.)
Pathetic.
Posted by: Pat at December 01, 2007 05:29 PM (0suEp)
30
While it's nice to have closure and confirmation that TNR has finally caught up with what independent blogs had concluded for quite some time, there's still the matter of accountability for TNR's material breach of journalistic ethics (not to mention its unsubstantiated damage of the U.S. army and other institutions).
The immediate termination of Foer and TNR editorial staff is mandatory. Foer placed the responsibility for fact-confirmation on a highly controversial and potentially disparaging story lacking normal controls into the hands of the writer's spouse. Corporate governance standards (and I'd presume TNR's corporate policy statement on the behavior of its officers) normally dictate that these controls, separation of duties, etc. be administered by management, and the failure to oversee these management controls is grounds for termination.
It's CanWest's governance responsibility now to remove these managers and clean house.
Posted by: redherkey at December 01, 2007 05:31 PM (kjqFg)
31
Congrats, Bob!
Alas, I still don't think it will do that much good. With one little clarification, I still stand by my prediction:
* Foer will issue some weasel-worded statement to the tune of "We have not been given any information to change our original assessment of the story. The U.S. military continues to stonewall on releasing the results of its investigation, and Beauchamp is not free to speak. Beauchamp stands by his account, but because we cannot corroborate every minor detail of his story, we must adhere to our ever-so-high journalistic standards and withdraw our support (although, c'mon, you know they're really true)." The departure of lower-ranked TNR employees will not be mentioned. [Check!] Foer will keep his job. [TBD]
* Beauchamp will continue his "no comment" policy, and will more or less keep his nose clean while in the Army.
* At some point in the future, Beauchamp will receive an honorable discharge. When he is beyond the Army's reach, he will loudly proclaim that his stories were true, dammit, and that he was being coerced by evil superior officers to keep silent.
* Vast numbers of left-wing true believers will take up his cause, and he will become yet another hero who Speaks Truth to Power. The media will report his drivel without criticism; if they mention the controversy over the TNR articles' veracity at all they will attribute it to "an attack squad of far-right-wing bloggers." Beauchamp will write a book and an op-ed piece for Newsweek.
I wish it weren't so, but that's how I believe this will play out.
I will say, though, that I didn't anticipate Foer's "Our critics are gay!" defense.
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at December 01, 2007 05:39 PM (qmdN5)
32
Bob, I join all the others who have congratulated you on all the hard work in covering this story.
I can't help noticing the actions of one of Mr. Foer's predecessors, Andrew Sullivan, and his reaction to all of this. In the past 24 hours he has put up three posts attempting to draw direct parallels between this TNR real scandal and the faux NRO scandal. He put up today at 5:30PM, per his timed blog post, another item that provided Links to his prior three posts on the NRO "story." He fails to note one major difference (among many) between the TNR and NRO situations. Nearly 5 months after issues are raised, TNR puts out these 14 pages of mush. Within hours of being apprised of potential problems with material posted on their blog, NRO issue this:
"We owe him and our readers better — we should have gotten you more context and information before a post or two went live. It's understandable how it happened — the nature of blogging being what it is — but given what an underreported tinderbox we're talking about, especially, we owed you more. We weren't blogging about Dancing with the Stars there."
Readers of TNR have yet to see even a tiny scintilla of such an apology for their demonstrated editorial and fact-checking deficiencies, not to mention outright lies.
Posted by: Terry at December 01, 2007 05:43 PM (d/RyS)
33
How can you say this clown didn't "justify his job"? A boring, oblique, logorrheic 7,000-word hedge that not one in a million outside the wonkosphere will bother to read or understand is a masterstroke! The guy is brilliant and deserves a raise.
Posted by: Dan Friedman at December 01, 2007 05:45 PM (h58qq)
34
Congratulations and a big well done to you, Bob.
Posted by: Sara at December 01, 2007 05:47 PM (QWlxD)
35
I was expecting Foer to conclude with, "And if it wasn't for you meddling milbloggers we would have gotten away with it too!" Fine, fine work, Bob!
BTW, we've have a screen capture of Franklin retracting his support for Beauchamp:
http://exurbanleague.com/2007/12/01/franklin-litella.aspx.
Posted by: Exurban Jon at December 01, 2007 05:54 PM (3GwKL)
36
Thanks again for all your work, Bob.
One thing that gets lost, after so long, and since so much hard work was required to drag this grudging admission from Foer, is that those folks, veterans mostly, who insisted from the get-go that the stories just didn't ring true, were not deluded, lying, fooling themselves, Pollyannish, or even partisan. They were, to put it simply, correct. They knew know more about our troops in Iraq, because they know more about our troops. And that so many knew so quickly, even before the indisputable case was so carefully made by Bob, shows how out-of-touch Foer & Co. were and are with what is really happening in Iraq, and how our military actually operates, and for that matter, what combat actually DOES do to change a person.
Posted by: notropis at December 01, 2007 06:12 PM (gmGTc)
37
Great job, Bob! And YES, TNR did used to have high standards and I wrote for them. But I have written for them in awhile and there's a reason.
Posted by: Michael Fumento at December 01, 2007 06:13 PM (YeBm1)
38
Yes, congrats. I re-linked your interview on the BFV in my take at Protein Wisdom.
Posted by: Karl at December 01, 2007 06:23 PM (MRuOu)
39
Agree with you, Dan Friedman. I slogged through the entire piece wondering when it would come to a conclusion stronger than, "DID NOT!".
I have been truly shocked at the depths to which some formerly decent and honorable (though mistaken) cultural/political opponents have sunk.
I will be in error someday

and this whole episode has further confirmed the essential character trait of humility. Please God, let me be right. But if I can't be right, let me be righteous.
Posted by: Trish at December 01, 2007 07:04 PM (7xtYi)
40
Thanks, Bob. You and Goldfarb did something that I couldn't, forced the people trying to besmirch the honor of the young men (and now women) wearing the uniforms that we used to wear.
Posted by: Peter at December 01, 2007 07:09 PM (AiJXe)
41
I think that my favorite part was his description of the conversation with Major John Cross: "Bradleys, he told us, unintentionally hit dogs. Indeed, dogs flock toward Bradleys. We weren't sure what to make of these statements." Um, yeah, ok -- Foer thinks that if he can prove that dogs really do get hit by motor vehicles (*gasp* who knew?!?) that this would bolster Beauchamp's credibility?
Posted by: cathyf at December 01, 2007 07:21 PM (fe6fb)
42
Good thing you weren't a porn star in a previous life.
Posted by: Patrick Carroll at December 01, 2007 08:02 PM (1NFF8)
43
In your earlier note (TNR's Last Stand?)
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/247672.php
you said
> Foer's story needs to include only three key elements to be successful, and without these three elements Franklin Foer's career and the integrity of The New Republic is shattered.
Big Fail on all 3. He mostly ignored the skull wearing. He tried to justify the Dog-killing Bradley stories by finding soldiers who said that a dog might have been run over. Big diff between a dog getting run over and a driver TARGETING dogs and killing many. (others have covered the mess hall incident)
Posted by: Arthur at December 01, 2007 09:11 PM (H4LjR)
44
Thank you for the link to TNR's 14 page pusillanimous explanation of why, through no fault of their own, they can no longer stand by the Beauchamp stories. They have obviously been a victim in this whole saga.
What a crock of BS they are trying to peddle. Time to grow up Franklin. You screwed up, other people didn't screw you.
Great job and persistence on this Bob.
Posted by: daleyrocks at December 01, 2007 10:04 PM (0pZel)
45
Daley, Daley, Daley... the core of the lefty worldview is that lefties are never wrong, it's always someone else's fault, thereby making them the innocent victims. This actually started before George W. Bush was elected, he just provided a convenient new bogeyman for their blame-seeking.
So, Foer is just doing what he's been taught to do through decades of being a lefty.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 10:33 PM (4g5mr)
46
Congratulations, Bob. This is as big a victory for you as it is for anyone else. You deserve a lot of credit for keeping the pressure on these guys and keeping us all informed.
I admit, I never thought I would see the day they...but your fortitude has been well rewarded!
Posted by: T.Ferg at December 01, 2007 10:49 PM (j64ME)
47
I read through a good portion of the piece. It reads like a sob story. Hey, he pulled the wool over my eyes too... don't fire me! It also looks like he is still trying the fake but accurate line in regards to what war does to ones sense of humor.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at December 01, 2007 10:57 PM (ON55K)
48
Franklin Foer mentioned you specifically, and not with what you could call fondness. Consider this a compliment of the highest order. Although with FF's lengthy self-justification fluffing up the article, you may have to excerpt it yourself and mail it to your mom.
Shorter FF: "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"
Posted by: Mitch at December 01, 2007 11:42 PM (rdGSr)
49
Where have I been? Just got caught up on the controversy regarding Smith's reporting at The Tank. So, I owe an apology to tachyon.
Whatever the discrepancies - appears to me Smith embellished a bit what he saw - I do not think them intentionally misleading but rather the anxious mind in a dangerous spot translating what the eyes saw reinforced by people he trusted.
That and the fact that Smith was describing the enemy he saw in possibly inflating terms (he appears to have seen a 'tip' and his sources and March 14 protectors described an 'iceberg' which he ran with), while Beauchamp and TNR were writing outright fabrications denigrating our own servicemen.
tachyon makes an important point about treating all sources with the same standards.
With these two examples, however, let's just not go crazy and suggest they are equal in scale and scope. It isn't even close.
Posted by: Steve Schippert at December 02, 2007 12:28 AM (dk6Rv)
50
With these two examples, however, let's just not go crazy and suggest they are equal in scale and scope. It isn't even close.
And we also see an example of how you should act when you've got a story with problems. You come out and correct it, and apologize where applicable. You don't attack the people who point out your failings.
Push the button, Frank.
Posted by: Pablo at December 02, 2007 05:09 AM (yTndK)
51
While it's nice to have closure...
Closure would be Foer in the unemployment line.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 02, 2007 08:03 AM (yaQ0s)
52
Congratulations Bob,
Your work on TNR and Foer should be used in Journalism schools as an example of what can happen to you in this age when you resort to using your paper/blog/show to deceive the public on what is really happening in the world.
As for Foer's 14 page manifesto, that was nothing but mental masturbation on his part - "I was lied to, and made bad decisions, but I'm speaking TRUTH TO POWER". If TNR's parent company has some balls, Foer would be cleaning out his desk today, and they would be closing up shop by the end of the month. Foer and Beauchamp can stand proudly next to Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Jayson Blair and the other "stalwarts of journalistic integrity" that have been pwned over the last couple of years.
Bob - you need to have some theme music. How about "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen?
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at December 02, 2007 10:17 AM (I6QiV)
53
Great work, Bob! I look forward to your upcoming contributions to the Thomas Smith scandal brewing at NRO!
Posted by: dogbot53 at December 02, 2007 02:43 PM (9I+0q)
54
Dogbot is a good name for you, since you're following the pre-programmed instructions coming from your lefty friends.
Mr. Smith, and Ms. Lopez, the editor, have done something Mr. Foer took 4 months to do: admitted error and apologized. Lopez did so here, Smith did so here.
Please read those two posts very carefully. That's how you take care of a published mistake, not the way Mr. Foer has been handling it.
In short, your feeble attempts to draw parallels between the two incidents is failing the logic test, not to mention the laugh test, miserably.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 03:52 PM (4g5mr)
55
I look forward to your upcoming contributions to the Thomas Smith scandal brewing at NRO!
Brewing? It's not brewing. Errors were made, acknowledged and corrected. Apologies to all were issued.
That's how it ought to be done. No one expects perfection. We do expect honesty.
Posted by: Pablo at December 02, 2007 05:56 PM (yTndK)
56
I look forward with real regret to the demise of the New Republic. It was a good magazine under Marty Peretz; although I usually disagreed with almost everything they wrote, I enjoyed it.
In Foer, they have sent a boy to do a man's job. I hope he joins the unemployment line soon.
Posted by: miriam at December 02, 2007 10:46 PM (Zp7CU)
57
14 pages of fairbanksing.
My comments at TNR are posted as 'Shooter' from Mr. Right. At least, I was the only person using that handle before making this comment here.
How on earth anybody can compare this to the National Review deal is beyond me. But, David Weigel at Reason hipped me to a point, that Smith's work is in question and he is still posting in "The Tank". I am not convinced that this is a valid point, especially since his posts since this came up have been about the Army/Navy game and comments on news articles.
Posted by: Guy Montag at December 04, 2007 06:52 AM (otDb3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rudy's Accountability Problem
I'm really not liking the way this sounds:
In the fall of 2001, city cops chauffeured Rudy Giuliani's then-mistress, Judith Nathan, to her parents' Pennsylvania home 130 miles away on the taxpayers' dime.
Records show that city cops refueled at an ExxonMobil station down the road from Nathan's childhood home in Hazleton on Oct. 20, 2001, while Giuliani stayed behind in New York attending 9/11 funerals.
A similar receipt pops up at a different Hazleton gas station two months later, when Nathan apparently went home for a pre-Christmas visit with her parents.
The records show that - in addition to using City Hall funds to take Giuliani and Nathan to 11 secret trysts in the Hamptons, as has been previously reported - taxpayers were paying to ferry Nathan on long-distance trips without Giuliani, now a Republican contender for President.
Rudy's flexible interpretation of his marital vows has always been a source of irritation to many conservatives, but if he has indeed used taxpayer funds inappropriately, then he may have trouble on the horizon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:25 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In a way, this makes Rudy look a little bit like Slick Willie.
I am not certain GOP primary voters are gonna like that, especially in places like Iowa or South Carolina (yes, I know, Iowa has caucuses... work with me, here).
This one may turn out to be the equivalent of the Dean Scream.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 01:41 PM (SoUge)
2
Wait, you mean...Clinton got a blowjob?
Posted by: dBa at December 01, 2007 03:17 PM (nM0Mp)
3
It's not his casual attitude towards his vows that turned me against him, it's his utter and undisguisable contempt for anyone who believes in the Second Amendment, or in the security of our borders... in other words, abot 75% of teh people he expects to vote for him.
This shows either Clintonian arrogance or total delusion.
Posted by: DaveP. at December 01, 2007 04:21 PM (VUpJX)
4
I sense a sinking feeling coming on for Rudy. His publicly-financed philandering, his lack of respect for the right to keep and bear arms, his 'sanctuary city' status...no, Rudy's not our guy.
Posted by: Jeffersonian at December 01, 2007 09:37 PM (Hn7lS)
5
"sense a sinking feeling coming on for Rudy. His publicly-financed philandering, his lack of respect for the right to keep and bear arms, his 'sanctuary city' status...no, Rudy's not our guy."
. . . and if that feeling turns out to be correct, you can have a much worse sinking feeling when Mrs. Clinton takes the podium on January 20th of 2009.
Posted by: evil Bee at December 01, 2007 09:56 PM (2Ll0+)
6
I've got news for you: If Rudy has a pro-illegal, anti-gun, pro-abortion albatross hung around his neck, it won't matter whom he runs against in the general election.
Posted by: Jeffersonian at December 01, 2007 10:12 PM (Hn7lS)
7
Evil Bee, similar predictions were made about Howard Dean crushing Dubya in 2004.
In short, it's too darned early to determine who's gonna be the winner. And early prognosticators frequently end up dining on crow.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 11:28 PM (4g5mr)
8
130 miles? Oh. The horror...
Posted by: peter jackson at December 02, 2007 12:39 AM (LQEWm)
9
I agree with DaveP and also point out that those who support Rudy because they think he can beat Hillary could be sadly disappointed when the Clinton Machine fine tunes its dirt digging and puts it into slow release mode to destroy Rudy.
Hillary, of course, has her share of dirt but the media will try to cover it up whereas it will provide plenty of eager assistance to the Clinton Machine to destroy Rudy.
If Rudy is the R candidate with the most potential for destruction it would be folly for the R's to nominate him.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at December 02, 2007 11:34 AM (5BaSP)
10
This is prety much the last straw for me to consider supporting Giuliani for Prez. His principles are too flexible to his needs and wants for me to need or want him in the White House.
My list has been narrowed.
Posted by: Dusty at December 02, 2007 03:04 PM (1Lzs1)
11
Oh, God forbid that the party of Mark Foley and Larry Craig nominate a presidential candidate who bangs women!
Good grief, we've become a party of twisted prudes.
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 03:37 PM (sCr4S)
12
It's not that he "bangs women," Paul, it's that his mistress--while he is still married, by the way--is traveling at the taxpayer's expense. And it's not just the gas, it's the wages for the city employees, the wear and tear on the vehicles, etc.
Chalk up one incomplete spin. But I am sure you'll spin, spin again.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 03:55 PM (4g5mr)
13
Ah, wear and tear on city vehicles secondary to shuttling the mayor's mistress: Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is an issue of great moment, and one on which the future of the Republic should turn. Praise God!
In 2008, we're going to get out butts handed to us across the board. We're going to lose the White House, as well as seats in the House and Senate. And we deserve it. We've shown ourselves to be a small, sad party, unsuited to the governance of a great Nation.
But you know, when Hillary is making appointments to the Supreme Court, we shall console ourselves in the knowledge that we saved on gas! After all, it's the little touches that make all the difference, don't you think?
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 06:10 PM (sCr4S)
14
Not that it isn't obvious by your commentary, Paul, but you should perhaps disclose that you're actively campaigning for Giuliani on your blog.
Perhaps I'm not of the win-at-all-costs mindset, but I'd rather lose with an honorable candidate than win with a dishonorable one. For the record, I'm not sure Rudy is dishonorable, I'm just stating he has some explaining to do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 02, 2007 06:56 PM (HcgFD)
15
Paul, lemme ask you a question in the interest of full disclosure:
What would your reaction be if the word "Giuliani" in the article above was replaced with "Romney"?
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 07:36 PM (4g5mr)
16
By the way, since I am asking for full disclosure from Paul, I will offer it myself:
It matters not to me if the person involved in this is named Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Thompson--who, full disclosure again, I am supporting.
Wrong is wrong, and to excuse something that is wrong because your preferred candidate did it is the way of the Party of the Donkey, not the way of the Party of the Elephant.
It's the Clintons who have perfected the art of "it's wrong when you do it but not when we do it," and I refuse to do that for my favored candidate(s).
Maybe I just have higher standards, tho.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 08:04 PM (4g5mr)
17
Not that it isn't obvious by your commentary, Paul, but you should perhaps disclose that you're actively campaigning for Giuliani on your blog.
Fair enough. Indeed I did think my choice of candidate was obvious from my commentary, and I supplied the link to my blog, which is presumably how you found it. But as you correctly note, I support Giuliani. I'm also a contributor to his campaign.
What would your reaction be if the word "Giuliani" in the article above was replaced with "Romney"?
Well, I am a partisan, so I can't say with moral certainty how I might react if you substituted Giuliani with Romney -- or with Clinton or Edwards. But I sure as heck know how I should react.
Look, we have big stuff to contend with: fiscal practices that are deeply irresponsible and unsustainable; Islamo-Nazis who want to kill us and end our way of life; Democrats who want to socialize the healthcare system; and a Supreme Court that's likely to face two or more vacancies in the next four years.
These are the sorts of issues that we ought to be thinking about, and debating on the merits. This other stuff -- Romney's religion, Giuliani's women, John Edwards' hair -- is petty crap. I don't know that America has ever been in a position to deal in petty crap. But she's most certainly not in a position to do so today.
Is Rudy Giuliani naughty? He is. Is Mitt Romney synthetic? He is. Is Ron Paul a loon? He is. It's true, all of it. And I don't care. I don't think we can afford to care. Fifty years from now, nobody will remember who Rudy was putting the blocks to, or whether Mitt was a Mormon. But they may well remember, for good or ill, the policies pursued by America's 44th president.
My beef isn't with people who don't support my candidate. My beef is with our corporate inability as Republicans to rise above the small and petty. Is it because we have nothing big and important to say?
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 10:12 PM (sCr4S)
18
If I might add one other thing, partly -- but only partly -- tongue in cheek:
It's not that he "bangs women," Paul, it's that his mistress--while he is still married, by the way--is traveling at the taxpayer's expense.
Oh, of course it's about the bang. These tempests are always about the bang. Human beings are endlessly absorbed with each another's sexual behavior. We're like dogs in heat. We all gather around the moment we catch the scent.
Do you honestly think we'd have a story here had Rudy passed off the security costs for hauling around his grandma? Please.
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 10:50 PM (sCr4S)
19
His grandma would be a member of his family and, thus, entitled to city employee protection. His mistress wasn't when he was still married to someone else... now that she is his wife, she is entitled to protection.
And I can only speak for myself, but personally I'd be just as pissed if it was Huckabee having taxpayers pay for driving his Sunday School teacher to church.
The bottom line, Giuliani is trying to make big claims about his tax cuts (which, by the way, have been proven to be incorrect), thus trying to place himself as a fiscal conservative, and this story flies in the face of that.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 10:57 PM (4g5mr)
20
I wish someone would write a story of which other mayors, spouses and children get polic protection. A few years ago, I noticed Rudy and Kerik were always travelling with beefy bodyguards, even when they were out of office and running his consulting business. I thought they liked the image of power it conveyed, telling the world they were important people - move out of our way. They were both too full of themselves and now we witness the illegal choices they made in their pursuit of power.
Posted by: ann at December 03, 2007 12:21 AM (t9wG9)
21
Ann, were the people city cops, or a private security firm?
Anyone with the balls and the dollars can hire a private security firm to provide muscle.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 03, 2007 12:26 AM (4g5mr)
22
Hmmmm.
I've stated many times before, on this and other blogs, that Guiliani is a flake and that if he is the nominee that there will be problems.
IMO this is just the extreme tip of the iceberg.
Rudy Guiliani is vastly more flaky than this.
Posted by: memomachine at December 03, 2007 10:30 AM (3pvQO)
23
Where'd Paul the Giuliani shill go?
Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 08:15 PM (SoUge)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Media Account Disputed
Hala Jaber's American-backed killer militias strut across Iraq has been challenged by an American soldier on the ground.
1LT Brendan Griswold, 1-5 CAV in Ameriyah writes:
I do not know how long Ms. Hala Jaber's trip to Ameriya lasted or where exactly she visited inside the city, but the events that she describes in her recent article ("American-backed killer militias strut across Iraq," November 25), totally contradict the progress I have personally witnessed in the past 13 months here in Ameriya.
I have spent the last 13 months as a Platoon Leader in the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, stationed in western Baghdad and responsible for securing the population of Ameriya—a Sunni dominant and once-upscale portion of the Iraqi capital. My time here has allowed me to become close to many of the citizens inside Ameriya who live in my various areas of responsibility. Having been fortunate enough to remain in one area throughout my deployment, the relationships I have formed with many of the local citizens have allowed me to become very aware of what exactly they have been through, as well as the opportunity to celebrate with them—literally—the peace that has returned to this once violent area.
When 1-5 CAV first arrived in Ameriya in 2006, innocent Iraqis lying dead on the street were a daily reminder of the sectarian violence that was engulfing Baghdad. Attacks against American and Iraqi Army patrols were a daily occurrence—as the deaths of 14 of my comrades can attest to. The markets were often deserted, locals refused to talk to American or Iraqi forces in public; the people were terrified.
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, a determined force of al Qaeda in Iraq fighters entered Ameriya and began to terrorize the population. The process was slow, but eventually it became clear that al Qaeda was enforcing their extremist ideologies on the population. Ultimately, they publicly declared Ameriya as their capital. Government buildings were being blown-up. Women were being murdered. We were in a daily fight for each city-block in our area, and there seemed little end in sight to the daily conflict. Ameriya, as one of my experienced Soldiers proclaimed at the time, had quickly become "the next Falluja." We did not, however, approach the situation in Ameriya as American forces had done with cities like Falluja.
Then, in late May, several dozen or so local citizens came forward and announced that they were going to fight the al Qaeda elements in Ameriya. My battalion, along with these local volunteers, established a base of operations at one of the local mosques and we began to target al Qaeda in the surrounding muhullahs. I remember spending long days and late nights at the mosque, working with these local citizens—most of whom had lived in Ameriya all of their lives—gathering intelligence from them, planning operations, and then moving out together and trying to capture al Qaeda fighters. One week's worth of operations with these local citizens yielded more results (multiple caches, detainees, etc.) for my platoon then the previous 7 months combined. Put quite simply, we began to see progress.
Since May, 1-5 CAV and the 2/1/6 Iraqi Army have worked with these local volunteers and helped to transform them from a few dozen local volunteers to what is now a legitimate contracted security force called the "Forsan al Rafidayn,"—"Knights of the Two Rivers," in English—or "FAR" as we Yankees call them. They are currently placed in various locations throughout Ameriya and are responsible for conducting policing operations and gathering intelligence. I have not witnessed any FAR members wearing masks in months. They are very effective, as Ameriya has not had an IED attack since August 7th and no type of effective small arms attack in an even longer time. Shi'ites who fled more than a year ago are returning in large numbers—often, with the FAR's help.
Ms. Jaber's assertion that some of the FAR had "been aligned with al Qaeda" is correct, however, to make this statement while further implying they have "created a virtual enclave" in Ameriya is to suggest that the members of the FAR continue to practice and advance al Qaeda's insurgent and ethno-sectarian agenda. The truth is that, like in every successful counter-insurgency, the citizens of Ameriya, and yes even some of the terrorists, decided they had enough of the violence and that it was time to work with, instead of against, Coalition Forces. While many people, including myself and most of my Soldiers, were at first apprehensive about working with these forces, we eventually realized that what occurred is what we had hoped for the entire time—the people grew tired of the violence and wanted to help the security forces rid the area of the enemy.
In her article, Ms. Jaber describes a visit to a local school with members of the FAR, where they "slapped" and "kicked" local students for having "un-Islamic ringtones" on their cell phones. I do not know which school Ms. Jaber went to (and I doubt she could recall the name of the school, or the name of the FAR member who committed the alleged offense), but from the experiences I have had conducting hundreds of patrols with the FAR, I can tell you that the likelihood of this happening is small, and, if it did, then it was the exception and certainly not the rule.
The FAR are not perfect, but neither is any security organization. When a complaint is received against a member of the FAR, a U.S. Army officer, as well as a member of the FAR, both conduct independent investigations. My Battalion Commander possesses the authority to terminate any member of the FAR who violates their signed-contract that bars them from participating in criminal acts. To date, several FAR members have been fired as a result of their misconduct, the majority of which have been done so not by U.S. officers, but by the members of the FAR themselves. They are policing their own ranks more each day.
Furthermore, Ms. Jaber’s "tag-a-long" imbedded journey through the streets of Ameriya—that lasted a very short time—was obviously predicated on a pessimistic agenda regarding the overall situation in Iraq. While she did in fact run into a young non-commissioned officer of the battalion eating a falafel on the main street in Ameriya—an event that simply could not have occurred six months ago—she also met the Battalion's Executive Officer, who at the time was escorting several other journalists on a dismounted patrol through Ameriya. Ms. Jaber was asked at that time if she wished to meet the leaders of 1-5 CAV, 2/1/6 IA, or the FAR in order to gain an understanding of how these security officials view the situation in Ameriya. Replying in the negative, she opted instead for an escort around Ameriya by several young members of the FAR, who, while committed to protecting the local population, are young, energetic, and eager to display their bravado to all who will pay attention. Ms. Jaber has been contacted by 1-5 CAV since her visit to Ameriya and continues to decline an opportunity to hear a different side of the story of Ameriya.
I invite Ms. Jaber to return to Ameriya. If she does, I will personally introduce her to some of my Iraqi friends who lived through the sectarian violence, the invasion of al Qaeda, and what will hopefully become, as the locals have begun to call it, "the re-birth of Ameriya."
Which account you find more credible, of course, may depend on your own biases.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:43 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Given that Lt. Griswold's account can almost certainly be corroborated by other members of his unit, the chain of command, and the paper trail (while never serving in the military, I am certain that they keep copies of written or electronic communication with reporters); and never having fallen prey to the lefty stereotype of our soldiers being one step above (or perhaps one step below) a Neanderthal, thereby considering Lt. Griswold to be aware of the paper trail and other factors... I'll put my money on the Lieutenant.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 01:08 PM (SoUge)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 30, 2007
Hillary's Campaign Is Under Hostage, and I Don't Care
A man with a device strapped to his chest that he claims is a bomb has released two hostages he took at a Hillary Clinton campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire. Details from local television station WMUR:
An armed man took hostages at the office on 28 North Main St. Friday afternoon, and officials with the campaign said that there were two workers taken hostage in the office, but police have not confirmed that those were the only two hostages in the building.
The two hostages were released at about 3 p.m.
Clinton, who is not in New Hampshire, canceled a National Democratic Committee meeting in Virginia.
A woman and her baby told workers at a neighboring business that she was released by the hostage-taker.
"A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, 'You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape,'" witness Lettie Tzizik said.
Witnesses described the man as in his 40s with salt-and-pepper hair. There are several police officers in the area with guns drawn.
Actually, I
do care about the people held hostage (since released) and hope that the person with the alleged bomb surrenders peaceably, but what I don't care to do is start speculating about motives or allegiances when so little is known.
Others have rushed to judgment and made some quite stupid comments, such as calling the hostage taker a "
suicide bomber" (and yes, those on the
right did it too).
Just to point out the obvious, suicide bombers don't generally take hostages. Their goal is not to talk, or negotiate, or make a point, but to turn their bodies into a weapons delivery platform, killing as many people as possible without advance warning.
This also goes from those bloggers and commenters who immediately determined that the hostage taker
must belong to political ideology "X" because... well, just because.
We don't always happen to rush to publish just to get
something out there, folks. Sometimes just shutting up and waiting is the best thing to do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:27 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As your hero would say in this situation, "sic semper tyrannis!"
Posted by: Ari Lee at November 30, 2007 05:45 PM (+TKGF)
2
And liberals will blame it on the VAST RIGHTWING CONSRERACY
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at November 30, 2007 06:38 PM (4yJRe)
3
While we're at it, what happened to those editors?
"A woman and her baby told workers...."
Which part did the baby tell them?
NED
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at November 30, 2007 07:07 PM (DtQzz)
4
My prayers are with all the hostages--even though they're Hillary staffers--and the gunman's family, not to mention the gunman himself who seems to need professional help.
Why do I have "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" running through my mind, tho?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 30, 2007 07:49 PM (SoUge)
5
I waded into the swamps over at Daily Kos, and their commenters were already insisting that the guy had to be a right winger... He had to be I tell you! People need to just take it easy and wait for the facts.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at November 30, 2007 07:52 PM (ON55K)
6
Jim, a Kossack wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it came with an instruction manual.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 30, 2007 09:34 PM (SoUge)
7
I disagree, CCG. Any Kossack worth their slant would be able to take any fact, re-write the instruction manual, and them blame it all on GW.

Posted by: Mark at December 01, 2007 02:46 AM (P8ylB)
8
What is funny is that from what I heard first, a male staffer/volunteer was in there with two women. Bomb guy comes in, and showing the true colors of a liberal male, the male volunteer runs out screaming like a little girl, leaving these women and an infant inside to deal with this guy.
Posted by: Smarty at December 01, 2007 10:10 AM (Xvcah)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No Heart of Darkness
Perhaps due to all the words of praise over the Fred Thompson War on Terror Conversation, Pajamas Media has brought me on to write a weekly "column" the first of which is posted today.
I put the word column in quotes because we--Pajamas and I--are hoping to use this as a chance to post original reporting as much or more so than the opinion pieces normally associated with the term "column."
Without further adieu (or
Freddy Adu), here's my first post as a "regular" at Pajamas Media,
No Heart of Darkness: An Ex-Sunni Insurgent Becomes US Ally.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:13 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Kudos and congratulations CY. Yours has always been one of my favorite places on the right side of the blogosphere. Im happy to see you've truly hit the big time -- PJ has one of the biggest megaphones out there. And you've certainly earned it, especially by leading the charge to hold TNR responsible for the bold-faced Beauchamp lies and obfuscations.
Now, I'll head over that way to read your first contribution.
Posted by: mrbitterness at November 30, 2007 03:01 PM (fApeO)
2
It's a good piece, CY. Just the right touch of scorn armed with facts

Posted by: Mark at December 01, 2007 02:34 AM (P8ylB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 29, 2007
Debate Plant?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:27 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmmmm.
What I found astonishing was how hard hitting the questions were last night vs the ridiculously soft questions given to Hillary et al.
Posted by: memomachine at November 29, 2007 10:37 AM (3pvQO)
2
Hmmmm.
There is something weird with the blog comment filter. It's rejecting something completely innocent.
What's amusing is that I cannot post it for review by others.
Posted by: memomachine at November 29, 2007 10:39 AM (3pvQO)
3
The filter has been rejecting perfectly innocuous stuff for some weeks now.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2007 05:40 PM (yaQ0s)
4
It appears that the kid who asked about believing every word of the Bible is a big time Twoofer: http://www.myspace- dot - com/calciumboy
Posted by: William Teach at November 29, 2007 07:22 PM (NaHh8)
5
Yeah, I share a spam filter with the rest of mu.nu/ and some knuckleheads have been marking some pretty odd spam.
Shoot me an email when you've got something odd.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 29, 2007 07:22 PM (HcgFD)
6
Too bad C-N-N doesn't have a spam filter. Maybe some of those questioners would have been caught by it.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 29, 2007 08:43 PM (SoUge)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 28, 2007
A "Tepid" Riot
Terribly Enraged People of Indeterminate Descent (Tepids) have raged through France for the third night now.
Sustaining in excess of more than 80 injuries thus far, including more than 30 officers shot, French police are probably wishing they were somewhere relatively safer right now. Like Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, Tikrit...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:17 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I guess buttered croissants and vigorous diplomacy didn't work eh? Live bullets and a shoot to kill order may be more persuasive.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 28, 2007 08:00 AM (yaQ0s)
2
Fortunately France has a new president now - someone who isn't all soft and/or pro-Islam (anti-American) like Chirac was. It remains to be seen if he has enough muscle to turn the country around, though. At least he calls the looters and arsonists by their real name, not referring to them as "victims" or something.
Posted by: European at November 28, 2007 09:25 AM (RkwYf)
3
TEPIDS?...oh boy thats like undocmentated immigrants in the USA...
sheesh
it just keeps get'n better and better
Posted by: wally at November 28, 2007 09:34 AM (NRriT)
4
I suspect that this is Sarkozy's "Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers" moment.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 28, 2007 09:45 AM (/7bRF)
5
Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, Tikrit...
Those folks are now safer than residents of Philly or Washington, DC. But then the Iraqis have seen what can happen when elected leaders are unable to guarantee safety and have taken on the responsibility themselves, including cooperation with law enforcement. That anti-snitch campaign just never caught on in Iraq -- even at the risk of beheading.
Posted by: capitano at November 28, 2007 09:49 AM (+NO33)
6
I for one am sick and tired of these social misfits!! Round up the SOB's and send them
back to their home land and if they don't want
to go drown their sorry A** in pork fat!!!
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at November 28, 2007 11:20 AM (L4HGI)
7
HERE WE GO AGAIN, with Europe drifting towards a major crisis. The same stages have recurred several times in the last century.
They are, (1) Strive for political equanimity, if necessary through avoidance and denial of reality, (2) Deplore radicalism of any kind, and blame all problems on extremists, (3) Demand conformity within all political action, in spite of clear evidence of huge heterogeneity of opinions among the European populace, (4) Respond to first outbreaks of violence by ignoring it [and return to stage 2]. (5) Repeat the loop of stages 2, 3, & 4 indefinitely, until, (6) The population undertakes to solve the problem by its own hand, meeting violence with violence, (7) Publicly deplore the violence, and return to stage 2, (

Preside over street warfare, clucking one's tongue, keeping the army in barracks, while police are openly murdered, (9) Then the crowds storm the seats of government, (10) But you can demand that the US should step in and resolve the situation, while you, (11) Abdicate and run for your life, and (12) Flee abroad and write your memoirs, absolving yourself of any wrongdoing and blaming the Americans.
THIS ISN'T FUNNY (well, a little). In the 20th Century, these stages were replicated in Poland, Weimar Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, and many other places, often several times within the century.
These stages gave rise to Franco-ism [Spain], Nazi-ism, Fascism [Portugal, Italy, Greece], and Communism [everywhere in Europe at some level]. Dissent was ignored until it became civil strife and/or civil war, and a coup d’etat followed. The usurpers took power with a ruthless hand and suppressed dissent by violence. Tens of millions of Europeans died, while their leaders ‘wrung their hands’, then ran for their lives.
These stages are in progress NOW in France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, even Norway. For example, see the European website ‘Islamic Evil.’
The average European has started to hate Muslims, and these feelings are rapidly growing worse. The key problem is that European rulers usually ignore and deny dissent and civil strife until the streets become a war zone.
By then, hand-wringing does no good and the army has usually become riven by its own internal dissent. In this condition of paralysis, the state falls.
Canada has spent decades trying to teach peacekeeping, and it’s clear that the French didn’t attend class. Sarkozy needs to call out his army – now. It is vital to out-gun the rioters with muscular equipment, because it is the only way to quell the violence without excessive loss of life. The police are simply too easy to kill, and the rioters have begun to relish the challenge.
If the rioting continues the public backlash will start, and it’s not just French Muslims who own hunting weapons. Shotguns loaded with slugs are very lethal indeed.
It is not Muslim extremism I fear in Europe at this point. It is incompetent politicians who will sit idly by while general populations begin to violently purge Muslims from their home countries. This has already begun in Italy. Local communities have begun to force ‘Gypsy’ populations out of communities and districts, even though such action is illegal according to EU law. In Italy, ‘Gypsy’ is often a code-word for Moroccan.
Has everyone forgotten? When Italians or Germans get MAD, THEY GET REALLY MAD.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 28, 2007 04:36 PM (egEBQ)
8
When Italians or Germans get MAD, THEY GET REALLY MAD
The French are no slouches here either. It wasn't all that long ago that they completely destroyed the whole air force of the Ivory Coast in a fit of pique.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 28, 2007 08:17 PM (yaQ0s)
9
How did they get guns to shoot at the cops? I thought the great European gun control laws prevented people from dying.
Posted by: mekan at November 28, 2007 09:22 PM (mzFPd)
10
Mekan, George W. Bush personally sold them the guns. He sold each and every gun to each and every rioter, and even included a free "How to riot" pamphlet with each gun.
Didn't you know that every single Bad Thing in the world can be laid at the feet of George W. Bush?
/sarc off
Posted by: C-C-G at November 28, 2007 09:37 PM (/7bRF)
11
Bush only sold them guns because there are no levees to detonate near Paris.
Posted by: Zhombre at November 28, 2007 10:51 PM (Hd50E)
12
You might find this site interesting
http://en.fdesouche.com/
I'm french and i know that our situation is quite difficult.I am not optimistic but if the situation goes to civil war, as it is always the case with islamisation, i am sure that the Us or Australia governements will be happy to wellcome thousands of hight qualified doctors, engineers...
This has been wrote in 2003 or 04 in a CIA report concerning the future of Europe.
My family has allready choose to settle in Seatle. Good choice ? :-)
Best regards to my future "compatriotes" ! ;-)
Posted by: brittany at November 29, 2007 09:01 AM (lP5Ng)
13
Brittany, the civil war has been called off.
Perhaps you are not aware yet, but Ayatolla Ali Sistani, the leader of the Shia Muslims in Iraq, has declared a ban on killing any, I say again, ANY Iraqi, regardless of religion.
Sorry to spoil your talking points. Have some Evian water and maybe you'll forget about it.
Good day, I said, good day, ma'am.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 29, 2007 09:46 AM (/7bRF)
14
OOOOOOOOOOOOPS!
I just realized, Brittany was talking about a French civil war, not an Iraqi civil war.
That's what I get for trying to comment before my morning caffeine.
I regret and apologize for my error.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 29, 2007 10:01 AM (/7bRF)
15
No problem CCG, i prepare my own coffee with Evian :-)
BR
Britt
Posted by: brittany at November 30, 2007 03:57 AM (lP5Ng)
16
My family has allready choose to settle in Seatle. Good choice ? :-)
I like it, altho it is kind of gray and wet from October to April. And real estate around here is kinda expensive. ;-)
Posted by: rosignol at November 30, 2007 07:26 PM (jpBGs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 27, 2007
TNR's Last Stand?
1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, rotated out of Iraqi several weeks ago to their home base in Schweinfurt, Germany. This included noted fabulist Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Whether Beauchamp is still in Germany or has been allowed home on leave is rather irrelevant; he matters quite little now that he has established that he will not support his dark fantasies on the record.
What does matter is that Franklin Foer and
The New Republic have lost yet another excuse in their continued failure to account for the actions of the magazine's editors since "Shock Troops" was
first questioned July 18, over four months ago. Now that Beauchamp is out of the war zone and back in western civilization, Foer is unable to claim that he military is muzzling his communication or that of his fellow soldiers.
Rumor has it that Franklin Foer is presently attempting to pen his final justification of the story, and that it will be published in a December editor of the magazine.
Foer's story needs to include only three key elements to be successful, and without these three elements Franklin Foer's career and the integrity of
The New Republic is shattered.
Names.
What is the name of the fabled woman with the melted face? What was the name of the other soldier in the chow hall that participated in this alleged verbal assault along with Beauchamp against this woman? What is the name of the soldier that wore a fragmented child's skull on his head? What was the name of the Bradley IFV driver who ran over three dogs in one mission?
Will Scott Thomas Beauchamp stand behind his stories on the record, or not?
Dates.
How does the magazine justify standing behind the central theme of "Shock Troops"—that war made the author into a horrible person—when
the magazine itself now claims that the alleged verbal attack took place before the author ever entered combat?
Why has it taken so long for the magazine to mount a defense for an article that the editor claims was fact-checked prior to publication?
Places.
Where is the "Saddam-era dumping ground" filled with, "All children's bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades"?
It All Comes Down to This.
Does
The New Republic have the solid factual evidence to support these stories?
Did the editors of
The New Republic act unethically by burying collected testimony, deceiving their readers, misleading and hiding expert witnesses, and falsely attacking the military as it conducted a formal investigation?
Franklin Foer's next article on the "Shock Troops" scandal needs to contain names, places, dates, and unimpeachable justifications for unethical behavior that have been sorely lacking in the nearly five months up until this point. If he cannot provide these details, this next article in
The New Republic should be his last.
I'm sure
TNR's few remaining advertisers will be watching.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:08 AM
| Comments (71)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Does The New Republic have the solid factual evidence to support these stories?
You already know the answer is "no."
However, I do believe they will throw up the mother of all smokescreens to obscure this inconvenient truth.
Hell, Rather is still maintaining those Microsoft Word documents are from a 1970s-era National Guard typewriter.
Posted by: Hoystory at November 27, 2007 01:36 AM (RClOg)
2
Of course, the TNR can claim that the military is muzzling Beauchamp, just as they can continue to claim that his stories check out.
You're making the mistake of looking at this in some sort of silly fact driven perspective, where 'facts' are established according to objective criteria established by neutral unbiased observers and not, as is the case here, merely subjective and subject to bias and slant and the degree to which they support one's storyline.
The TNR knows they did nothing wrong, their subscribers know they did nothing wrong and all of your efforts at trying to hold them to some antiquated journalistic standards is nothing more than another example of the right trying to stifle the voices of those who speak truth to power.
As Clinton so infamously (sort of) put it, 'it all depends of what the meaning of 'is' is". And to the TNR, 'is' means they're right and you're wrong.
Posted by: steve sturm at November 27, 2007 08:18 AM (sWhRW)
3
Well, it appears that they have convinced some. Andrew Sullivan stands four square behind them he tells any and all that will listen. Apparently, in his view, this whole episode has merely been the result of the right wing attack machine trying to destroy the credibility of the reality-based community of which TNR is now a part.
Posted by: Terry at November 27, 2007 08:40 AM (d/RyS)
4
Foer's only defense is that the articles were "mislabeled" as "non-fiction".
Trying to pass these articles as anything other than fiction is a non-starter.
Posted by: Neo at November 27, 2007 09:39 AM (Yozw9)
5
And the so-called "reality based community" once again demonstrates beyond all doubt that they are really based in fantasy... Scott Beauchamp's fantasies, to be specific.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 27, 2007 09:41 AM (/7bRF)
6
Fake but accurate. Kinda hard to reason with people that are willing to lie about you in order to "win" politically even if you have the facts on your side. I say just give it up and let them and their idiotic readers continue to believe this dribble because obviously they want to so bad. It is like this time I met some douchebag from Sanfran, who when he found out I had been to Iraq asked me if I killed some Iraqi civilians or kids. Funny thing was he was being serious. Instead of punching this idiot in the face (which I should have done) I started acting like I had one accident killed a kid and was horribly upset and had to leave right then because it upset me so much. I did a pretty good acting job if I may say so. I mean the guy wanted to believe we are all murderers, killers, and immoral SOB's so bad why ruin his fantasy. I mean it would have been like telling a little kid there is no Santa Claus. These same people rant against "Corporations", and think about a bunch of white guys in suits that smoke cigars, think about "soldiers" and imagine the evil crew from the movie Platoon. These people honestly live in a fantasy world of their own creation so why ruin it.
Posted by: LiveFromFortLivingRoom at November 27, 2007 09:44 AM (KVxIB)
7
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Posted by: Brian Jones at November 27, 2007 09:44 AM (NEBeL)
8
"...Franklin Foer is presently attempting to pen his final justification of the story..."
It sounds as if Foer is being given the same preferential treatment that Nebraska's football Coach Callahan received: e.g. as long as you don't have a losing season, you're back next year. Of course, TNR's CanWest owners may just be holding Foer out to get closure and then pull the trigger. Either way, Foer's not capable of winning journalism, cursed with both a basic lack of competence and lacking comprehension of news reporting ethics.
I am particularly surprised that CanWest wishes to push what will ultimately be the termination of much of TNR editorial staff and management into Q1/08, given what they're set up for in their financials. Turn-around, if it is possible at this terminally broken publication, will take considerable time.
Unless 08 is supposed to be a banner blood-letting for CanWest with a large write-off, I'd expect they'd want to get control of this property before it spirals further downward. The reputational damage TNR has suffered alone is significant and in an era of dying dead-tree publications, foolish.
Posted by: redherkey at November 27, 2007 09:49 AM (kjqFg)
9
I knew I'd heard that skull-as-a-hat thing before.
The from the quotes from movie Con Air:
Garland Greene: One girl, I drove through three states wearing her head as a hat.
Posted by: htom at November 27, 2007 10:05 AM (XK5dj)
10
Geez, guys, so far many of your comments seem to suggest we've given up the fight. While I do think it's unrealistic of CY to expect journalistic integrity from TNR, I think we still have to man the barricades, and at least TRY to continue exposing the bogus "reporting" that has become so rampant in recent years. Sooner or later, if enough people stand firm, critical mass will be reached. Don't believe me? Just ask Hollywood how those new anti-war, anti-America films are doing at the box office.
Posted by: Arthur at November 27, 2007 10:06 AM (+swHL)
11
LiveFromFortLivingRoom: Thank you for your service.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 27, 2007 10:08 AM (/7bRF)
12
Isn't names, dates, & places journalism 101?
Posted by: Barry Dauphin at November 27, 2007 10:21 AM (1/t9A)
13
Not anymore Barry. Journalism 101 is the class on how to deny having a political affiliation while still being to the left on every important social and economic issue of the day. The class is an in depth look at how politics can be denied in journalism but still pushed without being "caught". This class is very hard I heard, I mean obviously it is this Franklin Foer guy and Beachump were caught red handed so obviously they failed that class.
Posted by: LiveFromFortLivingRoom at November 27, 2007 10:45 AM (KVxIB)
14
I have a slightly different slant. TNR used to be an exemplary magazine (and still is in its cultural commentary and criticism). Then Stephan Glass deceived editors who had become sloppy. OK--that's sort of forgiveable, once. But Beauchamp is different--here the editor conspired with the fabulist to distribute propaganda that "fit the narrative." As a reader, my only recourse was to cancel my subscription and lose my favorite film and art criticism. What strikes me is that in the age of internet communication, interactivity, networks, and data-mining, no one at TNR was even the slightest bit curious WHY I was cancelling my subscription. I mean, after 30 years, wouldn't you want to KNOW?
Posted by: Dave Clemens at November 27, 2007 10:56 AM (kbTKa)
15
Jay, HILARIOUS!! and so true. LOL.
Posted by: Maggie45 at November 27, 2007 10:57 AM (Hwc4Q)
16
I'm afraid that Foer will get his way--which is to throw up a smoke screen and delay until the MSM lose interest. This, actually, has already happened. It is up to the blogosphere to keep it open. But do not expect any mea culpa from TNR. They do not dare admit to being flummoxed by another Stephen Glass. I suspect now that Foer et. al. are hoping (if not ensuring)that Beauchamp continues to keep his trap shut.
Posted by: M.A. George at November 27, 2007 11:05 AM (kYfdk)
17
The alleged baby skull incident has been mentioned again. I have seen babies. I have seen adult males. I have seen adult males wearing hats, from yarmulkes to sombreros. I have noted the difference in size between a baby's head and that of an adult male.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how a man can wear a baby's skull as a hat.
Maybe this question has been hashed over elsewhere but please, am I missing something?
Posted by: Person of Choler at November 27, 2007 11:27 AM (CGQKO)
18
New caption for this photo:
"Archaeologists on the site of 'TNR's Last Stand' examining the remains of Franklin Foer's career."
http://www.emill.com/connorconsulting/images/image003.jpg
Posted by: MarkJ at November 27, 2007 11:28 AM (ZFVlP)
19
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/27/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...
Posted by: David M at November 27, 2007 11:33 AM (gIAM9)
20
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
STFU Brian, you're out of your element...
Posted by: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater at November 27, 2007 11:36 AM (pSfMO)
21
You are far too optimistic about the outcome. Here's my prediction:
* Foer will issue some weasel-worded statement to the tune of "We have not been given any information to change our original assessment of the story. The U.S. military continues to stonewall on releasing the results of its investigation, and Beauchamp is not free to speak." Foer will keep his job. The departure of lower-ranked TNR employees will not be mentioned.
* Beauchamp will continue his "no comment" policy, and will more or less keep his nose clean while in the Army.
* At some point in the future, Beauchamp will receive an honorable discharge. When he is beyond the Army's reach, he will loudly proclaim that his stories were true, dammit, and that he was being coerced by evil superior officers to keep silent.
* Vast numbers of left-wing true believers will take up his cause, and he will become yet another hero who Speaks Truth to Power. The media will report his drivel without criticism; if they mention the controversy over the TNR articles' veracity at all they will attribute it to "an attack squad of far-right-wing bloggers." Beauchamp will write a book and an op-ed piece for Newsweek.
Just you wait ...
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at November 27, 2007 11:38 AM (qmdN5)
22
Does The New Republic have the solid factual evidence to support these stories?If they had we would have heard it four months ago, loud and clear, so "No".
As for this all being a smoke screen to cover them until the MSM loses interest, when did the MSM have any interest? If it weren't for the good work by CY et al. this would have been forgotten long ago. And you better believe they'll remember you for this.
"Journalistic integrity" is becoming just another oxymoron, which happened about the time that Journalism 101 became subtitled 'Making a Difference in the World'.
Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 27, 2007 11:59 AM (/g9ir)
23
There is no end to the excuse that "the Army is muzzling and/or intimidating Beauchamp." Anyone willing to believe that excuse already believes all the other BS Hollywood military clicés: the military are a bunch of mind-numb kill robots; the military will lie and kill anyone to cover up its mistakes; the military is a monolithic organization that controls every facet of its members' lives; etc.
Posted by: submandave at November 27, 2007 12:13 PM (lLS3Y)
24
[Sigh] I'm afraid Mike G is entirely correct. The last thing the Truthers want is the truth and it's the last thing many of today's journalists want to give them. You can bet Foer and TNR are counting the days until Pvt Beauchamp gets his discharge. Then we'll hear The Truth(tm).
Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 27, 2007 12:13 PM (/g9ir)
25
"While I do think it's unrealistic of CY to expect journalistic integrity from TNR, I think we still have to man the barricades"
I concur. People like Foer and Beauchamp are mostly beyond cure, but we're not in this to persuade them; we're in it to keep reminding the general public of what is true and why TNR and others persist in spreading lies and slander.
Posted by: pst314 at November 27, 2007 12:16 PM (OA547)
26
Mike G in Corvallis is absolutely on the money.
Thanks for depressing the hell out of me, Mike, but you're dead on.
Posted by: Occam's Beard at November 27, 2007 12:23 PM (+myB1)
27
That's no reality-based community. They have, instead, a community-based reality.
Posted by: Dr. Ellen at November 27, 2007 01:10 PM (kUfU0)
28
I concur with Mike G also.
There is no reason whatsoever to expect that what finally comes out of Foer's office is anything but a sweeeping-under-the-rug statement about how "the underlying facts of the Bushitler oilwar are true dammit and all you chickenhawks can go to hell."
Posted by: Mike D at November 27, 2007 01:28 PM (Ug3ki)
29
The New Republic claims that a soldier or soldiers in Beauchamp's unit supported his stories. I'd like to know the names of these soldiers and what they said specifically about the stories run by TNR. "I heard about a Bradley driver who ran over a dog" is different from saying, "I've witnessed a Bradley driver who deliberately swerves to cut dogs in half and crash into market stalls." Saying, "We dug up some bones" is not the same as saying, "We dug up a children's cemetery and one guy wore a child's skull under his helmet for the rest of the day."
Posted by: Joanne Jacobs at November 27, 2007 01:53 PM (ma2OS)
30
I dunno. Laughing Wolf over at Blackfive met STB in Iraq, and he seems to have changed for the better. Here's hoping he keeps telling TNR to get lost. He sounds more like a dude who screwed up badly.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at November 27, 2007 01:55 PM (R+4Bq)
31
Let us hope and pray that TNR will understand that their foray into Iraq, badly planned with questionable motives, needs to be ended now, and that they will pull out in a dignified, orderly way.
The American people demand it.
Posted by: BMOON at November 27, 2007 02:10 PM (P6Znf)
32
Last time I looked, American journalism is free to pursue stories without swallowing the military line. In other words? The military's version of the Beauchamp affair is not subject to TNR's surrender.
Some day we'll learn more.
Because Maliki hates out guts. Which means we've been in Irak for years and years; and instead of building a strong working relationship with their elected officials, Bush has been on a tear to satisfy the Saud's.
I doubt this will prove to be a winnah.
And, at least TNR didn't fold to the PR machinery of the army.
Takes a bit of reading of the US Constitution to get a handle on this.
PLUS, you could remember John Adams Sedition Act, which attempted to block the media from reporting on the anti-Federalists. Went out the window in 1801. Unfortunately, his son, John Quincy Adams,did not. (But that move took Henry Clay, and tossed the WHIGS, eventually, to leave through the window.)
Posted by: Carol Herman at November 27, 2007 02:13 PM (q0Srt)
33
With regard to Mike G in Corvallis, sad to say that's one possible outcome.
However, I suspect the military is wise to this, and are currently covering the bases on a potential retraction by Pvt. Beauchamp. For each of the stories he's penned, I'm betting there's a thorough, clear investigation that debunks each claim and point. For any claim that he's been muzzled, there's clear documentation of what he's been allowed to say and do, and to whom.
So should he try, after discharge, to claim that it was all true, I'd expect the Army to drop the load on him. While the MSM won't report, Bob Owens will.
Finally, we should remember what Michael Yon wrote about Pvt. Beauchamp: it's possible that the young soldier is trying to reform and do the honorable thing. I'd like him to have that chance, but part of it means being honorable after discharge. We'll see in his actions just whether he's trying to be honorable or not.
Posted by: Steve White at November 27, 2007 02:25 PM (D14J4)
34
When it's their turn to be written about, media honchos believe that turnabout is NOT fair play. From 1997 by the immortal Catherine Seipp.
"No one is more thin-skinned than the media. No one."
and
"Members of the press are usually also deeply committed members of the can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it club."
Most importantly,
"I'd say Powers won that round, but then the person who has the last word usually does. No one knows this better than the media, who have the last word as a matter of course and are furious whenever someone takes it away. This is regarded as a dastardly violation of professional courtesy."
Keep the pressure on and they'll just keep responding, shedding credibility every step of the way. They just can't help themselves.
Posted by: Looking Glass at November 27, 2007 02:43 PM (p3bw6)
35
Re: Carol Herman's Post
Ugh!! Just an observation: It's amazing how the lefty's blather stands in such stark contrast to the thoughtful statements of the rational commentators.
Posted by: Jake at November 27, 2007 02:44 PM (tkdsE)
36
"Carol? I'm afraid you forgot to take your meds yesterday, dear. You've been on the internet, posing as a lawyer, and a historian, and a gud speler too. Come back to your room, so we can get this taken care of. I promise, you'll feel much better."
Posted by: Nurse Mildred Ratched at November 27, 2007 02:50 PM (5wEqa)
37
Carol, like somebody's lost, deranged aunt, wanders about the internet posting her largely incoherent ramblings and then wanders off again looking for her cats.
Don't forget to vote for Ron Paul, Carol.
You're his demographic.
Posted by: Swede at November 27, 2007 02:52 PM (6Q42m)
38
Does anyone know if this is the same "Carol Herman" who has claimed on another blog or two to be the ex wife of Glenn Greenwald? It sure sounds like it could be since both writers are obviously delusional....at best.
Posted by: Terry at November 27, 2007 04:35 PM (d/RyS)
39
Steve White: I think you are on target with respect to what will happen if STB tries to recant or otherwise claim that it was true. I also agree with Mike Yon that he is not the point anymore, and that if he is sincere and actively working to try to be a good soldier, that is good. What happens and what he does/makes of himself is entirely up to him -- I hope that he does get his act together and does right and well in life. A good person or a sh**bird is up to him. Omega Palladin, think you are on target too.
The issue was and truly is with TNR, and they need to be held not simply to account, but to their own professed standards of conduct. That is something at which they have failed to date, if they ever did indeed try...
Posted by: Laughing Wolf at November 27, 2007 04:47 PM (9kX9a)
40
I thought Carol's comments were fine, just incorrect on a few bits. I don't want Foer to be jailed under the Alien and Sedition Acts. I want him to admit that he messed up badly and printed as true stories which were poorly disguised urban legends.
Yours,
Wince
Posted by: Wince and Nod at November 27, 2007 05:01 PM (lhJxs)
41
Oh, I dunno. I kind of like Carol Herman's efforts; they have a fine be-damned-to-you flow along her chosen path that I suspect some young commenters feel doesn't give due respect to the form of their own efforts -- which, of course, is the only correct form. Think of the literary Establishment encountering Ulysses for the first time.
Not that I actually agree with her very much, when I can figure out what she said.
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at November 27, 2007 06:10 PM (2ivwy)
42
Carol, I have a real hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks "Iraq" is spelled with a "k."
If you can learn to use your spellchecker, perhaps we can have a rational discussion.
Good day, ma'am. I said, good day!
Posted by: C-C-G at November 27, 2007 07:22 PM (/7bRF)
43
First, Scott is a stupid kid. Forget about him.
The New Republic is the problem. If you want to help rid the world of TNR's misinformation, contact the CEOs of VISA USA, GM, Ford and Allstate Insurance to ask this question.
"Do you want your brand and good name associated with subsidizing the false message that American troops are committing war crimes?"
The US military is a population of 2.5 million Americans who by cars, insure them and pay their bills on time. They believe that advertizing in TNR is a repudiation of their public service. If you consider reaching TNR's shrinking 60,000 subscribers more important than the US military, continue to buy advertizements in TNR. We will take note.
Posted by: arch at November 27, 2007 08:31 PM (ieWO8)
44
Ah, The Media. Journalism is the last occupation where you can lie, cheat, steal, and ruin people's lives and still have no accountability.
I rank journalists about this far >< above child molesters in terms of respect. They are a worthless and useless contributor to society.
Posted by: Faith+1 at November 27, 2007 08:31 PM (YarXI)
45
By the way... if Franklin Foer is fired, will he come back years later with a lawsuit, a la Dan "Memogate" Rather?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 28, 2007 09:46 AM (/7bRF)
46
Carol, I have a real hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks "Iraq" is spelled with a "k."
But C-C-G, you may not know that in French, the official spelling of Iraq is "Irak". So if you persist in this policy, you'll be unable to take any French person seriously.
...
Oh. Never mind, carry on.
Posted by: Robin Munn at November 28, 2007 04:30 PM (fLf8b)
Posted by: Mark at November 28, 2007 06:33 PM (4od5C)
48
I don't know about claiming to be Greenwald's ex, but she has been around Captain's Quarters for quite a while being a pest. I never have been able to understand her ramblings. I think the description that fits her best
"Carol, like somebody's lost, deranged aunt, wanders about the internet posting her largely incoherent ramblings and then wanders off again looking for her cats."
That being said... yes the media is free to persue stories without believing "the military's line". However, when the stories are obviously bullsh*t like STB's are you tend to look pretty damned foolish sticking by those stories. But, Carol, good luck with that.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at November 28, 2007 07:25 PM (ON55K)
49
You forgot the most important question that must be answered.
What kind of countertop is in Scott Beauchamp's kitchen!?
Citizen Journalists around the world are intent on finding out.
Posted by: The Other Steve at November 28, 2007 07:30 PM (rk7xa)
50
Darn it, Robin, you revealed my Top Secret Plan To Take Over The World And Hand It Over To The Neocons!
For that, you may never drink Evian water again!
(by the way, has anyone besides me ever noticed that Evian spelled backwards is naive?)
Posted by: C-C-G at November 28, 2007 08:59 PM (/7bRF)
51
What, nothing about this?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012613.php
Where's our foremost media critic on these charges that the NRO might have, eh "exaggerated" few things? I'll presume good faith, and just assume you're having a busy day what with the Clinton hostage situation and all that.
Posted by: Xanthippas at November 30, 2007 11:53 PM (ylkwy)
52
Gee, Xanthippas, seems to me the author has stated he made mistakes. TNR has admitted to ONE mistake and then stuck by the revised version of the 'melted woman'. Not even to mention the fact STB had not been in theatre before the revised claim which completely blows the "war turned me into a savage" meme.
Regards,
Posted by: Mark at December 01, 2007 02:41 AM (P8ylB)
53
Hmm, I dunno... perhaps I've had better things to do than see what somewhat as intellectually dishonest as Kevin Drum thinks is newsworthy?
It appears that Smith has copped to his exaggerations, and so the editors of NRO must decide how severe they think those exaggerations are. Are they a firing offense? I think that argument could be made. I think a suspension is certainly warranted at the least.
As this seems to occurred just yesterday, I'm willing to give the magazine a reasonable amount of time--say several days--to figure out what they want to do.
For any of TNR's leftist apologists to attack Smith is the height of hypocritical behavior.
Of course, that is what they do best.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 01, 2007 02:05 PM (HcgFD)
54
CY,
Color me unsurprised that you are not rushing to cover this story. Yes, the guy copped to a few exaggerations, and yes the NRO has commented on that fact, though their conclusion is merely "that NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall." I'm not sure what context you can provide, when at least two other journalists writing from Lebanon thinks that Smith's stories are fabrications and cheerleading (see Kevin's blog for an update and link if you desire.)
But is there nothing to write about in the fact that that a journalist with a slight right-wing bias appears to be making up stories? And that he apparently was going to go on not clearing up inconsistencies in those stories until someone confronted him on them? That treatment seems a little odd to me, given your willingness to write about such incidents of bias as media outlets publishing photos of bullets that haven't been fired. Is the only story really how NRO decides to handle this? And do you accept their statements at face value, as you were not at all willing to do with TNR?
Posted by: Xanthippas at December 02, 2007 12:36 AM (ylkwy)
55
Xanthippas, if you haven't been perfectly blind, I've been a little busy.
Fraklin Foer is falling like Icarus, retracting the Beauchamp stories without accepting responsibility and blaming everyone else. Since I'm one of the folks that kind of "owns" that story, that is understandably my focus, and I can't do everything at once.
I am quite flattered, however, that with 70 million or so other bloggers, you seem to need me to comment, as does John Cole, the folks at Sadly No!, etc.
Listen, I'm not capable of being the human conscious of the blogosphere, flitting around to right every single wrong.
I'm just one guy, a guy with a full-time job and a family and other commitments, writing for several sites, and I can only do so much at once. I missed watching a movie on television with my kid to get out what I did yesterday, so if you don't like what I got out, do it your damned self.
I am not ignoring this story and will be commenting on it when I have time to get up to speed on it, but I'm tired of leftists attempting to threadjack every story I've posted this weekend, and a bit disappointed you aren't adult enough to do things without adult supervision.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 02, 2007 07:05 AM (HcgFD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 26, 2007
Wearing a Gimmick to Tatters: Huckabee to Bring Norris to Debate
I think that if I see much more of Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee using actor Chuck Norris as a prop, I think I'll upchu- er, vomit:
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee appears to be milking cult hero Chuck Norris' endorsement for all it's worth.
The former Arkansas governor told reporters on a conference call Monday morning that the "Walker Texas Ranger" star will be joining him at the CNN/YouTube debate this Wednesday night.
"[He] will be part of that experience," Huckabee said. "So it will be fun and hopefully very substantive."
Norris officially endorsed Huckabee last October, hailing him as a "respected and fearless leader" and one who's "not afraid to stand up for a Creator and against secularist beliefs."
Since then Norris has penned a fundraising e-mail on Huckabee's behalf, and even appears alongside the candidate in a television ad running in Iowa.
It's amusing to watch celebrities lend their endorsements to political campaigns, but when a candidate's campaign campaign is starting to look like it exists solely because of celebrity endorsements with little underlying substance, then as a voter, I have to start questioning the suitability of the candidate for even the vice presidential slot on the ticket that he is so obviously running for.
Huckbee, despite the endorsements of cult hero Norris and professional wrestler Ric Flair, has issues of integrity that the
folks back home find troubling.
The "pro-life liberal" label seems to be sticking, and apparently,
for good reason.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:38 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To be perfectly honest, the endorsement of someone like Chuck Norris carries about as much weight with me as the endorsement of Barbra Streisand.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 26, 2007 09:08 PM (/7bRF)
2
Considering that “Chuck Norris” has now passed “Jesus Christ” in terms of Google search volume, it’s interesting that Mr. Norris continues to preach the Good Word while his own followers hang on his every word. His endorsement is as good as, if not better, than one from Jesus.
Posted by: Andrew Shaffer at November 26, 2007 09:25 PM (anNye)
3
Andrew, I'm not so shallow as to equate Google search rank with the political value of a given endorsement.
However, given that, it's interesting that it's Norris' name that's being searched for, not Huckabee's. One would expect the latter, not the former, to rise in "popularity," if Norris' endorsement was doing anything to assist Huckabee.
By the way, as of right now, the #1 Google search is "Sean Taylor." Do ya think his endorsement would help Huckabee? The top political name searched for is "Trent Lott," (though the search is actually for "Trent Lott gay"), and it's at #3, how about his endorsement?
In short, your argument makes no sense, and therefore I reject it.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 26, 2007 10:19 PM (/7bRF)
4
Old barrister's axiom:
When you have the evidence against you, attack the prosecution's witnesses.
When you have the witnesses against you, attack his evidence.
When both are against you, pound on the table and yell a lot.
Dragging a 'celebrity spokesman' along with you to a debate is the political equivalent of pounding on the table: you're not fighting on your positions or on your background, but on what other people think of you.
Not good enough.
Posted by: DaveP. at November 26, 2007 10:29 PM (+BG6H)
5
I worked in Arkansas off and on for the past few years, and am somewhat familiar with Mike Huckabee. It is not accurate to call him a liberal, as he is not that by any means, perhaps a moderate would be a more appropriate moniker.
As any politician trailing badly in a campaign is like to do, he is using the endorcement of Norris to obtain access and gain stature.
As someone who works in the Oil and Gas Industry, I found Huckabee to be pro-business, even though he was never afraid to raise taxes, particularly the so-called sin taxes.
He grew up in Hope, Ar. near a migrant farm-workers stop on I-40, and along with a number of people in the Hope area became enamored with the travails of the Mexican migrants who used the rest stop, and has a soft place in his heart for these folks. As a matter of fact, I believe he truly cares about these people, and his public policy over the past few years surely bears this out.
He is excellent when it comes to working with people, and I found him to be gifted in his ability to forge coalitions to get things done on the state level, one major project being the complete resurfacing of all interstate highways in the state.
He is extremely stubborn when he thinks he is right. I just don't think he has the national and international experience to handle the Presidency, one indication of that being how easily he was hoodwinked by Fox.
Posted by: templar knight at November 26, 2007 11:12 PM (oawDo)
6
However, given that, it's interesting that it's Norris' name that's being searched for, not Huckabee's. One would expect the latter, not the former, to rise in "popularity," if Norris' endorsement was doing anything to assist Huckabee.
Posted by: Firma at November 27, 2007 03:21 AM (5dNYy)
7
Yes, Firma, that's exactly--word for word, even--what I said above.
If imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, I thank you for your compliment.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 27, 2007 09:42 AM (/7bRF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Thanks a Lott
Pork provider Trent Lott is said to be contemplating a retirement announcement as early as today.
I can guess why:
While the exactly reason Lott is stepping down before he finishes his term is unknown, the general speculation is that a quick departure immunizes Lott against tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law that takes effect at the end of the year. That law would require Senators to wait two-years before entering the lucrative world of lobbying Congress.
Like
AP and
Glenn, I won't miss him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:10 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good. The more of these big-spending pork-ublicans we get rid of, the sooner we can return to the GOP of smaller government.
I hope Ted Stevens (R-Bridge to Nowhere) is next to go.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 26, 2007 09:42 AM (/7bRF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 25, 2007
Hussein in the Membrane
Forgive me for not trusting you, Tom, but when you purposefully obfuscate the fact that Bilal Hussein was arrested as an unknown as the military targeted Hamid Hamad Motib, a known member of al Qaeda, and that he supposedly did not announce he was a journalist when arrested, I somehow doubt your story.
Bilal Hussein was picked up as an unknown, and apparently hoped to remain that way, knowing that insurgents without previous records not caught in the act of an attack are frequently released. Before he was able to matriculate out of our "catch and release" system, however, he was identified by an alert guard who just happened to remember his face from a picture of Hussein posted to
The Jawa Report. Hussein had been quiet about his true identity for roughly a month before he was identified.
Hiding his true ID and occupation... not very innocent behavior from an innocent journalist, is it?
To my admittedly inadequate understanding of Iraqi law, Bilal Hussein's pending court date in front of a Iraqi magistrate is the Iraqi equivalent of a U.S. grand jury or preliminary hearing. Since when do defense attorneys--or the media overlords signing their paychecks--get to see grand jury evidence?
According to Wikipedia--yeah,
I know:
Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony.
If this is correct, and defendants don't get to see evidence in these preliminary hearings, then Tom Curley is more or less lying to the readers of the Washington
Post, isn't he?
Sounds like he needs to re-read his corporate ethics policy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:37 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh, come on, CY, you don't expect the self-anointed elites in the media to follow the rules set down for the benighted masses, do you?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 25, 2007 01:22 PM (/7bRF)
2
Okay. Every day we have more evidence that "intelligent" does not equal smart. How many more of the mainstream media are going to fall on their swords instead of just eating crow? (There ya go James Taranto .. a metaphor alert for ya!)
And for what? A nobel cause? Hardly. And for who: Liars, prevaricators, terrorists masquerading as photographers, attention sucks, Warhol minuteers?
To read the president of the AP pen stuff that can be disputed in a heart beat by trackbacks on the blogs would be hilarious if it were not so horrendous.
THE first question I asked when the story popped up was "Why didn't he use his AP get-out-of-jail-free-card?" I also remembered the critiques and questions about his pictures years ago, though not his name.
Honest to pete, us hoi pilloi are just not that stupid. Take note though -- It does hack me though when the "narrative" starts and is recycled until it drowns out the facts. Fortunately, as the print papers die, so shall the AP, unless it learns to stop trying to write history instead of report it.
Keep up the good work all you pajama clad fact checkers.
Posted by: JAL at November 25, 2007 03:19 PM (3iqbN)
3
Anybody who believe AP about anything needs to be in a mental ward. Period.
Posted by: buster at November 25, 2007 03:39 PM (a+KhQ)
4
The AP's credibility in Iraq is close to zero. Remember when the bureau spent months trying to find its "source" for some 80 stories, an alleged policeman named Jamil Hussein? They finally found someone by that name, but he was in no position to authenticate all of the information they attributed to him. It was a handy name they used to meet the attribution rules. They played games on that, and now they want us to trust them on this one. I don't think so.
Posted by: Buck Smith at November 25, 2007 03:54 PM (MLimZ)
5
Yes, the Iraqis have an inquisitorial judicial system, like those enlightened, nuanced Europeans, instead of an adversarial system, like us cowboy Americans.
Guess the reality-based community is going to have to recuse itself whilst they figure out how to spin this one.
Posted by: Akatsukami at November 25, 2007 03:56 PM (QnHTj)
6
You need to delete your comments about grand juries.
From what we saw from the Sadam Hussien and friends proceedings, Bilal's hearing will be more like a preliminary hearing. The defendant and defense counsel hear the testimony of prosecution witnesses in open court. As I recall, defense counsel gets to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. Probably, defense counsel gets to review the investigation reports before or at the preliminary hearing.
Another questions is whether AP's American lawyer has been authorized to appear in the Iraqi court. Maybe AP should hire an Iraqi lawyer for the Iraqi court proceedings.
Posted by: slp at November 25, 2007 04:09 PM (lmcUC)
7
From the Seattle Times, Newspapers as an endangered species.
“44,000 news-industry employees lost their jobs in the past five years,…200 papers closed in the past 25 years.”
What could be causing this?
Posted by: Ydobon at November 25, 2007 04:18 PM (p3bw6)
8
SLP, time to get your glasses checked. Here's what CY wrote:
To my admittedly inadequate understanding of Iraqi law, Bilal Hussein's pending court date in front of a Iraqi magistrate is the Iraqi equivalent of a U.S. grand jury or preliminary hearing.
(emphasis added.)
So your points about the hearing being similar to a preliminary hearing have already been addressed, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 25, 2007 04:31 PM (/7bRF)
9
You only need to read this paragraph to know where Tom Curly is coming from:
Perhaps it is not surprising that the operators of the world's largest prison-camp network have found a way to provide access to due process in a form that actually looks more unjust than indefinite imprisonment without charges.
Of course I think the AP is more concerned with how it will look when it is confirmed that they were infiltrated by a terrorist than what happens to Bilal Hussein. It will taint (even more) their entire coverage of the Iraq war.
Posted by: Kazinski at November 25, 2007 04:38 PM (eLQzu)
10
But he was a source used by Real Journalists, so he must be innocent, right? This is just one more example of the fascist military Bushhitler stifling dissent. Because terrorism is just a form of dissent, and dissent is the highest form of patriotism, so this Bilal Hussein is actually an essential part of saving the republic.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at November 25, 2007 05:29 PM (YQFD4)
11
Perhaps it is not surprising that the operators of the world's largest propaganda network have found a way to make perfidy and treachery look like bravery and dedication.
Well, they think they've done that, anyway.
Really, they just look like a bunch of weasels who aid the enemy, or ARE the enemy.
Posted by: Dave at November 25, 2007 05:34 PM (9OC+E)
12
Don't the Chinese, or the North Koreans or the Commie Cubans have the world's largest prison camp network? That would be my guess...
Posted by: Broadsword at November 25, 2007 06:22 PM (t6+5g)
13
AP does not recognize the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. They are still carrying the torch for Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at November 25, 2007 06:47 PM (xJxUK)
14
CY,
What ethics policy... remember, we're talking about the AP here.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at November 25, 2007 06:50 PM (ON55K)
15
What the assistant said...yep yep yep!!!
Posted by: the Underassistant to the Assistant Village Idiot at November 25, 2007 07:33 PM (VxiFL)
16
From the Curley article: "Ask an Iraqi lawyer if you don't know how this works."
I take it that was too much trouble for him...
At the start of the Jamil Hussein escapade I looked at the AP Managing Editors code of ethics (APME at the ASNE site).
To put it bluntly: they don't even care about ethics as stated in their own code of ethics. Mind you at least they thought hard enough to put one online unlike TNR....
Posted by: ajacksonian at November 26, 2007 07:31 AM (oy1lQ)
Posted by: C-C-G at November 26, 2007 09:41 AM (/7bRF)
18
So your points about the hearing being similar to a preliminary hearing have already been addressed, thankyouverymuch.
Preliminary hearings were mentioned by CY, but he then went on to discuss the issue as if it were a US-style grand jury hearing. SLP's point still stands. I said good day, sir. Game, set and match. Yahtzee!
Posted by: NovAnoM at November 26, 2007 06:45 PM (22/Qe)
19
SLP, the magistrate's review in the detention system may well not be exactly like the full-blown judicial process you saw - and didn't see, in the case of the investigative hearings - with the Iraqi High Tribunal trials of former regime members. Defense counsel was present at the investigative hearings in those cases, but these are not normal judicial proceedings.
I was very familiar with the situation a year or so back - but then again, the situation varied from place to place, depending on security, the quality of the Iraqi judicial personnel available, and other factors.
As a high-profile case, Hussein will probably get a magistrate's review (if that's still the current system) - if only due to sheer numbers, most detainees will probably not have their cases formally reviewed in that fashion (or at least they didn't used to). Determinations of "security threat" represented by each individual are made using all available info.
As has been the case since the beginning, the press here engages in despicable deception by implying that being held "without charge" is unusual or even unreasonable in these circumstances. ALL the detainees are held without charge, under authorities flowing from the UN-sanctioned status of Coalition forces in Iraq (how many "smart" NYT readers even KNOW that our operations in Iraq take place under explicit UN authority?). Most are released, eventually. The worst/most important foreigners are held indefinitely for safe-keeping and their intelligence value, some of the worst perps with no intel value are tried at the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI) under Iraqi law. Several of these folks have been executed in the last two years (our first occupation edict was to ban capital punishment, the new Iraqi parliament's first act was to restore it).
"Held without charge" is meant to have great emotional and propaganda impact - conjuring up a Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Syria, uh -- oh, wait, I don't think that the western press loses much sleep worrying about actual dictatorships in such places, even when they jail reporters. But it's perfectly reasonable and historically quite normal in the extreme state of emergency Iraq has experienced since 2004. And when the detainees are in the Coalition system, it's a situation where the chances of mistreatment are tiny (sorry, ignorant Abu Ghraib obsessives), and "justice" is probably the best ever delivered under such horrible circumstances.
If Hussein is dirty, as seems quite likely, you can expect the mini-uproar about him such as this column to disappear quickly, assuming the military gets the basic facts out.
It's not just that the AP and much of the rest of the press have morphed into rather heavy-handed advocacy outfits instead of information-gatherers, delivering a fairly dumb take on world events - it's their nearly uniform sympathy for violent psychotics, fascists, racists, and authoritarians that amazes.
Posted by: IceCold at November 27, 2007 03:24 AM (ZFRfz)
20
It's not just that the AP and much of the rest of the press have morphed into rather heavy-handed advocacy outfits instead of information-gatherers, delivering a fairly dumb take on world events - it's their nearly uniform sympathy for violent psychotics, fascists, racists, and authoritarians that amazes.
Doesn't amaze me... for decades now the media has looked at the world through lefty rose-tinted glasses, and that means that they support anyone and anything anti-American.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 27, 2007 09:47 AM (/7bRF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 23, 2007
One of Those Two Americas
"Limousine liberalism" may be more accurate than we thought:
Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.
In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.
He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.
It isn't by any means bad or wrong that Democrats aspire to wealth and success, but is is a bit hypocritical for them to label themselves the party of the poor as they carefully sip overpriced bistro coffee to keep from spilling it on the leather interior of their late-model European sedans.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think I read, not too long ago, that Bill Clinton's cabinet consisted of more millionaires than any other cabinet before his.
I've always thought that welfare and its related programs were created to keep the poor at bay - from the gates of the liberal neighborhoods, really.
Most liberals I know are well-off.
Fifty percent of all voters can't be all rich. Liberals pedantically repeat that the Republican party is the party of the rich. I've never believed that for a minute.
Posted by: Mike at November 23, 2007 10:34 AM (3ZoGW)
2
Liberals pedantically repeat that the Republican party is the party of the rich.
Liberals also intone, in holier-than-thou tones that any televangelist would be hard pressed to match, that tax hikes increase prosperity, that people who break immigration laws are law-abiding citizens, and that we can be safer from foreign attack if we don't respond.
In short, they try to convince a lot of people that black is white.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 23, 2007 10:58 AM (/fQMn)
3
So, are any right-winger going to respond to any of the many take-downs of this "study" or are we just going to sit back and pretend that the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation are reliable sources of unbiased analysis.
Posted by: AJB at November 24, 2007 01:04 PM (mVZdr)
4
We've known for decades that democrats are the ones that get the large donations and Republicans get much more of the smaller donations. The lies from the left are no longer going unchallenged. Too bad the MSM never exposes those lies.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 24, 2007 01:43 PM (Lgw9b)
5
and pretend that the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation are reliable sources of unbiased analysis.
You of course are a reliable and unbiased source, right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 24, 2007 03:03 PM (7nMbE)
6
I looked at AJB's two sites (by the way, since when is two "many"?) and it looks from an admittedly cursory examination that it's just more spin. The main point seems to be "just because the wealthiest districts vote Democrat is no reason to think that the people in those districts themselves vote Democrat." This, of course, leaves open the question of who in those districts are voting for Democrats if Democrats keep getting elected. Perhaps the cemeteries are voting?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 24, 2007 04:14 PM (/7bRF)
7
AJB - Who is "We" kemosabe? When you find a takedown that isn't composed of snarky grammarian or constuctional observations or cross references to the delusional observations of Paul Krugman. Krugman was good on international trade in the 1970s, but partisanship has blinded him and now he can't find his backside with both hands.
None of the many "takedowns" I have read are actually worthy of that name or comment. Keep looking AJB. We are interested in learning.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 24, 2007 07:11 PM (0pZel)
8
Sounds like, if you are liberal you will get rich.
Posted by: balzar at November 24, 2007 08:23 PM (K0wqa)
9
Balzar, you can do it like John Kerry (D-Christmas in Cambodia) did, by marrying two rich wives, or you can do it like Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) did, by being born into the right family, or you can do it like Hillary Clinton (D-China) does it, by getting $5,000 donations from people with barely a roof over their head.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 24, 2007 08:49 PM (/7bRF)
10
Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, Lost Altos Hills, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Hillsborough... The whole Peninsula is Democrat controlled.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 24, 2007 10:30 PM (VNM5w)
11
I don't know anyone who doesn't want to be rich, including myself. But there is some guilt that attaches to rich folks that requires them to then lose their minds and become hopeless lefties, partly to please the limo liberal crowd of which they crave to be part. But I also think one of the drivers is that so many rich, particularly Hollywood and politicians, don't come by it "honestly," meaning they don't do hard work and feel worthy of the spoils.
Americans want wealth but wear it very uncomfortably. It is the remnants of the Puritan ethic in us. How many rich Americans deep in their hearts truly believe they deserve what they have? Precious few, I would imagine. Voila, liberalism is the answer to the guilt.
Posted by: Peg C. at November 25, 2007 04:11 PM (S0aeA)
12
Peg, two words:
Nail. Head.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 25, 2007 06:24 PM (/7bRF)
13
Most of the hard-core Liberals I know in this Peninsula nexus are trust-fund babies who've never really had to work hard and instead rely on old, inherited wealth. So Big-Guilt yeh, but also actions without consequences - detached from the nature of making it. They don't know how hard a person has to work to get past the tax-burden and buy that TV or new car, especially living in a welfare environment where even kids in East Palo Alto watch TV on a Plasma screen and have X-Boxes...
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 26, 2007 07:08 PM (VNM5w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 22, 2007
Happy Thanksgiving
Now get of off the computer and spend some time with your family, will you?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:02 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now get of the computer.........
You should probably get off the computer also...
signed...
spell check monitor
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Posted by: Chuck at November 22, 2007 08:24 AM (zMH6A)
2
Back at ya, CY! Enjoy the cold Raleigh weather

Posted by: William Teach at November 22, 2007 09:00 AM (NaHh8)
3
The big bird is on the grill, the kids and I are watching "Miracle on 34th Street is on the telly, and I'm on the computer during comercial breaks.
Posted by: MikeM at November 22, 2007 03:43 PM (nyO8l)
4
...passes Bob a big slice of pumpkin pie.
Thank YOU, sir, for doing what you do here.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 22, 2007 07:33 PM (/fQMn)
5
Did so. I hope you had as great a time as I did. Time to get at those leftovers now. Apple pie for breakfast. Yum.
Posted by: Dusty at November 23, 2007 10:21 AM (GJLeQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 21, 2007
Impeach Bush!
...right after you buy the book:
Scott McClellan's admission that he unintentionally made false statements denying the involvement of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the Bush-Cheney administration's plot to discredit former Ambassador Joe Wilson, along with his revelation that Vice President Cheney and President Bush were among those who provided him with the misinformation, sets the former White House press secretary as John Dean to George Bush's Richard Nixon.
It was Dean willingness to reveal the details of what described as "a cancer" on the Nixon presidency that served as a critical turning point in the struggle by a previous Congress to hold the 37th president to account.
Now, McClellan has offered what any honest observer must recognize as the stuff of a similarly significant breakthrough.
The only question is whether the current Congress is up to the task of holding the 43rd president to account.
Call my cynical, but I somehow doubt that
three selectively-quoted paragraphs ripped from context for the PR campaign of a book launch will signal the beginning of the end of the George W. Bush presidency.
Perhaps the author of this article, John Nichols, should wonder if McClellan
might be enjoying a chance to tease the press that so long tormented him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:10 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I would welcome a serious attempt at impeachment. It would tie up the beclownment of this congress in a nice tidy package.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 21, 2007 09:57 AM (7nMbE)
2
This shouldn't come as any surprise... lefties have been using selective quoting for years.
As for impeachment, I say go for it! Let's let the nation see the nature of this "evidence."
Posted by: C-C-G at November 21, 2007 10:03 AM (/fQMn)
3
Hmmmm.
1. Considering how ineffective Bush has been on border security I wouldn't mind an impeachment attempt.
2. McClellan is what? Seriously how important is a spokesman? Cabinet level?
Not really.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 10:20 AM (3pvQO)
4
Richard Armitage was not available for comment....
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 21, 2007 01:06 PM (Lgw9b)
5
In other news Valarie Plame has a post up on HuffPo demonstrating once again the eagle eyed analysis of all pertinent facts and such cherry picking that evidently was the hallmark of her career.
One has to wonder how long she has been typing with one hand.
Posted by: Lurker of sorts at November 21, 2007 02:28 PM (1aM/I)
6
A correction has been issued by McClellan's publisher rep. Here's a story on it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917188/
Posted by: Terry at November 21, 2007 07:42 PM (AiJXe)
7
Nobody reads corrections
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 22, 2007 09:28 AM (7nMbE)
8
Nobody reads corrections
Posted by: Firmalar at November 27, 2007 03:28 AM (5dNYy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 20, 2007
AP's Grandstanding on the Hussein Case
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was arrested in a terrorist sweep in September of 2006 with Hamid Hamad Motib, a known member of al Qaeda, and another insurgent. Yesterday, it was announced that Hussein will be brought before an investigative magistrate in the Iraqi legal system, and the magistrate will determine whether or not there are grounds to try Hussein under Iraqi law.
AP Associate General Counsel Dave Tomlin made quite a bit of noise
in response:
An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.
And from AP boss Tom Curley:
"While we are hopeful that there could be some resolution to Bilal Hussein's long detention, we have grave concerns that his rights under the law continue to be ignored and even abused," said AP President and CEO Tom Curley.
"The steps the U.S. military is now taking continue to deny Bilal his right to due process and, in turn, may deny him a chance at a fair trial. The treatment of Bilal represents a miscarriage of the very justice and rule of law that the United States is claiming to help Iraq achieve. At this point, we believe the correct recourse is the immediate release of Bilal," Curley added.
These Associated Press officers are taking the infuriating course of trying to spin this case in terms of American law, and not Iraqi law.
As an American military source in Iraq said moments ago:
In the Iraqi system, there is an investigative judge who does the initial work and you can think of it closer terms to a grand jury. Those are not open to the public and that is where indictments are made.
Some of the information is currently classified and as such won't be made public per se, but will be provided at trial, but again, not to the public. Just as in a military court-martial, they are open to the public, but if classified information is to be discussed, it is then closed to the public for that portion. Just like testimony in Congress...there are open and closed sessions.
The biggest issue is the attempts to equate it to our system when it should not be.
Curley and Tomlin, respectively the AP President/CEO and Associate General Counsel, are grandstanding as they try to spin this pending case in the court of American public opinion.
Hussein's actual guilt or innocence as a potential terrorist seems to be to them a secondary concern.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:20 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oh no, they are deathly afraid of the court finding him guilty.
Why else would they say the best outcome is the immediate release of him? They don't want a trial to go forward and if it does it will be labeled as unfair, even if it was performed to the letter of Iraqi or even American law.
They are claiming him as an award winning photographer, being found a terrorist in a court of law would expose AP's reporting for the sham it is.
The AP can't stand having the focus on itself and its biased reporting. The more award winning AP stringers are found as terrorists or helpers to insurgants, the worse the AP will look.
Posted by: Gunstar1 at November 20, 2007 06:37 PM (zh8i1)
2
in the court of American public opinion
Too bad its going to be an Iraqi court that hears the case ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 20, 2007 08:24 PM (7nMbE)
3
Isn't the usual expression of support along the lines of "we look forward to Mr. Hussein's opportunity to refute these baseless charges, whatever they may be, and to clear his name, in open court."
The spin coming from the AP is completely different. Maybe they believe the press is above the law or something. Curious that.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 21, 2007 02:50 AM (0pZel)
4
Journalists are scum. Put him up against a wall.
Posted by: dan at November 21, 2007 09:36 AM (zFP6s)
5
I'm shocked SHOCKED I tell ya that terrorists are working for the democrat run media!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 21, 2007 01:05 PM (Lgw9b)
6
"The treatment of Bilal represents a miscarriage of the very justice and rule of law that the United States is claiming to help Iraq achieve."
Closer to the truth is.....
"The attempt by the AP to draw conclusions and spin the evidence in their favor even prior to the trail represents a miscarriage of the very princaples of balance and neutrality that the AP is claiming to uphold in Iraq."
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at November 21, 2007 11:00 PM (2wI6h)
7
"At this point, we believe the correct recourse is the immediate release of Bilal," Curley added."
Of course you do because a conviction in a court of law would underline the shabby work and pro terrorist bias that have become all to evident during the APs disasterous tenure reporting from Iraq.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at November 21, 2007 11:02 PM (2wI6h)
8
After listening to Admiral Greg Smith matter of fact discourse on Bilal Hussein and his
upcoming trial.
As usual, I find the spin of guilt before trial comments standard for losers who did not get this war right!
I find the discourse by Admiral Smith so blatantly wrong. As we pride ourselves with the notion that you are presumed innocent prior to going to court.
Since Admiral Smith does not believe in the law or in basic rights, which is basic to our society. I wonder what dumb spin the idiot boys will put on this one!
This really stinks. 14 months to go and your fired!
Dumb George!
Posted by: Dumb George at November 26, 2007 03:45 PM (usC1c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Federal Grand Jury Investigating Blackwater Shooting?
Seems like it:
A federal grand jury is said to be investigating the role of Blackwater Worldwide security guards in the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.
The Blackwater guards involved in the September 16 shooting at Nisoor Square in west Baghdad initially were given limited immunity from prosecution by State Department investigators in exchange for their statements about what happened. One senior FBI official close to the investigation told The Associated Press last week that he was aware of evidence that could indicate 14 of the shootings were unjustified.
By far, the most damning part of the story is this:
ABC said it had obtained statements given to State Department diplomatic security agents. According to the statements, only five guards acknowledged firing their weapons in the incident. Twelve other guards witnessed the events but did not fire, according to the statements.
As it stands, only five of 17 discharged their weapons. If the convoy was actually under fire as some have maintained (which the evidence does not seem to support), I would have expected a much higher percentage of the guards to have expended rounds.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:26 AM
| Comments (63)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Not sure I'd concur. 5 of 17 in and of itself is not damning evidence.
How many trucks were they rolling with?
How many suburbans? (windows don't all open enough)
How many Mambas or Grizzlies? (firing ports installed)
Dual turrets or single?
Sounds to me like the "crime scene" has been far too fouled for any judge to rule.
Placate an easily fired up Congress and media.
Move along, nothing to see here...
DS out
Posted by: Desert Sailor at November 20, 2007 11:40 AM (+kFf8)
2
5 of 17 had targets. The others did not and therefore did not fire.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
If they'd all discharged weapons it would be a lot more damning, since it would sound like the unrestrained free fire zone that the media has tried to paint it as.
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at November 20, 2007 02:20 PM (yiMNP)
3
Hmmmm.
What SGT Jeff (USAR) said.
If you don't have a target that falls within the ROE (Rules of Engagement) then you simply do not fire. Anybody who does fire will have automatically violated the operating ROE and then faces pretty severe punishment.
For one thing bullets tend to fly pretty far and ROEs can help reduce friendly fire situations.
Posted by: memomachine at November 20, 2007 03:46 PM (3pvQO)
4
But weren't the FBI investigators ON THE GROUND? Don't they therefore know more than you do? Or maybe they don't because their finding disagrees with your preconception.
Ah, wingnuttery.
Posted by: nunaim at November 20, 2007 08:07 PM (vh5Rw)
5
Oh, and get a load of this.
"Support the troops," indeed...
Although I suppose daleyrocks and CCG and others will have some reason why it's a good idea.
Posted by: nunaim at November 20, 2007 08:14 PM (vh5Rw)
6
How about you get a load of this, nunaim. And did you catch the part where Fox said he'd do it all again?
Speaking of things you ought to read, how about this from the article linked in the post:
Officials cautioned that the decision to begin a grand jury inquiry did not mean that prosecutors had decided to charge anyone with a crime in what they said was a legally complex case, The New York Times reported.
What were those findings you were talking about, and who is disagreeing with them?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 05:23 AM (yTndK)
7
As DS says...
"Move along, nothing to see here..."
No, just a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians. Nothing new there, been a few hundred thousand already. Killed by trigger-happy mercenaries.
Posted by: Max at November 21, 2007 07:25 AM (VRb5p)
8
Pablo,
The last tussle I got into here was over whether generals who had recently left Iraq had anything of import to say about the situation there. I was told that they did not; only generals who were on the ground at the moment were worth listening to.
Now I see Sgt. Jeff, Desert Sailor, and memomachine CSIing the case from behind their keyboards. This approach is not consistent with the attacks I received earlier.
In regard to the bonuses: thank God! My jaw dropped at the idiocy of the whole thing. I may now pick it up off the floor.
About Fox being willing to do it again: I don't know why you brought that up. It has nothing at all to do with that particular topic.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 09:01 AM (AaGW9)
9
I was told that they did not; only generals who were on the ground at the moment were worth listening to.
No, that's not what you were told. But go ahead and run with that anyway. That hairshirt looks maaaahvelous on you.
About Fox being willing to do it again: I don't know why you brought that up. It has nothing at all to do with that particular topic.
Funny you should mention that. Fox has nothing to do with the Blackwater incident, and yet you brought him up. And I mentioned another facet of that story. Project much, nunaim?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 09:43 AM (yTndK)
10
Nothing new there, been a few hundred thousand already. Killed by trigger-happy mercenaries.
Max, your number is well beyond any reputable estimate, but I'm struck by another important question: Are you calling the jihadis and sectarian militias "mercenaries"? Because you'd be wrong, but in an awfully refreshing manner.
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 09:48 AM (yTndK)
11
BTW, nunaim, here's another bit off off topic you're sure to hate.
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 09:51 AM (yTndK)
12
BTW, nunaim, here's another bit off off topic you're sure to hate.
I don't know why you'd assume that. I'm not a military hater, and I've never said I was. I'm definitely glad that there are people willing to do that job, because it's necessary and I'm sure as heck not willing to do it. I've been aghast at the various bad calls we've seen over the years:
1. Walter Reed;
2. charging soldiers for ballistic vests when they had to be cut off in the hospital after they've been injured;
3. sending putting soldiers in the position of having to armor their own vehicles;
4. asking for their signing bonuses back when they get wounded in battle;
5. et cetera.
My case this whole time is that Iraq is a total BS waste of our scarce and valuable resources.
Thank god that this dude is willing to re-up. We need dedicated soldiers. I wish, however, that if he had to be injured that it had been in some more worthy cause. That doesn't make me anti-soldier; it makes me anti-bad-foreign-policy-decision.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 10:10 AM (AaGW9)
13
Pablo, my reference to "mercenaries" referred to Blackwater and their ilk.
As regards the total number of Iraqis killed, sad fact is no one will ever know. For whatever reason, recording such deaths was never a priority for the US military. ("We don't do body counts...")
Iraqi Body Count, which you link to as a "reputable estimate", has a very strict methodology, which certainly underestimates the total number killed. But since you regard it as reputable, perhaps you'd like to comment on this extract from that source...
"The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always."
Obviously it's not just the mercenaries who are trigger-happy.
Posted by: Max at November 21, 2007 10:21 AM (VRb5p)
14
Thank god that this dude is willing to re-up. We need dedicated soldiers.
For a total BS waste of our time?
"He said he wasn’t finished," Hoyt’s battalion commander Lt. Col. Mark Landes said.
Landes conducted the re-enlistment himself. "He said, ‘I still have a job to do.' "
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 10:25 AM (yTndK)
15
Hmmmmm.
@ nunaim
1. Don't involve me unless you want an ass-whupping of a Biblical nature.
2. The last tussle I got into here was over whether generals who had recently left Iraq had anything of import to say about the situation there. I was told that they did not; only generals who were on the ground at the moment were worth listening to.
If I remember right the generals in question had left the ground in *2003 or 2004*. Considering it's now near the end of 2007, i.e. the length of time those particular generals had been away from Iraq longer than America's involvement in WWII, their opinions do hold less water than those generals whose information and experiences are rather more current.
As in **today**.
3. Now I see Sgt. Jeff, Desert Sailor, and memomachine CSIing the case from behind their keyboards. This approach is not consistent with the attacks I received earlier.
My remarks are entirely about ROEs and from my experience as a USMC rifleman. One of the things you get drilled on is **fire discipline**. I.e. unless there's a specific reason for shooting, that follows the ROE, then you simply do not shoot.
That was offered as a possible explanation, in support of SGT Jeff, on why so many Blackwater employees hadn't fired a shot.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 10:26 AM (3pvQO)
16
Pablo, my reference to "mercenaries" referred to Blackwater and their ilk. But you said hundreds of thousands killed. Are you suggesting that Blackwater guys have killed thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands? Based on what? Surely, I thought you were talking about the total body count, the vast majority of which has been inflicted by jihadis and militias. Because there's no way your comment, as you've explained it, bears even a passing resemblance of the truth. IOW, you're full of crap, Max.
As for the comment you quote, anyone not part of the established uniformed military is a civilian. There's a percentage of those whose deaths are tragic. And some of those are attributable to those who choose to commit acts of violence while hiding among them. There's another percentage of those whose death is cause for celebration, such as the aforementioned cowards. Let me know which is which and we'll talk more, k?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 10:33 AM (yTndK)
17
I've been aghast at the various bad calls we've seen over the years:
BTW, how do you feel about putting the government in charge of healthcare?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 10:39 AM (yTndK)
18
1. Don't involve me unless you want an ass-whupping of a Biblical nature.
Then yea verily it shall be the first thou shalt ever deliver.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 10:57 AM (AaGW9)
19
BTW, how do you feel about putting the government in charge of healthcare?
Unless I missed something in Poli Sci, healthcare doesn't fall under the rubric of "bad foreign policy decisions."
But I'll play your game.
There are some things that government does better than people working privately--and sometimes "better" means "doing it at all." Think about highways. People aren't going to voluntarily ante up out of their pockets to pay for each individual road they drive on; that's a job for Big Government.
I don't know how a national healthcare plan would work out. It might be just fine, or it may be a disaster. Isn't that the way it is with most things, though? You try it, and if it doesn't work you fix it.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 11:03 AM (AaGW9)
20
Unless I missed something in Poli Sci, healthcare doesn't fall under the rubric of "bad foreign policy decisions."
Neither do any of the things on your list. Why do you bring that up? People aren't going to voluntarily ante up out of their pockets to pay for each individual road they drive on; that's a job for Big Government.
But they will pay for their healthcare, because that's not a highway, that's a much more personal thing. Ahem...cough...Big Dig...cough... Hmm...maybe I should see a doctor about that.
You try it, and if it doesn't work you fix it.
Unless you cut and run.
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 11:08 AM (yTndK)
21
Oh wait, Walter Reed is about healthcare, isn't it?
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 11:08 AM (yTndK)
22
Neither do any of the things on your list. Why do you bring that up?
Surely you're not suggesting that arming and protecting our troops has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 11:37 AM (AaGW9)
23
Walter Reed is about healthcare, isn't it?
Yes, it's about a national healthcare program in the same way that soldiers up-armoring HumVees is about Fred's Body and Fender Shop downtown.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 11:39 AM (AaGW9)
24
Surely you're not suggesting that arming and protecting our troops has nothing to do with foreign policy.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it outright. And for the record, the Humvee anecdote you're referring to took place in Kuwait and there was no "putting soldiers in the position of having to armor their own vehicles". Except, that is, for when the decision was taken to uparmor all of the humvees in theater, and then who the hell do you think was going to install the kits? Elves? Or the people who actually had the vehicles that were to be armored?
They also put them in the position of having to carry their own gear...the bastards!
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 11:51 AM (yTndK)
25
Surely you're not suggesting that arming and protecting our troops has nothing to do with foreign policy.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it outright.
Then we might thank our lucky stars that you are not the President of the United States. Preparedness for fighting a war, you say, is not a factor in making decisions about and planning for that war.
You've painted yourself into a contrarian corner, my friend, all for the sake of contradicting me.
Not a proud moment in the Pablo household.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 12:25 PM (AaGW9)
26
Internal military logistics matters are not foreign policy issues, no matter how much you'd like them to be in order to hold your moronic argument together, nunaim. Nor are issues about signing bonuses, gear accountability or the care of wounded warriors returned from the battlefield.
Funny how you're left with only that little niggle to desperately cling to after having the rest of your arguments so thoroughly demolished. No, it isn't a particularly proud day in the Pablo household, but it is an amused day. And it's still early, so you never know. :-)
Posted by: Pablo at November 21, 2007 12:45 PM (yTndK)
27
Hmmmm.
@ nunaim
Definitely not the first.
And most assuredly not the last.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 01:17 PM (3pvQO)
28
Hmmmm.
@ nunaim
If I remember right the generals in question had left the ground in *2003 or 2004*. Considering it's now near the end of 2007, i.e. the length of time those particular generals had been away from Iraq longer than America's involvement in WWII, their opinions do hold less water than those generals whose information and experiences are rather more current.
As in **today**.
And conveniently you forgot to respond to my assertion here. Unless the generals you're referencing aren't those that served in Iraq in 2003-2004. If that's the case then please provide the names or a link.
Otherwise my description of your idiotic nonsense stands.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 01:19 PM (3pvQO)
29
Memomachine:
I'd like to refer to the original thread to bolster my reply, but I can't find it. If you can remember where it was, point me toward it and I'll come back with quotes.
Let me take you at your word, though. Generals not in Iraq are not top sources for information about ongoing events in Iraq. By the same token, guys sitting around in the US reading blogs are not top sources for the ins and outs of the Blackwater investigation over in Iraq.
Somebody please explain to me why everyone on the Right is so eager to circle the wagons around Blackwater. It doesn't make any sense to me except, again, as some form of mindless contrarianism.
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 03:29 PM (hkV8S)
30
Hmmmmm.
@ nunaim
1. I'd like to refer to the original thread to bolster my reply, but I can't find it. If you can remember where it was, point me toward it and I'll come back with quotes.
I am not your research-boy. You want something found, find it yourself.
2. Let me take you at your word, though. Generals not in Iraq are not top sources for information about ongoing events in Iraq.
Particularly if they're a few years out from active duty in that theater.
3. By the same token, guys sitting around in the US reading blogs are not top sources for the ins and outs of the Blackwater investigation over in Iraq.
And if you'd elevate your reading comprehension just a tad you'd realize that I hadn't actually commented ON Iraq at all.
My comment was entirely about the impact of *fire discipline* and *Rules of Engagement* on whether or not troops will fire their weapons. This was in support of SGT Jeff and in response to CY's position that if only a few Blackwater people fired their weapons then it couldn't have been any sort of fight.
If you'll note: Not once did I include anything about Iraq at all other than the reference to Blackwater.
4. Somebody please explain to me why everyone on the Right is so eager to circle the wagons around Blackwater. It doesn't make any sense to me except, again, as some form of mindless contrarianism.
Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddd yet again I need to point out that I'm not "circling" anything around Blackwater. I'm pointing out specific pieces of information to help illuminate military practices. I include such with Blackwater because, to my knowledge, Blackwater employs only experienced professional ex-soldiers as security in Iraq. With many of them being ex-US military and so experienced with US military practices.
If you'd engage in thinking rather than posturing you'd recognize that I hadn't actually made any statements in favor of Blackwater or anything in support of Blackwater with regards to this political/legal hot potato.
But I will point out the near absurdity in trying to maintain such legal niceties as grand juries with regards to armed personnel in a war zone where they're being shot and blown up on a regular basis. But that's a personal opinion. As for Blackwater itself, I don't have an oar in this.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 05:02 PM (3pvQO)
31
...And this was the Biblical whatever of the whoozis?
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 05:21 PM (hkV8S)
32
Hmmmmm.
@ nunaim
1. ...And this was the Biblical whatever of the whoozis?
Nope. But that's because I've been asked, in email, by CY to keep things toned down.
2. I note that, yet again, you fail to address what I've written.
So far responding to you has been a complete waste of time. Which is probably why nobody else has really bothered.
Posted by: memomachine at November 21, 2007 06:08 PM (3pvQO)
33
Memomachine:
This is CY's description of the officers who contributed to the WaPo editorial:
Only two of the 12 captains had been in Iraq as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before.
Now here's your description:
If I remember right the generals in question had left the ground in *2003 or 2004*. Considering it's now near the end of 2007, i.e. the length of time those particular generals had been away from Iraq longer than America's involvement in WWII
So. You were wrong in both particulars. First, some of the officers in question were there as recently as last year. Second, you must have been studying a different World War II than I did, because, even if we go back to the 2005 that CY mentioned, that's only two years ago, and, if memory serves, we were fighting in World War II for longer than two years.
I have addressed your question. I have found your logic and your facts to be wanting. I have noted as well your semantic game of "Yes, I was commenting in the thread about the Blackwater incident in Iraq, but I never typed the word 'Iraq' in my post, so how dare you say I was writing about anything that transpired in Iraq?!"
Back to the topic at hand. Stipulated for discussion that you carry no brief, formally or otherwise, for Blackwater. Why do you think it is that so many on the Right seemingly have so much invested exonerating them?
Posted by: nunaim at November 21, 2007 08:05 PM (hkV8S)
34
Gentleman, while I am by no means a member of management here, I gotta ask you a favor.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 21, 2007 09:46 PM (/fQMn)
35
OK, I'll try not to feed the troll. I'll just point out that he's promoted 12 Captains to General.
If that isn't supporting the troops, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Pablo at November 22, 2007 12:15 AM (yTndK)
36
Oh, and Blackwater? Screw them.
Posted by: Pablo at November 22, 2007 12:18 AM (yTndK)
37
"But weren't the FBI investigators ON THE GROUND? Don't they therefore know more than you do? Or maybe they don't because their finding disagrees with your preconception"
On the ground when, after the fact. Talking with who-the Iraqi Interior Ministry (not the most neutral organization). Civilians on the ground who, if not freindly to the Rat Bags, have to live with them.
The Ham Sandwhich approach to the Grand Jury will lead to some Blackwater employees being indicted.
Posted by: davod at November 22, 2007 05:58 AM (llh3A)
38
PS:
Don't worry, all will be solved when the latest batch of bright lights arrive in Iraq. The State Department has purchsed a number of these lighting systems which are designed to make people sick when the light is aimed at them.
I wonder if the reason for purchase is that the representative of the company is a former State department person.
*People will die or be kidnapped and tortured (before being behaeaded) before the State Department gets the message.
Posted by: davod at November 22, 2007 06:03 AM (llh3A)
39
Pablo:
There's a continuum. At one end is "screw them." At the other is "they can do no wrong."
I would suggest that Kos is an outlier at the first end, while the entire Right blogosphere appears to gather in a mass at the other.
This is the same dynamic that arises between the attitudes "My country, right or wrong," and "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.”
The Right seems to feel that the second approach is the path of wieners and girlymen or, in some extreme cases, that it doesn't even really exist--that it's a rhetorical dodge perpetrated by LIEberals.
Posted by: nunaim at November 22, 2007 08:40 AM (1OgbK)
40
At the other is "they can do no wrong."
Feel free to quote someone saying that. Which you won't be able to do because that's all in your head. Which, apparently, has it own continuum.
Posted by: Pablo at November 22, 2007 01:30 PM (yTndK)
41
Feel free to quote someone saying that. Which you won't be able to do because that's all in your head.
Don't act like a third grader. You know that I'm trying to encapsulate in a few words an attitude that takes many different forms--as many, maybe, as the number of people who have the attitude.
It manifests itself in a variety of ways, but you can see it take shape at the top of this thread--the homespun crime scene investigation. The very idea that these guys might have done the wrong thing is not even on the table, and it never will be.
What I've seen time and again in the Right blogosphere is that hypothetical Iraqi deaths--that is to say, those that may occur if we leave the country--and those deaths caused by insurgents are bad, while deaths of Iraqi non-insurgents caused by our side are greeted with "sh!t happens" or "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time" or "they shouldn't have picked up that coil of wire" or some other formulation that somehow diffuses responsibility for the death or hangs it around the neck of the victims.
Posted by: nunaim at November 22, 2007 03:09 PM (1OgbK)
42
You know that I'm trying to encapsulate in a few words an attitude that takes many different forms--as many, maybe, as the number of people who have the attitude.
No, what you're trying to do is slay a strawman. Invent a position for those who don't hold your worldview and then rail against it. If that weren't the case, you'd be burying me in quotes that prove your thesis. You're not doing it because you can't and because you're a troll.
Posted by: Pablo at November 23, 2007 12:55 AM (yTndK)
43
If that weren't the case, you'd be burying me in quotes that prove your thesis.
You mean like this?
Placate an easily fired up Congress and media.
Or this?
...I would not be surprised if the backlash over Sunday's shooting was planned, and waiting for an event to pin it on.
Or this?
I just picked up on the "we bait targets"!!So WTF
over...A house in Falluja a brand new Russian
Sniper Rifle laying on the floor.Question do you
pick it up???You do there is a damn good chance
it will be the last thing you do... These SOB's
booby trap bodies, blow up kids and were supposed to be Mr clean...Give me a friggen brake...Those
folks need to die.
Or this?
So al-Qaeda ran like the cowards they are, hid amongst women and children, and when ground forces came in al-Qaeda started firing which caused air strikes to be called in. Now whose fault is this again? Like in Haditha, it's the fault of the enemy for hiding amongst women and children like cowards.
Or this?
As Ilario Pantano wrote a few days ago, war can be messy. To expect pinpoint accuracy as if your playing a video game is foolhardy:
This is all the burying I can do at short notice, Pablo.
Posted by: nunaim at November 23, 2007 09:15 AM (clUfn)
44
Which of those quotes suggests that "They can do no wrong", nunaim? Here's a hint: None of them.
Posted by: Pablo at November 23, 2007 04:31 PM (yTndK)
45
The number of individuals who freeze during combat, especially an ambush, is huge. Most people hit the dirt and stay there. Fewer people react effectively than one would expect. Only elite or veteran units can respond effectively, I doubt Blackwater qualifies as either.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at November 23, 2007 04:56 PM (A2ZNt)
46
nunaim, having restablished his trollhood, is once again banned, and this time, I'll make it permanent.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2007 05:08 PM (HcgFD)
47
nunaim,
apparently you didn't read the KDKA story very well. The Pentagon official said that the bill sent to Fox was a mistake. Therefore, that wasn't a bad call... that was a mistake.
Max,
If this is what you were getting at, I resent your referring to our soldiers as trigger happy mercenaries. If that is indeed what you were getting at then you are the lowest form of dirtbag imaginable.
Jim C
Posted by: Jim C at November 23, 2007 09:51 PM (ON55K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 19, 2007
Sacrificial Lamb? Head Fact-checker Gone at TNR
Interesting (my bold):
The New Republic is looking for an assistant editor to fill an immediate opening in our Washington, DC office. The assistant editor will be responsible for guiding the magazine's fact-checking department (including overseeing the reporter-researchers), along with writing stories for the magazine and the website. Ideally, you'd be coming into the job with 1-2 years experience fact-checking and reporting, some solid clips, and a passion for the kind of long-form magazine reporting we do. Experience with specifically political journalism is, of course, a major plus — attention to detail and strong research skills are a prerequisite. Send cover letter, resume, and 4-5 clips to Britt Peterson at job@tnr.com with "assistant editor application" in the subject heading.
Looking at the
masthead, the Assistant Editor that
TNR is replacing seems to be Keelin McDonell, who was the longest-serving of
TNR's most recent crop of assistant editors.
If she was indeed the "responsible for guiding the magazine's fact-checking department" during the period Scott Beauchamp published three articles with glaring fact errors in them, it would seem just cause for the magazine to find a replacement.
It would in no way, however, excuse the multiple, high level ethical breaches of more senior editors who seem intent on swearing to the veracity of this proven false fabulist to their very last breath.
(h/t Just a Canuck)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:26 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
One hopes this is just the first of many heads to roll, and not just a token gesture to appease their critics that they're actually doing something.
We shall see how it plays out.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 19, 2007 10:31 PM (/fQMn)
2
So now no one will be responsible for fact-checking?
Posted by: EvilDave at November 19, 2007 10:43 PM (Ppi+S)
3
Wonder what the exit interview was like.
Could they actually blame her for passing on falsehoods? 'cause if they did, they acknowledge publishing falsehoods. They could get away with that admission as long as nobody ever heard about it. Ever.
So, what was their cover story?
And if it was a bogus cover story, could she sue for wrongful termination?
"Yer honor. They fired me for stealing from the office coffee fund when what I really did was lie with and for Beauchamp. Never touched that stupid coffee fund."
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at November 19, 2007 10:44 PM (NyeGq)
4
Was she let go or perhaps promoted and that's why they need the new fact checker?
Posted by: airedale at November 19, 2007 10:52 PM (eGBvY)
5
EvilDave wrote: "So now no one will be responsible for fact-checking?"
How would they tell? No one was before.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at November 19, 2007 10:59 PM (3HbLW)
6
I would presume that he/she resigned for the appropriate decent payout knowing he/she had a great wrongful discrimination case if they tried to fire her. You can't argue your employee made a mistake in court when you have public statements saying a mistake was made.
Posted by: Duh! at November 19, 2007 11:05 PM (knT/d)
7
Oh, Barbara, there was rigorous fact checking at TNR.
They checked the facts to see if they could be damaging to President Bush. If they passed that check, they printed it.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 19, 2007 11:06 PM (/fQMn)
8
Or maybe she resigned to protest the ongoing cover up. Maybe she wanted to fire the one who was responsible for the actual fact-checking and wasn't allowed to. Or maybe she got sick and can't work. Or maybe she's retirement age. Or maybe she was kidnapped by aliens.
(OK, I'll admit the one about her protesting the cover up is a long shot).
Posted by: Doc Rampage at November 19, 2007 11:07 PM (yIpmv)
9
Maybe she got a job working for the Clinton '08 campaign.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 19, 2007 11:31 PM (/fQMn)
10
CNN debate rigging squad.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 20, 2007 08:31 AM (7nMbE)
11
This just in from TNR!
Instaputz: I Get E-mail
Notice the absence of the words 'factual' or 'accurate' in that message?
LOLZ.
Posted by: Justacanuck at November 20, 2007 01:01 PM (hgxwr)
12
Must be a job opening for Mr Beauchamp!
Posted by: L8DBACK at November 20, 2007 01:12 PM (P9oR4)
13
I may apply for that job. In the past, the fact-checker has done very little actual work, not even sure that anyone could tell he was at the office. Come to think of it, I could do this job from home... TNR, I'll take the job!! Send me a check!
Posted by: dldeskins at November 20, 2007 01:54 PM (Os7Tf)
14
Typical corporate clusterf&^%$#.
A long time ago, during the Carter Administration, I was involved in a major corporate f#$% up.
I was a young guy at the time and my involvement was writing a memo telling the villain that his scheme was illegal and that he should not do it.
When the $#;+ hit the fan, the villain got fired and the numbers 3 and 4 in the accounting department got thrown to the wolves at the SEC, the higher ups walked away and were allowed to retire on full pensions.
Oh, yeah, and I ...
I got fired.
Posted by: Fat Man at November 20, 2007 03:04 PM (kuCYZ)
15
That Foer and Co. still have their jobs is a disgrace. They throw some youngster under the bus and hope this sacrifice will pacify the critics. It won't.
Posted by: Increase Mather at November 20, 2007 03:25 PM (vr0pX)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 20, 2007 08:26 PM (7nMbE)
17
They throw some youngster under the bus and hope this sacrifice will pacify the critics. It won't.
Of course not, but their judgment hasn't been good so far, so what makes you expect it to improve now?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 20, 2007 08:33 PM (/fQMn)
18
You've played an important role in bringing accountability to The New Republic. Bravo.
Posted by: CountingHart at November 20, 2007 09:07 PM (EI7CS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bringing Out the Dead
Recent stories of a mass grave turning up in the Doura district of Baghdad very well may be "fake but accurate," according to sources in Iraq, including Michael Yon.
The bodies, found inside unfinished homes, appear to be at roughly
seven months deceased—some little more than bones—and sources state that it appears that the bodies were only recently dumped there.
I'm seeking more information through the PAO system, but in the meantime, I'm unsure just what the dumping of these bodies means.
Are the various anti-Iraqi forces (AQI and the ISI for the Sunnis, or Shia militias) fearing that holding on to these bodies might lead to them get caught? Or were they desperately trying to create a media spectacle, and have found themselves reduced to this level?
I find it very hard to believe that anti-Iraqi forces are in such disarray at this point that they are reduced to a Pythonesque "Bring out your dead!" stunt to get media attention, but the thought that they felt the need to dump these bodies certainly seem to mean that they are feeling the pressure of recently coalition advances.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/19/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at November 19, 2007 12:28 PM (gIAM9)
2
Oh, come now, CY, you know this is just Blackwater dumping all the innocent Iraqis they've killed before they leave the country.
/lefty off
/sarc off
Posted by: C-C-G at November 19, 2007 09:56 PM (/fQMn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Pajamas Media War on Terror Conversation with Fred Thompson
The Pajamas Media War on Terror Conversation with Fred Thompson that Roger Simon and I did last week is online, and I hope that the questions we asked Senator Thompson will give you a better idea of his positions and his passions than do the short, 15-second sound bites candidates are usually allowed.
I don't want to lead anyone—these War on Terror conversations are about informing, not guiding—but I did want to comment on the some of the "conventional wisdom" regarding Senator Thompson, that claims his campaign lacks energy and drive, and that it is lazy.
I was able to watch the first part of the Senator's speech before leaving to get ready for our interview, and I found him to be a passionate and engaging speaker. But don't take my word for it. Watch the conversation, and
decide for yourself.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:23 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Mr. Thompson's thoughtful answers to your excellent questions were a great comfort. I agree that the Bush Administration's most serious weakness is its failure to communicate with our fellow citizens and nurture the national will necessary to prevail in the War on Terror.
Posted by: Sissy Willis at November 19, 2007 08:13 AM (Q6JEL)
2
Fred Thompson on National Will
Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 at November 19, 2007 09:32 AM (Xezx9)
3
Due to limited time this morning I wasn't able to see it all, but given what I was able to see, I see no reason to reverse my support of him.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 19, 2007 10:01 AM (/fQMn)
Posted by: John at November 19, 2007 12:37 PM (bUWMd)
5
Fred Thompson has it exactly right. Do not trust North Korea. It is probably impossible to deal with the current religious regime in Iran, but we need to watch for proper opportunities. We need to hear the voices of non-violent Muslims, not CAIR propaganda. We need to support those who have the courage to stand up and speak out against Islamofascism and Islamism. We need to rebuild Americans' desire to stand up and serve their country so we can protect ourselves, our country, and liberate people around the world who live under totalitarian regimes.
Posted by: Connie at November 19, 2007 01:21 PM (zgj6f)
6
Looks like Fred is gonna be getting some of my money on Wednesday... not because it's his big fundraising push day, but because it's payday.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 19, 2007 08:11 PM (/fQMn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 18, 2007
Fred Thompson Interview Preview
A preview of the interview Roger Simon and I did with Fred Thompson last week at The Citadel in Charleston, SC, that will air tomorrow morning.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:45 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 137 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.3388 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3019 seconds, 330 records returned.
Page size 232 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.