July 31, 2007
A Community-Based Reality
I think that the phrase borrowed from commenter at Riehl Word View quite accurately reflects a growing "conventional wisdom" among a peculiar group of bloggers that military and conservative bloggers attempted to claim that "Scott Thomas" didn't actually exist.
"Scott Thomas," of course, was the pseudonym chosen by U.S. Army PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp when he posted a series of three dispatches in the magazine The New Republic. The most recent post, "Shock Troops," (subscription required) became the focus of Michael Goldfarb on July 18 because of some very strong claims of various kinds of abuse alleged by "Scott Thomas" of himself and other soldiers. These claims are now the subject of investigations by the U.S. Army (real) and the magazine that carried the claims, The New Republic (which critics have dismissed as an attempt at face-saving and job-keeping by the editors, and little more). Soon afterward, Beauchamp's previous post, "Dead of Night" came under scrutiny, and two claims he made there were conclusively debunked. Military bloggers began zeroing in on the identity of "Scott Thomas" within days— Marine turned documentary filmmaker JD Johannes had his unit narrowed to the 1-18 Infantry by the following Saturday—forcing Thomas into a position where he felt the need to reveal himself days later. On the afternoon Beauchamp came forward on July 26, severel prominent bloggers began to compose a narrative every bit as fictional as that of Beauchamp himself, and apparently, for equally dishonorable reasons. On that afternoon in The Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum seems to have manufactured the controversy:At Sadly No!, Gavin M. claimed:
Conservative sites went crazy. Thomas didn't really exist. His stories were made up. The left hates the troops. Etc. etc.
At alicubog:
1) WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor. 2) WingNet proven wrong.
By the next day, Americablog had latched onto this creative fiction as well:
ATTENTION COMRADES! Previous meme "Scott Thomas does not exist" is no longer operative. Please to substitute "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a bad man" or "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is Oliver Stone" or "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a semiotic construct" or "We'll get Scott Thomas Beauchamp fired" or whatever damn thing you can think of.
Even yesterday, at Mercury Rising yesterday, a blogger wrote:
Of course, the right wing blogosphere went nuts, accusing TNR of fabricating a soldier and lying about his experiences. There were repeated attempts to prove that Scott Thomas was a fake.
And so it is that "this whole thing"—the claim that conservative bloggers said Thomas didn’t exist or wasn’t a soldier—comes squarely back onto the shoulders of liberal bloggers who created the meme themselves. When pressed to provide a specific quote from any conservative blog stating that Scott Thomas didn’t really exist, was fabricated, or was an imposter, these and other liberal bloggers have utterly failed to do so. Why they failed should now be obvious: they made up these claims themselves. Update: A bit dog barks. Gavin M. at Sadly No! (cited above for claiming "WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor") tries to support liberal bloggers' charges that conservative bloggers said Beauchamp didn’t exist, was fabricated, or was an impostor. How does he mount his brilliant defense? He cites devastating examples, such as Bryan at Hot Air using scare quotes around the word soldier... Twice. He also highlights a truism observed by Bryan in that post that anyone in the military would be able to tell the difference between a fellow soldier's uniform and that of a civilian contractor. A great defense mounted so far, but wait, there's more! Gavin M. blasts Charles at LGF for using the phrase, "purported to be written by a soldier." Charles used the "P" word to describe someone hiding behind a pseudonym? Why, that's the exact same thing as directly calling him an impostor, isn't it folks? And yet Gavin presumably has a day job that doesn't involve balloon animals. But hang on, he has more evidence... Ace of Spades also used the damning scare quotes... twice. Gavin's a regular Perry Mason, isn't he? And the killing blow... before Beauchamp came out, Michelle Malkin, vile, prevaricating Malkin, addressed the liberal blogosphere's greatest unknown soldier as--and watch out for the scare quotes--as "alleged." Purported and alleged, two bread-and-butter words in any journalist's quiver for when the facts are hazy in the least, have--according to Gavin--become the same as calling him an impostor. Using scare quotes in the same manner is morphed by Gavin into a declarative emphatically stating that he doesn't exist. That's his case. Really.
Of course, once they found out about it, all of the Usual Suspects in the conservative’s mighty Wurlitzer - Malkin, Powerline, the whole schmear - set out to prove that “Scott Thomas” didn’t exist and that this was all just liberal lies to smear the armed forces and turn the country against the war. They went berzerk proving to themselves through “semiotic analysis” and other such crapola that this whole thing was just made-up liberal media lies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:06 PM | Comments (56) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'll admit that I thought there was a distinct possibility that Scott Thomas was not a soldier. I really didn't think that a real soldier would choose creative license over telling the truth. Why would a soldier in a combat zone feel the need to make fabrications so stupid that almost anyone could see through them? Well anyone except the editors at TNR. I guess it comes down to one's influences. His influnces probably include Anthony Swofford, Jack Kerouac or Hunter S. Thomson. Writers that felt emotions and feeling were more important than facts. Too bad his influences didn't include Ernie Pyle, Stephen Ambrose, Mark Bowden or even Michael Yon. Those people wrote about combat and didn't feel the need to create extra facts to make their stories more angst ridden.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 31, 2007 09:45 PM (oC8nQ)
2
Hmm. Well you posted your own letter to TNR, dated 7/20, in which you ask them the following questions:
Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? If so, did they receive such documentation, and did New Republic editors make an attempt to verify the accuracy of that documentation? Considering not dissimilar and thoroughly debunked claims by fake Ranger and former member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) Jesse MacBeth, this would be the only prudent first reaction upon reading such dramatic claims as those made by Thomas, especially considering TNR's own Stephen Glass problem.
So when Gavin M. at Sadly No! says that the WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor, and then proven wrong, he would've been right about the Confederate Yankee at least.
Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? If so, did they receive such documentation, and did New Republic editors make an attempt to verify the accuracy of that documentation? Considering not dissimilar and thoroughly debunked claims by fake Ranger and former member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) Jesse MacBeth, this would be the only prudent first reaction upon reading such dramatic claims as those made by Thomas, especially considering TNR's own Stephen Glass problem.
So when Gavin M. at Sadly No! says that the WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor, and then proven wrong, he would've been right about the Confederate Yankee at least.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason at July 31, 2007 10:12 PM (K1Emm)
3
Suggest remedial English class VOR.
You have obvious reading comprehension problems. Particularly in regard to questions versus declarative sentences.
You have obvious reading comprehension problems. Particularly in regard to questions versus declarative sentences.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2007 10:19 PM (8Dgyh)
4
Particularly in regard to questions versus declarative sentences.
In raising the question, he's holding it forth as a distinct possibility. It's the first question he puts to the editors! Of course the subtext is that it's not just possible, but plausible.
In raising the question, he's holding it forth as a distinct possibility. It's the first question he puts to the editors! Of course the subtext is that it's not just possible, but plausible.
Posted by: The Voice of Reason at July 31, 2007 10:47 PM (K1Emm)
5
I asked if TNR did their due diligence as editors... something then and now we suspect they did not, and with good reason.
This question you cite was the first question of seven, following several declarative paragraphs. It was the first question regarding this situation, because in a first-person narrative, establishing the credibility of the storyteller is a primary concern.
There is a world of difference in asking if TNR took the steps one would expect to verify the ID of their writer, and of declaring him a fabrication. Many left-leaning blogs purposefully jumped over that gap, as does VOR.
This question you cite was the first question of seven, following several declarative paragraphs. It was the first question regarding this situation, because in a first-person narrative, establishing the credibility of the storyteller is a primary concern.
There is a world of difference in asking if TNR took the steps one would expect to verify the ID of their writer, and of declaring him a fabrication. Many left-leaning blogs purposefully jumped over that gap, as does VOR.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 31, 2007 11:11 PM (HcgFD)
6
CY and VOR,
Help me out here. When knowledgable people started looking critically at Scott Thomas' TNR writing, they criticized its content as being wrong. As in, "this doesn't fit, Army units in Baghdad don't work this way, the stories don't ring true, the equipment's described wrong..."
It seems pretty reasonable to go on to wonder, "Is this guy for real? Really a soldier? Really in Baghdad?"
Whether CY made that assertion (as opposed to posing that question) or not in his letter to TNR, other bloggers certainly expressed doubts(there are a lot of them out there).
It turns out that Scott Thomas really is a USA soldier in Baghdad. Great! On to the key issue: his stories seem wrong. Are they?
The Gotcha! seems to be predicated on an implicit corrolary to entertaining doubts that Scott Thomas is a for-real soldier. It would go:
If a blogger expresses doubts that Scott Thomas is an actual soldier stationed in Baghdad, and Scott Thomas turns out to be an actual soldier stationed in Baghdad, then all doubts about Scott Thomas' accounts have been definitively vanquished.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Help me out here. When knowledgable people started looking critically at Scott Thomas' TNR writing, they criticized its content as being wrong. As in, "this doesn't fit, Army units in Baghdad don't work this way, the stories don't ring true, the equipment's described wrong..."
It seems pretty reasonable to go on to wonder, "Is this guy for real? Really a soldier? Really in Baghdad?"
Whether CY made that assertion (as opposed to posing that question) or not in his letter to TNR, other bloggers certainly expressed doubts(there are a lot of them out there).
It turns out that Scott Thomas really is a USA soldier in Baghdad. Great! On to the key issue: his stories seem wrong. Are they?
The Gotcha! seems to be predicated on an implicit corrolary to entertaining doubts that Scott Thomas is a for-real soldier. It would go:
If a blogger expresses doubts that Scott Thomas is an actual soldier stationed in Baghdad, and Scott Thomas turns out to be an actual soldier stationed in Baghdad, then all doubts about Scott Thomas' accounts have been definitively vanquished.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Posted by: AMac at July 31, 2007 11:11 PM (Djzc+)
7
In raising the question, he's holding it forth as a distinct possibility.
The way truthers do when they raise the question if 9/11 was an inside job right? That makes it a "distinct possibility" right?
Will Richard Nixon rise from the dead? Its a "distinct possibility" you know right?
The way truthers do when they raise the question if 9/11 was an inside job right? That makes it a "distinct possibility" right?
Will Richard Nixon rise from the dead? Its a "distinct possibility" you know right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2007 11:42 PM (8Dgyh)
8
Whether CY made that assertion (as opposed to posing that question) or not in his letter to TNR, other bloggers certainly expressed doubts (there are a lot of them out there).
My emphasis, and my question: if there are "a lot of them out there," then why does it seem so difficult for those making these claims to actually support their assertions with direct quotes?
I've seen some that wanted to know if TNR vetted the guy prior to publication, and I've seen some guess at his identity--incorrectly--by identifying another soldier (Clifton Hicks) as the possible writer behind the pseudonym.
What I have not seen, despite claims by the liberal bloggers I cited (and quite a few I did not), is any direct quotes showing that conservatives stated "he didn't exist" as Drum and roy at alicublog and Mercury Rising assert, or was "an imposter" as Gavin M. stated, or that anyone was accusing TNR of "fabricating a soldier" as was claimed at Americablog.
John from Op-For and I even politely asked the bloggers at "Mercury Rising" to support their assertions with direct quotes, and instead, we had our quite reasonable requests deleted as a result of their being exposed.
Did a handful of milblogs or center-right blogs probably make those assertions? With literally tens of millions of blogs in existence, I feel rather certain that some probably did, but that was not something shared by bloggers on the overwhelming majority of the more popular and reputable blogs. It simply wasn't. It wasn't even a noticeable minority opinion.
This was a meme created, propagated, and self-reinforced by blogs on the left, and it is time that they own up to their own brand of fabulism.
Whether CY made that assertion (as opposed to posing that question) or not in his letter to TNR, other bloggers certainly expressed doubts (there are a lot of them out there).
My emphasis, and my question: if there are "a lot of them out there," then why does it seem so difficult for those making these claims to actually support their assertions with direct quotes?
I've seen some that wanted to know if TNR vetted the guy prior to publication, and I've seen some guess at his identity--incorrectly--by identifying another soldier (Clifton Hicks) as the possible writer behind the pseudonym.
What I have not seen, despite claims by the liberal bloggers I cited (and quite a few I did not), is any direct quotes showing that conservatives stated "he didn't exist" as Drum and roy at alicublog and Mercury Rising assert, or was "an imposter" as Gavin M. stated, or that anyone was accusing TNR of "fabricating a soldier" as was claimed at Americablog.
John from Op-For and I even politely asked the bloggers at "Mercury Rising" to support their assertions with direct quotes, and instead, we had our quite reasonable requests deleted as a result of their being exposed.
Did a handful of milblogs or center-right blogs probably make those assertions? With literally tens of millions of blogs in existence, I feel rather certain that some probably did, but that was not something shared by bloggers on the overwhelming majority of the more popular and reputable blogs. It simply wasn't. It wasn't even a noticeable minority opinion.
This was a meme created, propagated, and self-reinforced by blogs on the left, and it is time that they own up to their own brand of fabulism.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 01, 2007 07:56 AM (0BhZ5)
9
Just after "Shock Troops" hit the stands, I could have registered at Blogspot and started a blog, naming it "Scott Thomas Doesn't Exist!!!" Each entry could have focused on this single conviction (postings would have dropped off on the day that Beauchamp was outed/stepped forward).
What I fail to understand is why cases equivalent to my hypothetical are assuming such importance among Beauchamp's champions. Would it weigh equally if I had loudly opined by the office water cooler, instead of blogging? If I had thought about it but kept my beliefs to myself?
Since there are tens or hundreds of thousands of web-logs, it is surely true that some bloggers have asserted Scott Thomas' non-existence or non-service. I haven't checked, because the point doesn't seem worth discussing (but here we are).
It is clear that critics-of-Beauchamp's-critics read these threads, and often jump in to comment. Two quick questions for you:
-- Why does it matter if some bloggers incorrectly accused Scott Thomas of non-service, and were then proved wrong?
-- Since it matters, can you link to posts of the high-traffic bloggers who have committed this infraction? Say, bloggers in the top-200 positions of NZ Bear's Ecosystem?
Thanks in advance.
What I fail to understand is why cases equivalent to my hypothetical are assuming such importance among Beauchamp's champions. Would it weigh equally if I had loudly opined by the office water cooler, instead of blogging? If I had thought about it but kept my beliefs to myself?
Since there are tens or hundreds of thousands of web-logs, it is surely true that some bloggers have asserted Scott Thomas' non-existence or non-service. I haven't checked, because the point doesn't seem worth discussing (but here we are).
It is clear that critics-of-Beauchamp's-critics read these threads, and often jump in to comment. Two quick questions for you:
-- Why does it matter if some bloggers incorrectly accused Scott Thomas of non-service, and were then proved wrong?
-- Since it matters, can you link to posts of the high-traffic bloggers who have committed this infraction? Say, bloggers in the top-200 positions of NZ Bear's Ecosystem?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: AMac at August 01, 2007 08:50 AM (5PjHO)
10
CY:
I'm confused. I thought that all enlightened individuals were to question authority (TNR) and be relentless truthseekers (a la Michael Moore, Chomsky, etc.)or else be lickspittle automatons manipulated by greedy corporate interests into having their consent manufactured and pockets picked.
Maybe it is beyond the comprehension of some Leftists, but they do not have a monopoly on critical thinking skills. Their "truth" can get the reasoned pinata treatment too.
The difference between the 60's and today is that technology allows those with differing views and insights to publicly scrutinize the pieties and claptrap of the Left and expose shinola for what it is.
AMac is right on the mark in his comments. What this meme is meant to be is a debate stopper. How long will it be before the Leftie bloggers start throwing out the "backlash" and "chilling effect" memes too?
I'm confused. I thought that all enlightened individuals were to question authority (TNR) and be relentless truthseekers (a la Michael Moore, Chomsky, etc.)or else be lickspittle automatons manipulated by greedy corporate interests into having their consent manufactured and pockets picked.
Maybe it is beyond the comprehension of some Leftists, but they do not have a monopoly on critical thinking skills. Their "truth" can get the reasoned pinata treatment too.
The difference between the 60's and today is that technology allows those with differing views and insights to publicly scrutinize the pieties and claptrap of the Left and expose shinola for what it is.
AMac is right on the mark in his comments. What this meme is meant to be is a debate stopper. How long will it be before the Leftie bloggers start throwing out the "backlash" and "chilling effect" memes too?
Posted by: wjo at August 01, 2007 09:16 AM (2/2Kk)
11
Correction to my first comment (7/31/07 11:11pm), where I wrote:
other bloggers certainly expressed doubts (there are a lot of them out there).The antecedent for "them" was meant to be "bloggers" rather than "bloggers who expressed doubt." Correctly parsed, the point was, "since there are a lot of bloggers out there, it is not surprising that some (small) number expressed doubts."
Apologies for the misleading grammar on that point.
other bloggers certainly expressed doubts (there are a lot of them out there).The antecedent for "them" was meant to be "bloggers" rather than "bloggers who expressed doubt." Correctly parsed, the point was, "since there are a lot of bloggers out there, it is not surprising that some (small) number expressed doubts."
Apologies for the misleading grammar on that point.
Posted by: AMac at August 01, 2007 09:41 AM (Djzc+)
12
Hmmm.
All this is just BS.
The real question is where the heck is that proof that TNR was supposed to provide.
Frankly I think they've ducked the whole thing and are hoping it'll all either blow over or other leftie websites will help them reconstruct the issues in a way that'll let them escape responsibility.
Personally I don't plan on letting them.
All this is just BS.
The real question is where the heck is that proof that TNR was supposed to provide.
Frankly I think they've ducked the whole thing and are hoping it'll all either blow over or other leftie websites will help them reconstruct the issues in a way that'll let them escape responsibility.
Personally I don't plan on letting them.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 10:01 AM (3pvQO)
13
This is a lot like the "Jamil Hussein" AP fiasco. His stories were debunked but the AP produced someone who used the pseudonym "Jamil Hussein". That didnt make his lies any less dishonest and the crappy AP reporting and less crappy.
Posted by: ME at August 01, 2007 10:24 AM (gkobM)
14
General J.C. Christian is still around? I thought he went into hiding after that "own goal" he created on that Nashville blogger. Putz.
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 01, 2007 11:27 AM (0pZel)
15
This recent thread, "Scott Beauchamp's Troubles are Just Beginning," attracted 141 comments, many from defenders of Beauchamp and debunkers of those who are skeptical of his claims.
I hope they offer some answers to the questions posed in this post, as well.
I hope they offer some answers to the questions posed in this post, as well.
Posted by: AMac at August 01, 2007 12:06 PM (Djzc+)
Posted by: AMac at August 01, 2007 06:29 PM (Djzc+)
Posted by: memomachine at August 02, 2007 09:33 AM (3pvQO)
18
Part of the issue is what the Left seems to believe constitutes necessary versus sufficient proof.
For those who are skeptical, or simply with a bit more analytical rigor, there's several things that are necessary for a story to be true.
The first, as evidenced by CY's questions, is that the person actually exist, both physically (not a complete fiction) and exist as described (as a soldier, as a soldier in Iraq).
From there, other pieces of evidence are necessary for the story to be given credence: details need to be accurate, opportunities described need to have occurred, the people described need to have existed.
The Left, having concluded that Beauchamp is the fulfillment of their dreams (an artist witness to the depravities of LT Calley), have concluded that providing proof that Beauchamp existed is SUFFICIENT, when it is not.
As ME notes, this is precisely like the Jamil Hussein kerfuffle. If Hussein exists, he must therefore be telling the truth.
The irony, of course, is that when the Left opposes a meme, say, that the surge is working, evidence from witnesses, on the ground, in Iraq, who can provide photographic evidence (I'm thinking Michael Yon) are dismissed as "shills."
If anyone ever wants to see the double standard of liberal-think in action.....
For those who are skeptical, or simply with a bit more analytical rigor, there's several things that are necessary for a story to be true.
The first, as evidenced by CY's questions, is that the person actually exist, both physically (not a complete fiction) and exist as described (as a soldier, as a soldier in Iraq).
From there, other pieces of evidence are necessary for the story to be given credence: details need to be accurate, opportunities described need to have occurred, the people described need to have existed.
The Left, having concluded that Beauchamp is the fulfillment of their dreams (an artist witness to the depravities of LT Calley), have concluded that providing proof that Beauchamp existed is SUFFICIENT, when it is not.
As ME notes, this is precisely like the Jamil Hussein kerfuffle. If Hussein exists, he must therefore be telling the truth.
The irony, of course, is that when the Left opposes a meme, say, that the surge is working, evidence from witnesses, on the ground, in Iraq, who can provide photographic evidence (I'm thinking Michael Yon) are dismissed as "shills."
If anyone ever wants to see the double standard of liberal-think in action.....
Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 02, 2007 11:31 AM (/ZD7V)
19
Hmmmm.
About that Jamil Hussein. One thing I kinda missed, mostly due to boredom, was whether or not the Jamil Hussein that that the Iraqi Interior Ministry found was the same Jamil Hussein that the AP had been quoting.
Did the AP come out and explicitly state that this specific Jamil Hussein was *the* Jamil Hussein that they had been quoting?
Any answers would be great. Thanks in advance.
About that Jamil Hussein. One thing I kinda missed, mostly due to boredom, was whether or not the Jamil Hussein that that the Iraqi Interior Ministry found was the same Jamil Hussein that the AP had been quoting.
Did the AP come out and explicitly state that this specific Jamil Hussein was *the* Jamil Hussein that they had been quoting?
Any answers would be great. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: memomachine at August 02, 2007 02:30 PM (3pvQO)
20
About that Jamil Hussein. One thing I kinda missed, mostly due to boredom, was whether or not the Jamil Hussein that that the Iraqi Interior Ministry found was the same Jamil Hussein that the AP had been quoting.
Did the AP come out and explicitly state that this specific Jamil Hussein was *the* Jamil Hussein that they had been quoting?
This is not now, nor has there ever been, a real Jamil Hussein. Jmail Hussein is a pseudonym for Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX [last name, as always, redacted for his safety], who leaked stories from all over Baghdad to Iraqi stringers working for the Associated Press. Only a handful have ever been independently confirmed as true.
Whenever the issue is brought up, AP's former (Linda Wagner) and current (Paul Colford) Media Relations Directors always point to a January 4 Steven R. Hust article, where they state Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf confirmed the existence of Jamil Hussein, just as they said all along.
The problem with that story is that it simply isn't true. I'd consider going so far as to call it a direct, willful, ass-covering lie.
As I released in an exclusive on February 15, BG Abdul-Karim denies the AP's printed claim, and in fact, says that it was AP's Iraqi stringers that confirmed to him on two separate occasions that XX XXXXXXX is the guy referenced by AP as Hussein.
I can also tell you that AP refuses to dispute my account, though they've had about six months--and my repeated invitation--to do so.
About that Jamil Hussein. One thing I kinda missed, mostly due to boredom, was whether or not the Jamil Hussein that that the Iraqi Interior Ministry found was the same Jamil Hussein that the AP had been quoting.
Did the AP come out and explicitly state that this specific Jamil Hussein was *the* Jamil Hussein that they had been quoting?
This is not now, nor has there ever been, a real Jamil Hussein. Jmail Hussein is a pseudonym for Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX [last name, as always, redacted for his safety], who leaked stories from all over Baghdad to Iraqi stringers working for the Associated Press. Only a handful have ever been independently confirmed as true.
Whenever the issue is brought up, AP's former (Linda Wagner) and current (Paul Colford) Media Relations Directors always point to a January 4 Steven R. Hust article, where they state Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf confirmed the existence of Jamil Hussein, just as they said all along.
The problem with that story is that it simply isn't true. I'd consider going so far as to call it a direct, willful, ass-covering lie.
As I released in an exclusive on February 15, BG Abdul-Karim denies the AP's printed claim, and in fact, says that it was AP's Iraqi stringers that confirmed to him on two separate occasions that XX XXXXXXX is the guy referenced by AP as Hussein.
I can also tell you that AP refuses to dispute my account, though they've had about six months--and my repeated invitation--to do so.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 02, 2007 02:53 PM (0BhZ5)
21
It looks like PV2 Beauchamp is a real soldier, and his tales are true.
You can move on to calling some other media outlet liars now.
You can move on to calling some other media outlet liars now.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at August 02, 2007 03:38 PM (iL2/6)
22
The boys at Sadly, No! have assembled examples from Hot Air, Malkin, Ace of Spades, and LGF all doubting that Thomas was a real soldier.
Are they now part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that oppresses you? Or were you completely wrong?
Are they now part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that oppresses you? Or were you completely wrong?
Posted by: TR at August 02, 2007 07:37 PM (Bhrim)
23
TR - Has that famous research lab over at SadlyNoonehome proved the Troofiness of Beauchamp's stories from their reporters on the ground or other means yet? Are they good for anything other than snark? I guess that was a rhetorical question. Most of their snark sucks, involves bathroom humor, and is written at the third grade level in honor of their readership.
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 02, 2007 07:50 PM (0pZel)
24
I'd consider going so far as to call it a direct, willful, ass-covering lie.
Much like this post, as TR and others have pointed out.
That Malkin, Ace, LGF and other prominent right-wing bloggers expressed the possibility that Soldier Scott did not exist and presented this possibility as a distinct one is pretty clear. They pushed this meme in lockstop, as per normal. I can understand you wanting to twist words or intentions to CYA, but this post and its idea that the meme was made up by Drum and other lefty bloggers is just ignorant on its face. C'mon, really. You can parse better than this.
Much like this post, as TR and others have pointed out.
That Malkin, Ace, LGF and other prominent right-wing bloggers expressed the possibility that Soldier Scott did not exist and presented this possibility as a distinct one is pretty clear. They pushed this meme in lockstop, as per normal. I can understand you wanting to twist words or intentions to CYA, but this post and its idea that the meme was made up by Drum and other lefty bloggers is just ignorant on its face. C'mon, really. You can parse better than this.
Posted by: dgbellak at August 02, 2007 09:53 PM (foHAH)
25
With the TNR "Statement" now up, I'll post a link to my thoughts on the matter (comment 18 at this Winds of Change thread).
FWIW, I think the Statement is written with great care, to claim what it can. And the claims of truthfulness TNR is now making are not the same as the important claims in Beauchamp's original essay.
FWIW, I think the Statement is written with great care, to claim what it can. And the claims of truthfulness TNR is now making are not the same as the important claims in Beauchamp's original essay.
Posted by: AMac at August 02, 2007 10:57 PM (Djzc+)
26
Please, just apologize for being wrong and move on. Or even just move on. All this backtracking and spinning really discredits anything this blog has to offer.
Posted by: hpl99us at August 03, 2007 07:04 AM (m2z0f)
27
My problem with the TNR affair was that the actuality of the individual involved was secondary to what was being reported, but NOT up the chain of command or to the necessary military justice organizations available in the Armed Forces. There is a responsibility that goes with 'freedom of the press' as a part of 'freedom of speech', indeed the press is function of individual rights, not that of an organization or set of organizations put broadly under 'journalism'. As such individuals who are reporters are accountable to the exact same laws and restrictions for their reporting as any individual is who is not a journalist and yet publicizes information. Beyond the concept of 'sedition' and its US Code instantiation, there is this thing known as 'adhering to treaties' that have been codified under the US Code. We do, indeed, have freedom of speech within our Land, but those doing reporting from foreign lands are only free to report on what is allowed via treaty. In most instances that is a broad spectrum of ideas, but in wartime the actual signed conventions and treaties put hard and fast restriction upon such reporting. Actions taken that are contrary to those treaties and conventions covering warfare are this thing known as: war crimes.
Clear on that? Freedom of speech upheld in the US, but external to it circumscribed by treaty and during wartime and other times of combat operations overseas treaties define what can and cannot be done and the US Code then upholds those things. We agree by our Constitution that this is the case by the separation of powers and the giving over to Congress to write laws to uphold treaties. No one branch gets say on this and the judicial does its part to make sure that the Constitutional separations and grants of limited power to government do not over-ride civil rights. Well known, well respected, observed by all, right?
As desecration of graves is specifically prohibited starting at least in the 1899 Hague Convention governing the rules of law on land, since when does TNR get away with NOT going to the Armed Forces *first* on that story? They even account, in their attempted clarification, that it took place. Their responsibility upon confirmation was *not* to publish because that grave site was something that could now be considered to be a crime scene by the desecration and violation of the interred there. Respect for the dead in areas under control of one's military overseas and, indeed, all buildings, areas and other places that have no function in or for warfare is strictly prohibited beyond its useful function, and is to be treated as private property and with respect. That also goes for State owned places that do not have function for warmaking. Very old idea, that once you control territory you treat the land and inhabitants with respect... especially and particularly the resting places of the dead. No matter how shabbily the locals treat such places, those rules of warfare apply to those troops in control of such areas, which TNR *also* confirms for itself.
We appear to be too civilized to treat graveyard desecration and necrophilia during wartime as the crime it is.
Soon we will not have a civilization at all if we cannot make such simple things a part of our responsibilities to our Nation and ourselves.
My horror and disgust was not only in the actions put forth in the article, but in the absolute lack of ethics on the part of TNR in their reporting.
Clear on that? Freedom of speech upheld in the US, but external to it circumscribed by treaty and during wartime and other times of combat operations overseas treaties define what can and cannot be done and the US Code then upholds those things. We agree by our Constitution that this is the case by the separation of powers and the giving over to Congress to write laws to uphold treaties. No one branch gets say on this and the judicial does its part to make sure that the Constitutional separations and grants of limited power to government do not over-ride civil rights. Well known, well respected, observed by all, right?
As desecration of graves is specifically prohibited starting at least in the 1899 Hague Convention governing the rules of law on land, since when does TNR get away with NOT going to the Armed Forces *first* on that story? They even account, in their attempted clarification, that it took place. Their responsibility upon confirmation was *not* to publish because that grave site was something that could now be considered to be a crime scene by the desecration and violation of the interred there. Respect for the dead in areas under control of one's military overseas and, indeed, all buildings, areas and other places that have no function in or for warfare is strictly prohibited beyond its useful function, and is to be treated as private property and with respect. That also goes for State owned places that do not have function for warmaking. Very old idea, that once you control territory you treat the land and inhabitants with respect... especially and particularly the resting places of the dead. No matter how shabbily the locals treat such places, those rules of warfare apply to those troops in control of such areas, which TNR *also* confirms for itself.
We appear to be too civilized to treat graveyard desecration and necrophilia during wartime as the crime it is.
Soon we will not have a civilization at all if we cannot make such simple things a part of our responsibilities to our Nation and ourselves.
My horror and disgust was not only in the actions put forth in the article, but in the absolute lack of ethics on the part of TNR in their reporting.
Posted by: ajacksonian at August 03, 2007 07:12 AM (oy1lQ)
Posted by: AMac at August 03, 2007 07:44 AM (IZc7W)
29
I love this. So no putting quotes around a word does NOT suggest that it is not actual or real.
So when I say
We are "winning" in Iraq
I'm being serious?
Please.
So when I say
We are "winning" in Iraq
I'm being serious?
Please.
Posted by: Dhalgren at August 03, 2007 08:46 AM (Q7Ugu)
30
I love this. So now putting quotes around a word does NOT suggest that it is not actual or real.
So when I say -
We are "winning" in Iraq
I'm being totally serious?
Brilliant, CY!
So when I say -
We are "winning" in Iraq
I'm being totally serious?
Brilliant, CY!
Posted by: Dhalgren at August 03, 2007 08:46 AM (Q7Ugu)
31
TR - Has that famous research lab over at SadlyNoonehome proved the Troofiness of Beauchamp's stories from their reporters on the ground or other means yet?
Way to move the goalposts, champ.
CY insisted that no one on the right had ever doubted that Beauchamp was a real soldier. That was the issue here, and the SN folks proved that CY was - as always - incredibly wrong.
As for Beauchamp's claims, TNR seems to have handled that well, but you people are in such a state of denial you'll never believe it.
Fine. Keep your head in the sand, and see how many more of your fellow Americans you can alienate with your insanity. It's about 3-to-1 against you now. Keep it up.
Way to move the goalposts, champ.
CY insisted that no one on the right had ever doubted that Beauchamp was a real soldier. That was the issue here, and the SN folks proved that CY was - as always - incredibly wrong.
As for Beauchamp's claims, TNR seems to have handled that well, but you people are in such a state of denial you'll never believe it.
Fine. Keep your head in the sand, and see how many more of your fellow Americans you can alienate with your insanity. It's about 3-to-1 against you now. Keep it up.
Posted by: TR at August 03, 2007 09:57 AM (Bhrim)
32
Are they good for anything other than snark?
It's a humor blog. Snark is sort of in the job description.
Unlike this site, which is unintentionally hilarious.
It's a humor blog. Snark is sort of in the job description.
Unlike this site, which is unintentionally hilarious.
Posted by: TR at August 03, 2007 10:01 AM (Bhrim)
33
TR,
Who is moving goalposts?
Libs claims that conservative bloggers directly said Beauchamp didn’t exist, was fabricated, or as Gavin directly stated, was "an impostor."
None of that has held up, no matter how much you try to read behind the lines or take things out of context. Sorry, champ, but you've been chumped, as even your own examples show.
No conservative blogger that you've been able to produce said that "Scott Thomas doesn't exist." Nor did you find anyone declaring that "Scott Thomas isn't a soldier." Nor is their any evidence to support Gavin's claim that any conservative said "Scott Thomas is an impostor."
What is interesting is that Kuwait-based PAOs have now called his burn victim an urban legend, after Foer shifted the goalposts out of Iraq.
There is also an as yet unconfirmed report that the military investigation is over, and that Beauchamp's own platoon--where Foer claims Beauchamp's witnesses were from--have refuted his stories, and proven them to be false.
I'm waiting for an official verification of this claim, butit appears you've been punked four times now... how much more will it take for that to sink in?
Who is moving goalposts?
Libs claims that conservative bloggers directly said Beauchamp didn’t exist, was fabricated, or as Gavin directly stated, was "an impostor."
None of that has held up, no matter how much you try to read behind the lines or take things out of context. Sorry, champ, but you've been chumped, as even your own examples show.
No conservative blogger that you've been able to produce said that "Scott Thomas doesn't exist." Nor did you find anyone declaring that "Scott Thomas isn't a soldier." Nor is their any evidence to support Gavin's claim that any conservative said "Scott Thomas is an impostor."
What is interesting is that Kuwait-based PAOs have now called his burn victim an urban legend, after Foer shifted the goalposts out of Iraq.
There is also an as yet unconfirmed report that the military investigation is over, and that Beauchamp's own platoon--where Foer claims Beauchamp's witnesses were from--have refuted his stories, and proven them to be false.
I'm waiting for an official verification of this claim, butit appears you've been punked four times now... how much more will it take for that to sink in?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 03, 2007 10:13 AM (WwtVa)
34
If they didn't doubt he was a solider, then why all the parsing?
Why put the word "soldier" in quotation marks if they thought he was a real solider?
Why say things like this -- "The story of the woman in the DFAC makes no sense for the simple reason that the soldier claims not to know whether she was civilian or military. A real soldier ought to know at a glance whether she was one or the other if he was as close to her as he claims to have been" -- unless you mean he's not "a real soldier"?
Why say things like " 'Scott Thomas,' an alleged soldier" and "purported to be written by a soldier" unless you doubt that he's actually a solider?
Why would Malkin say there were "questions about his identity " if she didn't mean that there were, well, questions about his identity?
Your parsing of language would make Bill Clinton blush.
You were wrong. Sack up and admit it.
Why put the word "soldier" in quotation marks if they thought he was a real solider?
Why say things like this -- "The story of the woman in the DFAC makes no sense for the simple reason that the soldier claims not to know whether she was civilian or military. A real soldier ought to know at a glance whether she was one or the other if he was as close to her as he claims to have been" -- unless you mean he's not "a real soldier"?
Why say things like " 'Scott Thomas,' an alleged soldier" and "purported to be written by a soldier" unless you doubt that he's actually a solider?
Why would Malkin say there were "questions about his identity " if she didn't mean that there were, well, questions about his identity?
Your parsing of language would make Bill Clinton blush.
You were wrong. Sack up and admit it.
Posted by: TR at August 03, 2007 11:14 AM (Bhrim)
35
Hmm… let’s examine this sentence.
Eats shoots and leaves.
Does it mean the same thing as?
Eats, shoots and leaves.
You see, the addition of that single comma substantially changed the meaning of the sentence. Zowee!!!
Let's take another example.
Confederate Yankees intelligence and thoughtfulness are a joy to behold.
Confederate Yankees “intelligence” and “thoughtfulness” are a joy to behold.
Numerous right wing bloggers clearly implied Beauchamp did not exist, just because they said it in quotation mark for as opposed to text does not change the meaning of the words they wrote.
You see kids, punctuation is important.
Eats shoots and leaves.
Does it mean the same thing as?
Eats, shoots and leaves.
You see, the addition of that single comma substantially changed the meaning of the sentence. Zowee!!!
Let's take another example.
Confederate Yankees intelligence and thoughtfulness are a joy to behold.
Confederate Yankees “intelligence” and “thoughtfulness” are a joy to behold.
Numerous right wing bloggers clearly implied Beauchamp did not exist, just because they said it in quotation mark for as opposed to text does not change the meaning of the words they wrote.
You see kids, punctuation is important.
Posted by: over_educated at August 03, 2007 11:45 AM (Cg5WI)
36
Seems to me the right continues to focus its energy on the substance of Beauchamp's articles, which is what generated the entire controversary, while the left remains stuck on stupid debating what he is.
TR and over_educated, do you believe what he wrote is accurate or fiction?
TR and over_educated, do you believe what he wrote is accurate or fiction?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 03, 2007 11:57 AM (0pZel)
37
I believe, on the whole, that the events Beauchamp described occurred. Was he completely accurate? No. Was he accurate within a margin of error that is acceptable? Yes, I can forgive misrecalling the mess hall an event occured in and inaccurate descriptions of shell casings. I know you all think it is convincing to harp on a minor innaccuracy thinking that it completely discredits your opponent, it doesn't, it just makes you look like a tool.
The fact is we have an eyewitness account corroborated by other eyewitnesses. What level of proof do you need? Video tape?
But this post wasn't about Beauchamps accuracy. It was a claim that right wing blogs didn't at first suggest that Beauchamp was fabricated, which, as has been pointed out, they quite obviously did.
The fact is we have an eyewitness account corroborated by other eyewitnesses. What level of proof do you need? Video tape?
But this post wasn't about Beauchamps accuracy. It was a claim that right wing blogs didn't at first suggest that Beauchamp was fabricated, which, as has been pointed out, they quite obviously did.
Posted by: over_educated at August 03, 2007 12:47 PM (0M6oQ)
38
TR and over_educated, do you believe what he wrote is accurate or fiction?
On one side, you have Beauchamp, corroborated by other soldiers and fact-checked by TNR.
On the other, you have refutations from Matt Sanchez, who apparently had a career in gay porn before becoming the darling of the right.
I'll go with the first group.
On one side, you have Beauchamp, corroborated by other soldiers and fact-checked by TNR.
On the other, you have refutations from Matt Sanchez, who apparently had a career in gay porn before becoming the darling of the right.
I'll go with the first group.
Posted by: TR at August 03, 2007 01:18 PM (Bhrim)
39
Sanchez, by the way, is currently being investigated by the Marines for soliciting money for an Iraq deployment he never took. Sounds very trustworthy, indeed.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_sanchez_investigation070330/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_sanchez_investigation070330/
Posted by: TR at August 03, 2007 01:27 PM (Bhrim)
40
I'll eventually figure out what not to include in comments here.
I find it terribly ironic that the tolerant left is lambasting a gay(?) black American because his past theoretically renders him incapable of being honest. Nice spin from the left. Can you point to any specific problems with what he has written or is it just wishful thinking. I wasn't aware that porn was illegal. Do Barney Frank's up close and personal associations with gay prostitution, which is illegal, render him dishonest and unfit for public office according to your standards evenly applied?
That investigation you mentioned into raising money for an embedded reporting assignment which never occurred, has it been resolved unfavorably to Sanchez or are you just throwing dirt on him for shits and giggles?
Your tunnel vision on whether Beauchamp existed is pretty funny given that the controversy starts with what he wrote. Are former or serving soldiers supporting what he wrote apart from the anonymous sources in TNR's "fact checked" re-release? If they are, why not provide some examples folks.
I find it terribly ironic that the tolerant left is lambasting a gay(?) black American because his past theoretically renders him incapable of being honest. Nice spin from the left. Can you point to any specific problems with what he has written or is it just wishful thinking. I wasn't aware that porn was illegal. Do Barney Frank's up close and personal associations with gay prostitution, which is illegal, render him dishonest and unfit for public office according to your standards evenly applied?
That investigation you mentioned into raising money for an embedded reporting assignment which never occurred, has it been resolved unfavorably to Sanchez or are you just throwing dirt on him for shits and giggles?
Your tunnel vision on whether Beauchamp existed is pretty funny given that the controversy starts with what he wrote. Are former or serving soldiers supporting what he wrote apart from the anonymous sources in TNR's "fact checked" re-release? If they are, why not provide some examples folks.
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 03, 2007 03:21 PM (0pZel)
41
"Your tunnel vision on whether Beauchamp existed is pretty funny given that the controversy starts with what he wrote."
Well, that is what this blog post is about. It is supposedly refuting the fact that right wing bloggers initially claimed Beauchamp didn't exist. We are pointing out that they did do just that. There are voluminous other threads discussing what he wrote, we are just reponding to the OP's original assertion.
Well, that is what this blog post is about. It is supposedly refuting the fact that right wing bloggers initially claimed Beauchamp didn't exist. We are pointing out that they did do just that. There are voluminous other threads discussing what he wrote, we are just reponding to the OP's original assertion.
Posted by: over_educated at August 06, 2007 07:46 AM (Cg5WI)
42
Hmmm.
@ over_educated & TR
Right wing *blogs* didn't advance the opinion that Beauchamp didn't exist. **Commenters**, such as myself, advanced that opinion.
And there is a vast difference between the two so no BS from either of you.
I personally advanced the opinion that Beauchamp was a fraud because no soldier with any sort of experience would refer to a 9mm shell casing fired by a Glock as "square-backed".
That Beauchamp is a soldier *and* was ignorant enough to refer to that 9mm shell casing as "square-backed" speaks volumes for the man.
@ over_educated & TR
Right wing *blogs* didn't advance the opinion that Beauchamp didn't exist. **Commenters**, such as myself, advanced that opinion.
And there is a vast difference between the two so no BS from either of you.
I personally advanced the opinion that Beauchamp was a fraud because no soldier with any sort of experience would refer to a 9mm shell casing fired by a Glock as "square-backed".
That Beauchamp is a soldier *and* was ignorant enough to refer to that 9mm shell casing as "square-backed" speaks volumes for the man.
Posted by: memomachine at August 06, 2007 09:45 AM (3pvQO)
Sanchez on Beauchamp
A taste:I'll have a bit more to say about the subject--specifically, the dishonesty of some of those blogging about the unfolding Beauchchamp/New Republic scandal--in the very near future.
"Record Media Attention" New York Times, O'Reilly Factor, ABC, CNN, Hot Air, in the past two weeks, Major Luedeke has dealt with more media inquiries over the Beauchamp controversy than any other subject in his entire career. After several terse conversations, it was obvious soldiers at FOB Falcon took the events described in The New Republic very seriously. What was not so obvious was how seriously The New Republic editorial staff treated the matter. If the investigation proves the "Baghdad Diarist" stories to be false, what will The New Republic do? Will they retract the story? Will they reveal the process they used to vet the original information? Every soldier I spoke to realizes he or she is accountable for what is said and done while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Careers can be ruined because of scandals like the "Baghdad Diarist." Getting a Fair Shake "The Army works hard to get the soldier's story out to the media, unfortunately the media only wants to hear about bad things," said several soldiers who did not want to be identified. Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp is currently on FOB Falcon, but unavailable for comment. Once the official investigation started, the key issue was to protect the soldier's rights. Needless to say, The New Republic has no such responsibility.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:46 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I can only imagine what would have become of me if I'd slandered my ship or shipmates in such a manner as this.
Youth and arrogance go hand in hand, so it’s not difficult to see how one starts down this sort of path. Still, I find it impossible to feel sorry for this young man, and I have to wonder what sort of defects a person must have to follow that path so far to the detriment of his fellow soldiers.
My experience (submarines) taught me quickly that you were either crew…or you weren’t. I can’t imagine that an Army unit in a war zone feels less strongly about that concept.
Youth and arrogance go hand in hand, so it’s not difficult to see how one starts down this sort of path. Still, I find it impossible to feel sorry for this young man, and I have to wonder what sort of defects a person must have to follow that path so far to the detriment of his fellow soldiers.
My experience (submarines) taught me quickly that you were either crew…or you weren’t. I can’t imagine that an Army unit in a war zone feels less strongly about that concept.
Posted by: iamnot at July 31, 2007 05:12 PM (onj4J)
2
Although it's not really on topic, I've been to FOB Falcon a couple of times. We lived just down the road at dirthole FOB St. Mike. Sometimes we'd end our missions in their area, so we'd be forced to eat in their rockin' chow hall.
Yeah, I recently read a some of this guy's Emo writing. It's pretty silly.
Yeah, I recently read a some of this guy's Emo writing. It's pretty silly.
Posted by: brando at July 31, 2007 08:12 PM (rDQC9)
3
"Sanchez on Beauchamp" hummm, I would like to hear what real reporters have to say about Beauchamp and his bs stories. Things are desperate when we have to take the word of an admitted gay male porn star like Sanchez.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070314/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070309/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_porn_sanchez_070323
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_sanchez_investigation070330/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070314/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070309/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_porn_sanchez_070323
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/marine_sanchez_investigation070330/
Posted by: blastmarine at July 31, 2007 09:40 PM (etHLg)
4
blastmarine - Has there been a problem with Sanchez' prior reporting or do you just have a problem with gays?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 31, 2007 09:56 PM (0pZel)
5
As daleyrocks states, what precisely, does Sanchez' past have anything to do with what he reports? He is at FOB Falcon... something none of our other media outlets can claim.
While your homophobia is noted, information surrounding this case is only "desperate" from the perspective of Beauchamp, Franklin Foer, and The New Republic.
While your homophobia is noted, information surrounding this case is only "desperate" from the perspective of Beauchamp, Franklin Foer, and The New Republic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 31, 2007 10:16 PM (HcgFD)
6
I'm thinking that Scott Beauchamp's stories were just the warmup for his book and his "Jimmy Massey" media tour. Everyone remembers how that one turned out don't they? Massey was a real soldier too who engaged in a little Joe Wilson type literary flair he was forced to back down from when none of the incidents he described could be corroborated.
Once again, full meme ahead!
Once again, full meme ahead!
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 31, 2007 11:22 PM (0pZel)
7
Sanchez has never fully laid out the facts in his gay porn past, escorting (prostitution), or fully detail the facts behind the aligations of his misrepresenting himself as a combat Marine (he has never served in combat) to the United Way and U-Hall to receive money or services. In the links from "The Marine Corps Times" above you will find the quote from the investigating officer to Sanchez:
"“Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq” by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul, Jones wrote."
Col Jones is the Marine Corps Investigating Officer and UWVC is New York City United War Veterans Council.
Sanchez is writing about Bouchamp who is under investigation for breaking military rules and he wants to report on them, well, for one I want him to release the full report of the investigation into his behavior and the details of his discharge. Until then you can call me a homophobe for calling him out, but I believe I have good cause.
"“Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq” by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul, Jones wrote."
Col Jones is the Marine Corps Investigating Officer and UWVC is New York City United War Veterans Council.
Sanchez is writing about Bouchamp who is under investigation for breaking military rules and he wants to report on them, well, for one I want him to release the full report of the investigation into his behavior and the details of his discharge. Until then you can call me a homophobe for calling him out, but I believe I have good cause.
Posted by: blastmarine at August 01, 2007 10:33 AM (StGke)
8
Hmmmm.
@ blastmarine
*laugh* keep trying. Nothing you, or any other lefty troll, writes is going to take the spotlight off of Beauchamp and TNR.
The fact that TNR hasn't responded for *2 weeks* now in their "investigation" is interesting. That TNR has taken an unscheduled August vacation is even more interesting.
So far it appears that Beauchamp is probably going to be drummed out of the Army and TNR is going to be shown, again and again and again, to be the home of liars.
And pretty much nothing you or the other lefty trolls on any website are going be able to do anything about it.
@ blastmarine
*laugh* keep trying. Nothing you, or any other lefty troll, writes is going to take the spotlight off of Beauchamp and TNR.
The fact that TNR hasn't responded for *2 weeks* now in their "investigation" is interesting. That TNR has taken an unscheduled August vacation is even more interesting.
So far it appears that Beauchamp is probably going to be drummed out of the Army and TNR is going to be shown, again and again and again, to be the home of liars.
And pretty much nothing you or the other lefty trolls on any website are going be able to do anything about it.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 10:46 AM (3pvQO)
9
memomachine, is that the best you can do? Are you Sanchez or one of his "special butties"
Beauchamp is scum and will be taken care of. Sanchez still has not come out with the truth and released the information I mentioned in my previous comment.
Lefty troll memoachine?, dude, you seriously need to have your head examined.
Beauchamp is scum and will be taken care of. Sanchez still has not come out with the truth and released the information I mentioned in my previous comment.
Lefty troll memoachine?, dude, you seriously need to have your head examined.
Posted by: blastmarine at August 01, 2007 11:20 AM (StGke)
10
Hmmm.
@ blastmarine
1. 'memomachine, is that the best you can do? Are you Sanchez or one of his "special butties"'
Sorry but that's your personal fantasy.
2. 'Beauchamp is scum and will be taken care of.'
*shrug* probably.
3. 'Sanchez still has not come out with the truth and released the information I mentioned in my previous comment.'
I'm sure he's sweating bullets right now and worried that you might post yet another comment about him. I'd inform "60 Minutes" about your expose, but I'm sure they already know.
4. 'Lefty troll memoachine?, dude, you seriously need to have your head examined.'
*shrug* that's what you sound like.
Frankly if Sanchez is into gay porn I couldn't possibly care less.
And whether or not you do is also something I couldn't possibly care less.
@ blastmarine
1. 'memomachine, is that the best you can do? Are you Sanchez or one of his "special butties"'
Sorry but that's your personal fantasy.
2. 'Beauchamp is scum and will be taken care of.'
*shrug* probably.
3. 'Sanchez still has not come out with the truth and released the information I mentioned in my previous comment.'
I'm sure he's sweating bullets right now and worried that you might post yet another comment about him. I'd inform "60 Minutes" about your expose, but I'm sure they already know.
4. 'Lefty troll memoachine?, dude, you seriously need to have your head examined.'
*shrug* that's what you sound like.
Frankly if Sanchez is into gay porn I couldn't possibly care less.
And whether or not you do is also something I couldn't possibly care less.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 01:37 PM (3pvQO)
11
memomachine
I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of someone with Matt Sanchez's background leading any kind of investigation (reporting) without first having come clean on the documented case the Marines had on him. Maybe in your world you find the open questions about his bahavior acceptable, but for me they are not. People who read his dispatches need to know who their information is coming from.
I looked at you blog and probably in some other instance we could have had a decent discussion, but you decided that my comment about Sanchez makes me a "lefty troll" and instead of addressing the merits of the comment or the information on the links from the Marine Corps Times, you instead try to deminish my statements by making sweeping characterizations that were completly incorrect and had nothing to do with anwsering the comment. If anything your tactic is like the lefty's I have seen.
So the origional disussion was on Beauchamp, my comment was on Sanchez and how his reporting is in question (in my book) due to the articles written in the Marine Corps Times about him, and Sanchez not fully answering them publicly. I would hate to find the MSM attack the coverage of Bouchamp as being somehow tainted due to a "gay porn star" with a reported history of deceit being the main conduit for uncovering any details about Beauchamp.
I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of someone with Matt Sanchez's background leading any kind of investigation (reporting) without first having come clean on the documented case the Marines had on him. Maybe in your world you find the open questions about his bahavior acceptable, but for me they are not. People who read his dispatches need to know who their information is coming from.
I looked at you blog and probably in some other instance we could have had a decent discussion, but you decided that my comment about Sanchez makes me a "lefty troll" and instead of addressing the merits of the comment or the information on the links from the Marine Corps Times, you instead try to deminish my statements by making sweeping characterizations that were completly incorrect and had nothing to do with anwsering the comment. If anything your tactic is like the lefty's I have seen.
So the origional disussion was on Beauchamp, my comment was on Sanchez and how his reporting is in question (in my book) due to the articles written in the Marine Corps Times about him, and Sanchez not fully answering them publicly. I would hate to find the MSM attack the coverage of Bouchamp as being somehow tainted due to a "gay porn star" with a reported history of deceit being the main conduit for uncovering any details about Beauchamp.
Posted by: blastmarine at August 01, 2007 02:50 PM (WvKhL)
12
blastmarine - Have you noticed problems with Sanchez' reporting or are you just being a lefty troll?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 01, 2007 02:53 PM (0pZel)
13
daleyrocks,
I don't comment on blogs much. Sanchez could be giving accurate information or he could be lying. I guess you have to take someone at their word, unless his word has already been called into question. If you read the articles from the Marine Corps Times maybe you might come away with the same opinion I have of Sanchez.
I guess it has something to do with the nature of Col Jones investigation into Sanchez for lying to organizations like the United Way and UHall. If he lying then is he lying now?
I think it is a honest question especially if Sanchez is reporting on a soldier accused of what Beauchamp is. So I will take the word of Michael Yon or others, but I know of Sanchez's history and his word is suspect in my book.
I would like to know how one is a lefty troll for bringing a point like this to a conversation? For me, I am a conservative republican and find it ironic to be called lefty for bring up this information. I guess I won't drink the cool-aid from any side if it means keeping quiet when someone of Sanchez's ilk is "reporting".
I don't comment on blogs much. Sanchez could be giving accurate information or he could be lying. I guess you have to take someone at their word, unless his word has already been called into question. If you read the articles from the Marine Corps Times maybe you might come away with the same opinion I have of Sanchez.
I guess it has something to do with the nature of Col Jones investigation into Sanchez for lying to organizations like the United Way and UHall. If he lying then is he lying now?
I think it is a honest question especially if Sanchez is reporting on a soldier accused of what Beauchamp is. So I will take the word of Michael Yon or others, but I know of Sanchez's history and his word is suspect in my book.
I would like to know how one is a lefty troll for bringing a point like this to a conversation? For me, I am a conservative republican and find it ironic to be called lefty for bring up this information. I guess I won't drink the cool-aid from any side if it means keeping quiet when someone of Sanchez's ilk is "reporting".
Posted by: blastmarine at August 01, 2007 03:32 PM (WvKhL)
14
Hmmmm.
@ blastmarine
Quite frankly considering the enormous list of strange, unbelievable and frankly quite mad things I saw in my (short) time in the Marine Corps, participation in gay porn doesn't even meet the minimal threshold.
In just two (2) years I saw:
1. My company Staff Sgt had an affair with the First Sgt's wife ... naked and on the *lawn* of the barracks. First Sgt came back on base after finishing one (1) of his second jobs and found the two naked and doing the "beast with two backs" on the *lawn*. Staff Sgt (still naked) got chased all over the base by a very angry First Sgt.
2. Company armorer got drunk and decided to reprise a movie scene **in the armory** by taking a 100-rd belt of M-60 ammo, pulling the bullets and dumping the gunpowder into a pile. This idiot then *lit* the gunpowder. Modern gunpowder, unlike blackpowder, doesn't just burn, it explodes.
The resulting explosion scared the hell out of everyone since it came at 3am and from the armory where they just got a shipment of new LAWS rockets, 200,000 rounds of M-60 ammo, 400,000 rounds of M-16 ammo and a couple dozen cases of grenades. Plus the armory was about 50 yards from the barracks.
He was dragged out of the armory and taken to the First Aid station where they saw that he had blown his eyebrows, and most of his hair, off.
3. A Corporal in my platoon, who will be unanmed, decided as he had a USMC vehicle, a USMC issue M1911A1 pistol with US government issue ammo and *was the Duty NCO for that day* that he'd go deer hunting **on the base while on duty**.
He got caught because:
A. he and a messhall cook were trying to shove a gutted deer carcass into a messhall freezer.
B. a private was detailed by the Corporal to wash out the blood from the back of the USMC pickup and to bury the deer guts somewhere.
C. The base CO, a US Navy Lt. Commander, was on his daily walk around the base and found "B" the private washing out the deer blood and "A" the Corporal stuffing a deer carcass into a freezer.
4. A couple Marines from my unit got drunk at famous local bar, got obnoxious and were thrown out. One of the Marines broke into an grenade storage unit, stole a couple CS gas grenades and went back to the famous local bar, which was packed by this point, and threw the live CS grenades into the bar causing all sorts of hell.
5. A Marine from my unit took his service M-16 along with some stolen ammo to a local beach resort town and decide that what he needed to do was shoot the place up a bit.
6. The Lt commanding my platoon got caught smoking dope with our Sgt.
etc etc etc. Endless etc's.
Frankly. Posing in a gay porn rag really doesn't set a fire.
@ blastmarine
Quite frankly considering the enormous list of strange, unbelievable and frankly quite mad things I saw in my (short) time in the Marine Corps, participation in gay porn doesn't even meet the minimal threshold.
In just two (2) years I saw:
1. My company Staff Sgt had an affair with the First Sgt's wife ... naked and on the *lawn* of the barracks. First Sgt came back on base after finishing one (1) of his second jobs and found the two naked and doing the "beast with two backs" on the *lawn*. Staff Sgt (still naked) got chased all over the base by a very angry First Sgt.
2. Company armorer got drunk and decided to reprise a movie scene **in the armory** by taking a 100-rd belt of M-60 ammo, pulling the bullets and dumping the gunpowder into a pile. This idiot then *lit* the gunpowder. Modern gunpowder, unlike blackpowder, doesn't just burn, it explodes.
The resulting explosion scared the hell out of everyone since it came at 3am and from the armory where they just got a shipment of new LAWS rockets, 200,000 rounds of M-60 ammo, 400,000 rounds of M-16 ammo and a couple dozen cases of grenades. Plus the armory was about 50 yards from the barracks.
He was dragged out of the armory and taken to the First Aid station where they saw that he had blown his eyebrows, and most of his hair, off.
3. A Corporal in my platoon, who will be unanmed, decided as he had a USMC vehicle, a USMC issue M1911A1 pistol with US government issue ammo and *was the Duty NCO for that day* that he'd go deer hunting **on the base while on duty**.
He got caught because:
A. he and a messhall cook were trying to shove a gutted deer carcass into a messhall freezer.
B. a private was detailed by the Corporal to wash out the blood from the back of the USMC pickup and to bury the deer guts somewhere.
C. The base CO, a US Navy Lt. Commander, was on his daily walk around the base and found "B" the private washing out the deer blood and "A" the Corporal stuffing a deer carcass into a freezer.
4. A couple Marines from my unit got drunk at famous local bar, got obnoxious and were thrown out. One of the Marines broke into an grenade storage unit, stole a couple CS gas grenades and went back to the famous local bar, which was packed by this point, and threw the live CS grenades into the bar causing all sorts of hell.
5. A Marine from my unit took his service M-16 along with some stolen ammo to a local beach resort town and decide that what he needed to do was shoot the place up a bit.
6. The Lt commanding my platoon got caught smoking dope with our Sgt.
etc etc etc. Endless etc's.
Frankly. Posing in a gay porn rag really doesn't set a fire.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 03:35 PM (3pvQO)
15
Hmmm.
@ blastmarine
Honestly I don't know your political affiliation and it really doesn't matter to me. The reason why I thought you were a lefty is because the whole "gay porn" angle is what drove the left on their witchhunt of Jeff Gannon.
*shrug* perhaps it's a big deal to you. Good for you. I consider it irrelevant. A lot of Marines I knew got into the most amazing trouble and almost universally they were good people doing stupid things. But hey that's what people do in the military when they're stuck on base, out in the middle of nowhere and/or bored out of their minds.
For some of us having a good time means going bowling. For a unlucky few, yes a fellow Marine, having a good time means staggering down a residential street and taking a piss on a telephone pole, in front of a cop and on some prominent local citizen's lawn.
@ blastmarine
Honestly I don't know your political affiliation and it really doesn't matter to me. The reason why I thought you were a lefty is because the whole "gay porn" angle is what drove the left on their witchhunt of Jeff Gannon.
*shrug* perhaps it's a big deal to you. Good for you. I consider it irrelevant. A lot of Marines I knew got into the most amazing trouble and almost universally they were good people doing stupid things. But hey that's what people do in the military when they're stuck on base, out in the middle of nowhere and/or bored out of their minds.
For some of us having a good time means going bowling. For a unlucky few, yes a fellow Marine, having a good time means staggering down a residential street and taking a piss on a telephone pole, in front of a cop and on some prominent local citizen's lawn.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 03:42 PM (3pvQO)
Stop the hate
Some, including the host of this fine weblog, seem to doubt the authenticity of the recent claims made by Scott Thomas Beauchamp. I for one, however, have no doubt Mr. Beauchamp is speaking the "truth" as he knows it.
Conservative webloggers, ace from ace of spades, Bryan and Allahpundit of Hotair, Michelle Malkin and countless others have tried to dispute his claims making wild and baseless accusations. So far they have successfully managed to have all forms of his communication cut off, except for his prestigious weblog, scottthomas.us. For the life of me, I cannot seem to figure out why these "webloggers" insist on harping on this one pour pitiful soul, who is obviously lost and far from home. Do we doubt General J.C. Christian, the manliest of all conservative "webloggers", when he eviscerates liberals like Bill O'Reilly who are trying to pose as conservatives? Do we doubt the concern tbogg displays so proudly for our conservative brethren? Who could forget the sincerity displayed by Markos Zúniga when he expressed concern for anyone, especially civilian contractors, overseas in Iraq. Yet, those billing themselves as "conservatives" continue to mock and shame Mr. Beauchamp for trying to shed light on a very difficult situation in Iraq. When Michelle Malkin's commentors revolted and showed support for him did she change her mind? Not even in the slightest. Even though Franklin Foer has launched and investigation and confirmed Mr. Beauchamp's allegations, the mocking continues. I suspect the only comfort Mr. Beauchamp is able to find is in the wanton arms of the ethnically pure women in Germany who keep throwing themselves at him. To Mr. Beauchamp, I say soldier on. This to shall pass and the "truth" will set you free. Just as we've confirmed that 9/11 was a plot by President Bush and that Karl Rove is using mind control beams to make us all his subjects. Luckily there's a place like this, under the big-tin-foil-tent, to keep us safe from harm.Posted by: phin at 11:58 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've been accumulating Alcoa stock.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 31, 2007 12:10 PM (8Dgyh)
2
Wasn't PV2 Beauchamp married to a TNR staffer? What's he doing picking up German chicks?
Posted by: Jeff at July 31, 2007 03:02 PM (yiMNP)
3
After thousands of nonsensical posts, I think that you have finally topped yourself.
Sarcasm is not your friend.
Sarcasm is not your friend.
Posted by: tbogg at July 31, 2007 11:07 PM (u2IYY)
4
tbogg,
Maybe Sarcasm isn't my friend, I don't have very many, being a warmongering chickenhawk and all that. Of course there's a pretty good chance you didn't quite understand the post, since you obviously didn't pick up on the Posted by phin at July 31, 2007 11:58 AM line, you obviously weren't paying very close attention.
Since you're having problems with comprehending the English language, lets try a mathematical expression: phin confederate yankee.
If that doesn't work I could try Latin or maybe Yiddish. Just let me know what works best for you.
Maybe Sarcasm isn't my friend, I don't have very many, being a warmongering chickenhawk and all that. Of course there's a pretty good chance you didn't quite understand the post, since you obviously didn't pick up on the Posted by phin at July 31, 2007 11:58 AM line, you obviously weren't paying very close attention.
Since you're having problems with comprehending the English language, lets try a mathematical expression: phin confederate yankee.
If that doesn't work I could try Latin or maybe Yiddish. Just let me know what works best for you.
Posted by: phin at July 31, 2007 11:59 PM (YgMQV)
5
phin - I don't think tbagg is your friend. Perhaps his basset hounds were reading your post which is the cause for his error.
Is basset blogging the macho progressive manly man equivalent of cat blogging?
Is basset blogging the macho progressive manly man equivalent of cat blogging?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 01, 2007 12:33 AM (0pZel)
6
My deepest apologies to Bob Owens.
I failed to notice that phin was the author of the idiotic post in question. One thing that I think we can all agree on is that proper credit should be given where credit is due, so c'mon down and claim your prize phin...
I failed to notice that phin was the author of the idiotic post in question. One thing that I think we can all agree on is that proper credit should be given where credit is due, so c'mon down and claim your prize phin...
Posted by: tbogg at August 01, 2007 01:01 AM (u2IYY)
7
Nice job of supporting the troops you valiant warriors of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.
Soldier On!
Soldier On!
Posted by: Rappaccini at August 01, 2007 03:02 PM (PQyeQ)
July 27, 2007
Scott Beauchamp's Problems Are Just Beginning
In addition to his short-lived career as a probable fabulist in The New Republic, Scott Thomas Beauchamp's blog has turned up a self-incriminating clear violation of operational security:
That post is over a year old and was obsoleted be a changed deployment schedule, but the facts are clear: Beauchamp clearly violated operational security regulations by posting the deployment schedule for his unit to his blog. Major Kirk Luedeke, PAO for 4th IBCT, 1st ID at FOB Falcon, stated in response to my inquiry about this blog entry:
Another long day...cleaning an M16, landscaping, dipping Pro Masks (gas masks to civilians) into strange concotions, a little bit of office work...basically a hodpodge of menially tasks to keep me busy.
We finally got official dates on Iraq deployment:
May 15 - Our Bradleys get shipped to Kuwaite
June 11- Advanced Units move in
June 28 - Bravo Team, second squad, first platoon, Alpha Company, first battalion, 18th brigade, first infantry division (the breakdown of who I belong to) deploys.
Were probably going to sit in Kuwaite for some unknown amount of time, and then move into Baghdad...
What the U.S. Army decides to do about this operational security violation will probably be kept under wraps until their investigation is complete, but I would not be surprised if Beauchamp soon finds himself charged with UCMJ violations.
It most certainly is an OPSEC violation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:51 AM | Comments (177) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Looking back at his writings with a new perspective, it all seems so Emo, doesn't it? It has that whiny, my life is so hard, my life is filled with infinite sadness, my life is filled with absurdity, I am surrounded by idiots and fools, feel to it. In one of his blog entries he described Camp Buehring in Kuwait as "Hell's Waiting Room." He then went on to describe the heat in Kuwait as, what a "suicide feels when he sticks his head in an oven."Oy, cry me a river PFC Thomas. At least this explains my desire to beat the crap out of him.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 27, 2007 07:48 AM (oC8nQ)
2
"Actually, I was mocking the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy." - Doc Washboard
Well, Doc, now we know his name and he is being investigated by the Army. The investigating officer will ask him, "who wore the child's skull? Who ran over the dogs? Who made fun of the burned woman?"
He is looking at 3 years in prison, forfeiture of all pay, and a dishonorable discharge for a UCMJ Article 134-12 (Disloyal Statements) violation. I am no lawyer but, it sounds good to me:
Elements.
(1) That the accused made a certain statement;
(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;
(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;
(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Well, Doc, now we know his name and he is being investigated by the Army. The investigating officer will ask him, "who wore the child's skull? Who ran over the dogs? Who made fun of the burned woman?"
He is looking at 3 years in prison, forfeiture of all pay, and a dishonorable discharge for a UCMJ Article 134-12 (Disloyal Statements) violation. I am no lawyer but, it sounds good to me:
Elements.
(1) That the accused made a certain statement;
(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;
(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;
(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Posted by: y7 at July 27, 2007 08:01 AM (Cixed)
3
y7 has it right I think, though I am also not a lawyer and I do not know if he'll be charged under the UCMJ Article y7 cites.
The fact that he will face some serious disciplinary issues is why I posted below saying he almost certainly did not voluntarily out himself. He is in deep doo-doo.
I don't know if it will come out or not but my educated guess is his fellows in his unit confronted him and forced him out, or raised their suspicions with his command and *they* forced him out.
This sort of thing isn't funny or cute to people that serve honorably. Frankly I doubt a single word of it is true. I don't believe the part about the woman, I don't believe the part about the dogs, and I am especially doubtful about mass grave part of the story.
The fact that he will face some serious disciplinary issues is why I posted below saying he almost certainly did not voluntarily out himself. He is in deep doo-doo.
I don't know if it will come out or not but my educated guess is his fellows in his unit confronted him and forced him out, or raised their suspicions with his command and *they* forced him out.
This sort of thing isn't funny or cute to people that serve honorably. Frankly I doubt a single word of it is true. I don't believe the part about the woman, I don't believe the part about the dogs, and I am especially doubtful about mass grave part of the story.
Posted by: DaveW at July 27, 2007 08:45 AM (foG69)
4
Y7:
If he did something wrong, then punish him for it. I have no problem with that. If you'll cast your mind back a few days, however, you'll remember that a big component of the the initial reaction to Beauchamp's writing was, "This guy doesn't even exist." I think CY even had a couple of posts to that effect.
Well, he does exist, and the fools who leaped to the conclusion that he didn't now look like fools.
I would just like to see a more measured, evenhanded approach from my fellow citizens. An example: "That whole skull-wearing thing thing seems unlikely, but, if it turns out after investigation to be true, the guy should be punished."
The assumption on the Right, though, seems to be, "If we don't like the sound of it, it's obviously some conspiracy by Lefties to smear the military." Again: the guy's very existence was initially questioned with the same kind of knee-jerk response, and where did it get everyone?
There will be more than time enough to hang Beauchamp from the highest tree in Baghdad after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not. It sound like the Glock thing is being discredited with facts. That's step one. Now maybe people could approach the other stories the same way.
If he did something wrong, then punish him for it. I have no problem with that. If you'll cast your mind back a few days, however, you'll remember that a big component of the the initial reaction to Beauchamp's writing was, "This guy doesn't even exist." I think CY even had a couple of posts to that effect.
Well, he does exist, and the fools who leaped to the conclusion that he didn't now look like fools.
I would just like to see a more measured, evenhanded approach from my fellow citizens. An example: "That whole skull-wearing thing thing seems unlikely, but, if it turns out after investigation to be true, the guy should be punished."
The assumption on the Right, though, seems to be, "If we don't like the sound of it, it's obviously some conspiracy by Lefties to smear the military." Again: the guy's very existence was initially questioned with the same kind of knee-jerk response, and where did it get everyone?
There will be more than time enough to hang Beauchamp from the highest tree in Baghdad after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not. It sound like the Glock thing is being discredited with facts. That's step one. Now maybe people could approach the other stories the same way.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 09:08 AM (UVLFE)
5
I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 09:26 AM (UVLFE)
6
will piss some people off.
Who did you have in mind to be pissed off? You think Bush ordered a hit on Tillman?
Who did you have in mind to be pissed off? You think Bush ordered a hit on Tillman?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 27, 2007 09:36 AM (natUQ)
Posted by: memomachine at July 27, 2007 09:56 AM (3pvQO)
8
If you'll cast your mind back a few days, however, you'll remember that a big component of the the initial reaction to Beauchamp's writing was, "This guy doesn't even exist." I think CY even had a couple of posts to that effect.
Doc, if you lie like that again, I will ban you.
I NEVER claimed he didn't exist, not has any other credible blogger I've read who has discussed the subject.
If you'll cast your mind back a few days, however, you'll remember that a big component of the the initial reaction to Beauchamp's writing was, "This guy doesn't even exist." I think CY even had a couple of posts to that effect.
Doc, if you lie like that again, I will ban you.
I NEVER claimed he didn't exist, not has any other credible blogger I've read who has discussed the subject.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 27, 2007 10:05 AM (EPsu8)
9
You think Bush ordered a hit on Tillman?
This is precisely what I'm talking about in my post up above. Based on absolutely nothing at all--nothing--Purple Avenger has opened the door to accusations that I think that Tillman's death was a Bush-ordered murder.
When I write, "I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off," what I mean, in essence, is, "I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off." If people are upset about Beauchamp, I'm saying, boy, are they going to be upset about this one.
Thanks for illustrating spittle-flecked insanity, Avenger.
You think Bush ordered a hit on Tillman?
This is precisely what I'm talking about in my post up above. Based on absolutely nothing at all--nothing--Purple Avenger has opened the door to accusations that I think that Tillman's death was a Bush-ordered murder.
When I write, "I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off," what I mean, in essence, is, "I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off." If people are upset about Beauchamp, I'm saying, boy, are they going to be upset about this one.
Thanks for illustrating spittle-flecked insanity, Avenger.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 10:08 AM (UVLFE)
10
Doc W.,
Yeah, that InterBlog is a big place, so if you cast your mind back a few days, you can justify a whole lot. When I cast my mind back a few days, I recall being abashed that I'd been so taken in by Beauchamp's writings. When I read them, I thought they were truthful first-person accounts. Reading some of the skeptics, I realized that the tales Beauchamp were telling had a lot of potential holes.
The real question is not, and has never been, "Is the guy a soldier?"
TNR published Beauchamp as fact-not-fiction. So:
1. Are Beauchamp's accounts indeed consistent with the facts as they can be determined?
2. Editor Foer has been adamant that Beauchamp's writing was rigorously fact-checked and edited. What does rigorous fact checking entail? How was this process successfully completed in Beauchamp's case?
I don't "hope" that Beauchamp's accounts are indeed true, because they paint a picture of moral depravity--not just of the author and his chums, but as a pathology that afflicts every officer and soldier in Alpha Company, at the least.
As a TNR subscriber, I do hope that the magazine acquits itself, that it did indeed exercise due diligence prior to publishing Beauchamp's extravagant accounts--whether or not they turn out to be accurate. At the moment, it doesn't look too good. What comes to mind is the recent famous quote by Newsweek's Evan Thomas on coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame: "We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."
Kindly stop changing the subject to make it fit your narrative.
Yeah, that InterBlog is a big place, so if you cast your mind back a few days, you can justify a whole lot. When I cast my mind back a few days, I recall being abashed that I'd been so taken in by Beauchamp's writings. When I read them, I thought they were truthful first-person accounts. Reading some of the skeptics, I realized that the tales Beauchamp were telling had a lot of potential holes.
The real question is not, and has never been, "Is the guy a soldier?"
TNR published Beauchamp as fact-not-fiction. So:
1. Are Beauchamp's accounts indeed consistent with the facts as they can be determined?
2. Editor Foer has been adamant that Beauchamp's writing was rigorously fact-checked and edited. What does rigorous fact checking entail? How was this process successfully completed in Beauchamp's case?
I don't "hope" that Beauchamp's accounts are indeed true, because they paint a picture of moral depravity--not just of the author and his chums, but as a pathology that afflicts every officer and soldier in Alpha Company, at the least.
As a TNR subscriber, I do hope that the magazine acquits itself, that it did indeed exercise due diligence prior to publishing Beauchamp's extravagant accounts--whether or not they turn out to be accurate. At the moment, it doesn't look too good. What comes to mind is the recent famous quote by Newsweek's Evan Thomas on coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame: "We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."
Kindly stop changing the subject to make it fit your narrative.
Posted by: AMac at July 27, 2007 10:18 AM (Djzc+)
11
Perhaps no credible blogger has directly, put-yourself-out-there claimed he didn't exist, but there's been plenty of implication to that effect. (I suppose bloggers learned a lesson from their claims that the AP had no source in the Iraqi police that they should only *suggest* that the mainstream media is lying, rather than openly accusing them of it.)
Michelle Malkin's blog called him "an alleged soldier." The American Thinker put forward a theory that the blogger actually was a discharged soldier, Clifton Hicks.
That's just two examples. If someone more time wants to go through your whole blogroll -- for examples of blogs you presumably deem credible -- I suspect there'd be several more examples of bloggers implying or outright claiming that the TNR writer was not currently serving in Iraq.
Michelle Malkin's blog called him "an alleged soldier." The American Thinker put forward a theory that the blogger actually was a discharged soldier, Clifton Hicks.
That's just two examples. If someone more time wants to go through your whole blogroll -- for examples of blogs you presumably deem credible -- I suspect there'd be several more examples of bloggers implying or outright claiming that the TNR writer was not currently serving in Iraq.
Posted by: PG at July 27, 2007 10:33 AM (ceues)
12
Doc,
When you and I had our discussion, the argument was not whether the guy existed but rather whether the allegations sounded true. Your knee-jerk reaction was to defend the story saying that us righties have a knee-jerk reaction to dispute it.
Remember when I mentioned that if TNR did not disclose his identity that they would be protecting a criminal?
The Tillman link was a nice diversion. "Not saying it is true, just saying it will piss people off." Sounds like a Truther quote.
When you and I had our discussion, the argument was not whether the guy existed but rather whether the allegations sounded true. Your knee-jerk reaction was to defend the story saying that us righties have a knee-jerk reaction to dispute it.
Remember when I mentioned that if TNR did not disclose his identity that they would be protecting a criminal?
The Tillman link was a nice diversion. "Not saying it is true, just saying it will piss people off." Sounds like a Truther quote.
Posted by: y7 at July 27, 2007 10:42 AM (Cixed)
13
Doc, the right wingnut claim that Beauchamp didn't exist was fake but the "narrative" may be accurate (that noone exists who can truthfully tell the horror stories Beauchamp told) And, as you know, that would be close enough for major media to claim "truth". Your appeal to right wingnuts for evenhandedness was well placed, major media and the left embrace government as a religion substitute and thus are beyond reach of your appeal to reason.
Posted by: Arturo at July 27, 2007 11:04 AM (VwrYZ)
14
Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?
This is ugly.
This is ugly.
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 11:17 AM (3jLID)
15
So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble.
I don't expect this post to last long. Just pointing out the obvious.
I don't expect this post to last long. Just pointing out the obvious.
Posted by: Jody at July 27, 2007 11:24 AM (ISz5u)
16
Nip it in the bud NOW, so he can't go on to become a senator.
Posted by: Greg at July 27, 2007 11:36 AM (Y1Lgq)
17
Tx Bubba, so I followed your link to CY’s 11-paragraph letter to TNR ”(your letter)”.
1. Dear The New Republic, [intro]
2. I just finished re-reading the claims [intro]
3. TNR states that Thomas is a pseudonym [intro]
4. An active duty officer currently serving at Camp Falcon [recount objections to content]
5. But perhaps more problematic for TNR are the biological, medical, and forensic improbabilities [further objections to content, CY’s conclusion that claims are wrong]
6. Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? [CY questions TNR’s vetting of “Scott Thomas” bona fides]
7. Did it ever cross the minds of New Republic editors [challenge of facts of chow hall story]
8. Did the New Republic ask for verification of the mass grave [challenge of facts of dumping ground story]
9. Did it ever occur to any New Republic editor to contact someone who is an expert on Bradley IFVs [challenge of facts of dog-squashing stories]
10. But beyond merely fact-checking Thomas' series of suspicious [challenge to journalistic even-handedness]
11. To borrow a phrase from another periodical [snarky close]
One out of the seven or so substantial paragraphs in the letter is focused on the bona fides of "Scott Thomas'" identity.
Was that what you meant?
We now know that the editors' due diligence was correctly performed on that point. Did they do as well on the others? Or is Question Time now declared to be over?
TNR is a highbrow magazine. I expect their editors will report on:
(1) Whether they still stand behind the veracity of Beauchamp's accounts;
(2) What their pre-publication vetting protocol was, and whether they now think it was adequate.
This would be despite the urging of many ideologues that it's time for TNR to move on to other subjects, leaving this one unresolved.
1. Dear The New Republic, [intro]
2. I just finished re-reading the claims [intro]
3. TNR states that Thomas is a pseudonym [intro]
4. An active duty officer currently serving at Camp Falcon [recount objections to content]
5. But perhaps more problematic for TNR are the biological, medical, and forensic improbabilities [further objections to content, CY’s conclusion that claims are wrong]
6. Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? [CY questions TNR’s vetting of “Scott Thomas” bona fides]
7. Did it ever cross the minds of New Republic editors [challenge of facts of chow hall story]
8. Did the New Republic ask for verification of the mass grave [challenge of facts of dumping ground story]
9. Did it ever occur to any New Republic editor to contact someone who is an expert on Bradley IFVs [challenge of facts of dog-squashing stories]
10. But beyond merely fact-checking Thomas' series of suspicious [challenge to journalistic even-handedness]
11. To borrow a phrase from another periodical [snarky close]
One out of the seven or so substantial paragraphs in the letter is focused on the bona fides of "Scott Thomas'" identity.
Was that what you meant?
We now know that the editors' due diligence was correctly performed on that point. Did they do as well on the others? Or is Question Time now declared to be over?
TNR is a highbrow magazine. I expect their editors will report on:
(1) Whether they still stand behind the veracity of Beauchamp's accounts;
(2) What their pre-publication vetting protocol was, and whether they now think it was adequate.
This would be despite the urging of many ideologues that it's time for TNR to move on to other subjects, leaving this one unresolved.
Posted by: AMac at July 27, 2007 11:36 AM (Djzc+)
18
Jody, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the assertion, not the skeptic. TNR/Beauchamp have to prove their assertions; until then, skepticism is fully justified. And the more implausible the assertion, the greater the level of proof required. (If I say it's raining, you can probably take my word for it; if I say there's a unicorn outside, better check it out for yourself before believing it.)
Common sense, really.
Common sense, really.
Posted by: Occam's Beard at July 27, 2007 11:39 AM (zFEqH)
19
Actually Jody,we've conclusvely proven at least two previous claims from Beauchamp are absolute false:
There is no psitol inteh world that fires a "square-backed" cartridge
His claim that only the Iraqi police carry Glock pistols is an out-and-out falsehood.
Nor have TNR and Beauchamp been able to provide the first shred of evidence that any of his claims were true, while soldiers serving at the same base flatly deny that his claims are true.
You know how journalism is supposed to function, don't you Jody?
Reporters gather evidence, editors fact-check to make sure the evidence supports the story, and the story is then published. But this did not happen under Franklin Foer's leadership at TNR.
As Beauchamp was the husband of a TNR staffer and an aspiring writer, they took his claims at face value, and are thus reaping the whirlwind of their incompetence and his apparent dishonesty.
Juornalism fails when they simply report unchecked assertions, and the New Republic clearly failed here.
Amac, I did what I hope any responsible journalist would: attempt to check the veracity of the source to see if he is a plausible source fro the kind of story being written (the opinion of a used car salesmen on global warning is viewed as being less credible than that of a certain specialized scientists, for example).
There is a world of difference between attempting to verify a source, and claiming that the source is something else entirely.
There is no psitol inteh world that fires a "square-backed" cartridge
His claim that only the Iraqi police carry Glock pistols is an out-and-out falsehood.
Nor have TNR and Beauchamp been able to provide the first shred of evidence that any of his claims were true, while soldiers serving at the same base flatly deny that his claims are true.
You know how journalism is supposed to function, don't you Jody?
Reporters gather evidence, editors fact-check to make sure the evidence supports the story, and the story is then published. But this did not happen under Franklin Foer's leadership at TNR.
As Beauchamp was the husband of a TNR staffer and an aspiring writer, they took his claims at face value, and are thus reaping the whirlwind of their incompetence and his apparent dishonesty.
Juornalism fails when they simply report unchecked assertions, and the New Republic clearly failed here.
Amac, I did what I hope any responsible journalist would: attempt to check the veracity of the source to see if he is a plausible source fro the kind of story being written (the opinion of a used car salesmen on global warning is viewed as being less credible than that of a certain specialized scientists, for example).
There is a world of difference between attempting to verify a source, and claiming that the source is something else entirely.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 27, 2007 11:51 AM (EPsu8)
20
If we cast our minds back a bit, the Left's defense of the Rather memoes was "fake, but accurate."
I would suggest, in casting our minds forward, that the Beauchamp allegations are "real, but inaccurate."
That is, whether he exists or not is not germane nor relevant to whether his stories are true.
I would suggest, in casting our minds forward, that the Beauchamp allegations are "real, but inaccurate."
That is, whether he exists or not is not germane nor relevant to whether his stories are true.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 27, 2007 12:00 PM (/ZD7V)
21
Doc Washboard: "...after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not."
Doc in some instances, it may not matter if the events are true or not. Unless those writings are clearly marked as "creative writing" or "pure fiction" there are arguments on what his intent was. There are many things he can be pegged for regardless if what he writes about is true or not. So I am not sure why you point that out. If they are true, he himself is complicit in not reporting the events.
Regardless, when I served (up to 198
they were very specific about information where OPSEC was concerned. They did not care if the information was valid or invalid. YOU DID/DO NOT DO IT!
Depending on the deployment, they would tell us *IF* we could tell family members. If it were very sensitive, we would just go to work one day and that would be it with no warnings to family.
You don't have to like it. That is just how it works. And if you don't like how it works, then do not sign up and then whine about it.
Doc in some instances, it may not matter if the events are true or not. Unless those writings are clearly marked as "creative writing" or "pure fiction" there are arguments on what his intent was. There are many things he can be pegged for regardless if what he writes about is true or not. So I am not sure why you point that out. If they are true, he himself is complicit in not reporting the events.
Regardless, when I served (up to 198
they were very specific about information where OPSEC was concerned. They did not care if the information was valid or invalid. YOU DID/DO NOT DO IT!
Depending on the deployment, they would tell us *IF* we could tell family members. If it were very sensitive, we would just go to work one day and that would be it with no warnings to family.
You don't have to like it. That is just how it works. And if you don't like how it works, then do not sign up and then whine about it.
Posted by: Hawk at July 27, 2007 12:05 PM (67CCE)
22
I'm sorry, CY, if I mischaracterized what you wrote. I interpreted this quote to mean that you questioned Beauchamp's existence:
For his sake, I hope that Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic, is merely suffering from unfortunate phrasing:
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
I guess I was putting too cynical a spin on it--precisely the sin I'm accusing others of committing.
Again, I'm sorry about that.
For his sake, I hope that Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic, is merely suffering from unfortunate phrasing:
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
I guess I was putting too cynical a spin on it--precisely the sin I'm accusing others of committing.
Again, I'm sorry about that.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 12:11 PM (UVLFE)
23
CY,
> I did what I hope any responsible journalist would
Yep. Since you posted your letter to TNR, readers don't have to take your word for it. We can click on the link and see for ourselves.
> I did what I hope any responsible journalist would
Yep. Since you posted your letter to TNR, readers don't have to take your word for it. We can click on the link and see for ourselves.
Posted by: AMac at July 27, 2007 12:11 PM (Djzc+)
24
The Tillman link was a nice diversion. "Not saying it is true, just saying it will piss people off." Sounds like a Truther quote.
y7, I saw the Tillman article as related in tone and content to the Beauchamp piece, so I was just tossing it into the mix.
The Tillman link was a nice diversion. "Not saying it is true, just saying it will piss people off." Sounds like a Truther quote.
y7, I saw the Tillman article as related in tone and content to the Beauchamp piece, so I was just tossing it into the mix.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 12:22 PM (UVLFE)
25
Mike Toreno,
I'm a TNR subscriber, but not a serving soldier or a vet.
Please make a list for me of those topics that I may offer an opinion on, and those which are off-limits. You should start by grading my earlier comments on this thread
Others here don't even have subscriber status. Please do the same for them.
Thanks.
I'm a TNR subscriber, but not a serving soldier or a vet.
Please make a list for me of those topics that I may offer an opinion on, and those which are off-limits. You should start by grading my earlier comments on this thread
Others here don't even have subscriber status. Please do the same for them.
Thanks.
Posted by: AMac at July 27, 2007 12:26 PM (Djzc+)
26
Hawk:
I understand that there are constraints to what information other soldiers can share with others. That, however, has not been the issue up until now. To this point, the argument has been that the guy's lying. Now you're saying that it doesn't matter whether anything untoward happened while Beauchamp was in Iraq because he broke the rules by talking about his pending deployment before he went to Iraq.
This is one of those classic subject changes I'm always accused of here.
Let's go ahead and disprove his story and make him take his lumps for lying or, conversely, prove his story and make other malefactors take their lumps. But let's not sweep it under the carpet the way you're suggesting.
I understand that there are constraints to what information other soldiers can share with others. That, however, has not been the issue up until now. To this point, the argument has been that the guy's lying. Now you're saying that it doesn't matter whether anything untoward happened while Beauchamp was in Iraq because he broke the rules by talking about his pending deployment before he went to Iraq.
This is one of those classic subject changes I'm always accused of here.
Let's go ahead and disprove his story and make him take his lumps for lying or, conversely, prove his story and make other malefactors take their lumps. But let's not sweep it under the carpet the way you're suggesting.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 12:32 PM (UVLFE)
27
Correct, Doc, the issue is the moving goalposts and the embarrassing attempts to whitewash that. Good gee-had, now CY and others are attempting to get an American soldier in trouble. An American soldier - on the front lines. I honestly can hardly absorb this. If Michael Yon had written the piece it wouldn't be had to imagine hundreds of RW bloggers linking to it approvingly.
And perhaps the silliest part: the New Republic being portrayed as an anti-war rag. WTF?
Wait - even sillier: And American soldier - in Iraq - fighting with and for Americans - being portrayed as a soldier smearer. And many of those helping out in that mind-boggling smear are people who are pro-war in Iraq, are able to serve in that war...but won't.
There has to be a point when I just stop bothering with such nonsense.
And perhaps the silliest part: the New Republic being portrayed as an anti-war rag. WTF?
Wait - even sillier: And American soldier - in Iraq - fighting with and for Americans - being portrayed as a soldier smearer. And many of those helping out in that mind-boggling smear are people who are pro-war in Iraq, are able to serve in that war...but won't.
There has to be a point when I just stop bothering with such nonsense.
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 12:46 PM (3jLID)
28
Though your efforts to get Scott Thomas Beauchamp in a heap of trouble are certainly admirable, Mr. Owen, the suggestion by folks at Blackfive that they get his own company to, you know, not frag him exactly, but rough him up a little (and if things should go a little too far...) seems a lot more efficient and entails a lot less hard work from you. That's not to say your journalistic efforts are not appreciated. All the work you did in revealing that Jamil Hussein didn't exist was admirable, even though it turned out he did exist after all.
Posted by: Jon Swift at July 27, 2007 12:51 PM (99/Tj)
29
Anyone who doesn't realize that there have been and remain different, independent but mutually reinforcing questions regarding the "Shock Troops" stories either hasn't been paying attention or is too ideologically challenged to do so - so I'll leave them aside to ask about something different, having to do with how Foer and TNR's fumbled the situation from the very beginning. I'd be particularly interested in the responses of some of the TNR subscribers who've been showing up here. (I myself used to subscribe to TNR a million years ago or so.)
TNR had a young ideologically committed liberal activist - a Deaniac, apparently - in place on an active duty unit in Iraq. Furthermore, the writer was the husband of a TNR staffer. Instead of exploring the unique possibilities of this situation (possibly quite illuminating or even comical if handled honestly), instead of at the very least sharing the facts with their readers, the editors chose to hide them, in favor of publishing cliche-ridden, distasteful, overdone, immature, and incredible "soldier's tales."
Can any of you who read "Shock Troops" before this controversy exploded honestly claim that you would have read them in the same way if you had known the truth about the author? Be honest - didn't you have a different picture of him? Isn't this a bit like THE WEEKLY STANDARD or THE NATIONAL REVIEW printing some inside story about the Obama campaign, full of scandalous details and accusations, without happening to mention that the writer was a graduate of Liberty University and William Kristol's nephew? How would you have reacted if the latter revelations came after the fact?
Could you imagine that TNR would hoodwink you in this way, and lay both themselves and everyone associated with them to such embarrassment?
TNR had a young ideologically committed liberal activist - a Deaniac, apparently - in place on an active duty unit in Iraq. Furthermore, the writer was the husband of a TNR staffer. Instead of exploring the unique possibilities of this situation (possibly quite illuminating or even comical if handled honestly), instead of at the very least sharing the facts with their readers, the editors chose to hide them, in favor of publishing cliche-ridden, distasteful, overdone, immature, and incredible "soldier's tales."
Can any of you who read "Shock Troops" before this controversy exploded honestly claim that you would have read them in the same way if you had known the truth about the author? Be honest - didn't you have a different picture of him? Isn't this a bit like THE WEEKLY STANDARD or THE NATIONAL REVIEW printing some inside story about the Obama campaign, full of scandalous details and accusations, without happening to mention that the writer was a graduate of Liberty University and William Kristol's nephew? How would you have reacted if the latter revelations came after the fact?
Could you imagine that TNR would hoodwink you in this way, and lay both themselves and everyone associated with them to such embarrassment?
Posted by: CK MacLeod at July 27, 2007 01:17 PM (dvksz)
30
Hmmm.
"I NEVER claimed he didn't exist, not has any other credible blogger I've read who has discussed the subject."
Actually I claimed that he didn't exist, though I'm not really a credible blogger since I pretty much only comment on other blogs.
I didn't think he existed because I didn't think any soldier would be so incredibly incompetent and dumb describing a 9mm shell casing fired by a Glock as "square backed".
Well guess I was fooled. There really is a soldier that incredibly incompetent and dumb.
"I NEVER claimed he didn't exist, not has any other credible blogger I've read who has discussed the subject."
Actually I claimed that he didn't exist, though I'm not really a credible blogger since I pretty much only comment on other blogs.
I didn't think he existed because I didn't think any soldier would be so incredibly incompetent and dumb describing a 9mm shell casing fired by a Glock as "square backed".
Well guess I was fooled. There really is a soldier that incredibly incompetent and dumb.
Posted by: memomachine at July 27, 2007 01:45 PM (3pvQO)
31
Answer to CK MacLeod --
My first reaction is that, No, the Beauchamp/Elspeth connection isn't why I feel (at this point) pwned.
It was obvious from the first "Diarist" that the author was very disaffected with US policy and with the way the war was being conducted. Knowing the connection doesn't change that.
My problem is with the fact-checking. As a credulous, trusting reader, I was duped. That's lame, but not as lame as an editor being credulous and trusting about every manuscript that arrives in the afternoon's mail... that happens to conform to a particular meta-narrative.
"Due diligence" doesn't mean "identify every problem with every submission." It means, be duly diligent in following appropriate procedures to vet submissions to a reasonable level.
I am unclear what steps TNR took to check Beauchamp's pieces, beyond (obviously) knowing that he was who he said he was. The answer may turn out to be, "We did nothing more, because we couldn't imagine that Elspeth's fiance/husband would scam us. Since we weren't skeptical, we didn't twig to the fantastic nature of the most serious charges."
So perhaps the social relationship contributed to the debacle in that way. I don't know--time will tell.
My first reaction is that, No, the Beauchamp/Elspeth connection isn't why I feel (at this point) pwned.
It was obvious from the first "Diarist" that the author was very disaffected with US policy and with the way the war was being conducted. Knowing the connection doesn't change that.
My problem is with the fact-checking. As a credulous, trusting reader, I was duped. That's lame, but not as lame as an editor being credulous and trusting about every manuscript that arrives in the afternoon's mail... that happens to conform to a particular meta-narrative.
"Due diligence" doesn't mean "identify every problem with every submission." It means, be duly diligent in following appropriate procedures to vet submissions to a reasonable level.
I am unclear what steps TNR took to check Beauchamp's pieces, beyond (obviously) knowing that he was who he said he was. The answer may turn out to be, "We did nothing more, because we couldn't imagine that Elspeth's fiance/husband would scam us. Since we weren't skeptical, we didn't twig to the fantastic nature of the most serious charges."
So perhaps the social relationship contributed to the debacle in that way. I don't know--time will tell.
Posted by: AMac at July 27, 2007 01:45 PM (Djzc+)
32
Hmmmm.
"So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble."
It's nobody's job to disprove his idiotic allegations.
It is HIS and TNR's job to prove them.
"So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble."
It's nobody's job to disprove his idiotic allegations.
It is HIS and TNR's job to prove them.
Posted by: memomachine at July 27, 2007 01:48 PM (3pvQO)
33
>Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?
This is ugly.
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 11:17 AM
This heroic soldier you have come to admire so recently is, by his own writings a psychopath who claims to have participant in disgraceful behavior, broken regulations and rather than make any attempt to rectify the situation through proper channels, has instead used it to advance his dubious writing career. The fact that you admire this behavior is truly disturbing and telling. The fact that you overlook the detail that the stories are unlikely to be true and are suspiciously similar to fictitious works he wrote about the war before getting into it demonstrates that all you care about is the damage he does rather than the truth of his accusations.
That, I agree is ugly.
This is ugly.
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 11:17 AM
This heroic soldier you have come to admire so recently is, by his own writings a psychopath who claims to have participant in disgraceful behavior, broken regulations and rather than make any attempt to rectify the situation through proper channels, has instead used it to advance his dubious writing career. The fact that you admire this behavior is truly disturbing and telling. The fact that you overlook the detail that the stories are unlikely to be true and are suspiciously similar to fictitious works he wrote about the war before getting into it demonstrates that all you care about is the damage he does rather than the truth of his accusations.
That, I agree is ugly.
Posted by: chuck at July 27, 2007 02:05 PM (hgX7d)
34
Doc Washboard:"To this point, the argument has been that the guy's lying."
It is more than lying. Legally it is called slander (at a minimum). And while he hasn't singled out anyone by name, he has smeared the reputation of a group which is legally actionable.
Also, I look at it all the same as walking into a store and screaming "There is a bomb in here!" Sure I may be lying, but look at the effects I have caused.
I am saying that whether or not it was the truth is just like the above example... If I broke other laws, I will be prosecuted for those laws - not (only) for lying.
I am not saying it doesn't matter because of what was said before. That was a leap on your part.
What he said BEFORE going is something completely different and should follow under rules/laws concerning OPSEC. The fact he did that tells me that either he just doesn't care or is as dumb as a bag of hammers.
To be perfectly clear: Beauchamp can at least legally prosecuted for BOTH issues.
It wasn't a subject change as much as a addendum.
Thom: "...and others are attempting to get an American soldier in trouble."
Nope. Other's aren't trying to get him in trouble. Beauchamp is doing that himself. He is tying the rope around his neck and the tree and just waiting to be pushed. American soldiers don't PUBLICALLY discuss OPSEC issues. That can place other soldiers lives in danger.
It is more than lying. Legally it is called slander (at a minimum). And while he hasn't singled out anyone by name, he has smeared the reputation of a group which is legally actionable.
Also, I look at it all the same as walking into a store and screaming "There is a bomb in here!" Sure I may be lying, but look at the effects I have caused.
I am saying that whether or not it was the truth is just like the above example... If I broke other laws, I will be prosecuted for those laws - not (only) for lying.
I am not saying it doesn't matter because of what was said before. That was a leap on your part.
What he said BEFORE going is something completely different and should follow under rules/laws concerning OPSEC. The fact he did that tells me that either he just doesn't care or is as dumb as a bag of hammers.
To be perfectly clear: Beauchamp can at least legally prosecuted for BOTH issues.
It wasn't a subject change as much as a addendum.
Thom: "...and others are attempting to get an American soldier in trouble."
Nope. Other's aren't trying to get him in trouble. Beauchamp is doing that himself. He is tying the rope around his neck and the tree and just waiting to be pushed. American soldiers don't PUBLICALLY discuss OPSEC issues. That can place other soldiers lives in danger.
Posted by: Hawk at July 27, 2007 02:58 PM (67CCE)
35
Here's an old anecdote that may or may not be true that demonstrates the problem with allowing someone to throw out charges and then put the burden of proof on the accused. Interestingly enough this famous story involves a famous Democrat - Lyndon Baines Johnson (Kids, look him up).
Early in his political career Lyndon was running for office against a gentleman who had made his money as a Pig Farmer. Lyndon was losing. Lyndon went to his publicist and told him that he wanted to annonymously leak a story that his opponent was rumored to enjoy the sexual favors of some of the sows in his barnyard.
The publicist blurted out "Cripes (sic) Lyndon! We can't call the guy a pig f**ker!"
"No", Lyndon said, "But we can make him deny it".
Can you see now why publishing such stories about the American military are viewed as a problem by some?
Early in his political career Lyndon was running for office against a gentleman who had made his money as a Pig Farmer. Lyndon was losing. Lyndon went to his publicist and told him that he wanted to annonymously leak a story that his opponent was rumored to enjoy the sexual favors of some of the sows in his barnyard.
The publicist blurted out "Cripes (sic) Lyndon! We can't call the guy a pig f**ker!"
"No", Lyndon said, "But we can make him deny it".
Can you see now why publishing such stories about the American military are viewed as a problem by some?
Posted by: Lokki at July 27, 2007 03:32 PM (wSBsc)
36
That post is over a year old
does Major Kirk Luedeke know that ? did you tell him ?
did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.
does Major Kirk Luedeke know that ? did you tell him ?
did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.
Posted by: cleek at July 27, 2007 03:35 PM (+dx2l)
37
So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble.
There are many comments on the post that sound almost like this one. They all sound like Scott Thomas Beauchamp is the victim here, but he is not.
If Beauchamp is in any trouble, and so far this is unproved, it is based solely on his own actions. Nothing that any bloggers did or said will be used in the investigation into the "stories" that he gave/sold to TNR, the posts on his blog or his participation in any of the incidents described in his TNR stories.
The fact that he used a pseudonym because he feared some sort of blowback, shows that he when he was walking into a buzz saw of his own making. Beauchamp is reaping from that which he sowed. There are proper channels to handle improper conduct, and TNR isn't one of them. Besides, sending stories of improper conduct to TNR doesn't do anything to to stop improper conduct.
Additionally, it is clear from the comments on various posts that Beauchamp had placed himself in peril by remaining silent especially on the Bradley incidents, if they are in fact true.
If Beauchamp is in any trouble, it is because Beauchamp is a victim of his own stupidity.
There are many comments on the post that sound almost like this one. They all sound like Scott Thomas Beauchamp is the victim here, but he is not.
If Beauchamp is in any trouble, and so far this is unproved, it is based solely on his own actions. Nothing that any bloggers did or said will be used in the investigation into the "stories" that he gave/sold to TNR, the posts on his blog or his participation in any of the incidents described in his TNR stories.
The fact that he used a pseudonym because he feared some sort of blowback, shows that he when he was walking into a buzz saw of his own making. Beauchamp is reaping from that which he sowed. There are proper channels to handle improper conduct, and TNR isn't one of them. Besides, sending stories of improper conduct to TNR doesn't do anything to to stop improper conduct.
Additionally, it is clear from the comments on various posts that Beauchamp had placed himself in peril by remaining silent especially on the Bradley incidents, if they are in fact true.
If Beauchamp is in any trouble, it is because Beauchamp is a victim of his own stupidity.
Posted by: Neo at July 27, 2007 03:42 PM (Yozw9)
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 04:24 PM (3jLID)
39
Thanks for illustrating spittle-flecked insanity, Avenger.
Wow, was I Nostradamus with that crack or what? Looks like we got a Daily Kos piece here that suggests precisely that. Bush ordered a hit on Tillman to prevent him from meeting with Chomsky
Sorry people, I don't have tomorrow's lottery numbers. This one was a fluke.
Wow, was I Nostradamus with that crack or what? Looks like we got a Daily Kos piece here that suggests precisely that. Bush ordered a hit on Tillman to prevent him from meeting with Chomsky
Sorry people, I don't have tomorrow's lottery numbers. This one was a fluke.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 27, 2007 04:26 PM (V2Vet)
40
Thom's right, I'm sure everybody in Iraq goes around with little kids' skulls under their helmets all day, to the delight of all. And I'm pretty sure when you join the Army, part of the induction ceremony is killing a dog. Every soldier has a daily quota of dogs he has to kill. This kind of stuff is absolutely not out of the ordinary.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 27, 2007 04:27 PM (0jtcT)
41
cleek: did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.
I served up to (and almost got to go) to Desert Storm and after.
The rules on blogging may have changed a year ago. But I seriously doubt OPSEC rules have allowed the posting/sharing of that information.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
I served up to (and almost got to go) to Desert Storm and after.
The rules on blogging may have changed a year ago. But I seriously doubt OPSEC rules have allowed the posting/sharing of that information.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Posted by: Hawk at July 27, 2007 04:32 PM (67CCE)
42
cleek,
The change of rules for milbloggers would make no difference, publishing upcoming troop movements was an OPSEC violation at the time and remains so. The information he disclosed could possibly have caused the deaths of his entire unit. There are people who would very much like to kill U.S. soldiers. Telling them where you will be and when is not only exceptionally stupid, it will get a soldier in trouble with their chain of command.
The change of rules for milbloggers would make no difference, publishing upcoming troop movements was an OPSEC violation at the time and remains so. The information he disclosed could possibly have caused the deaths of his entire unit. There are people who would very much like to kill U.S. soldiers. Telling them where you will be and when is not only exceptionally stupid, it will get a soldier in trouble with their chain of command.
Posted by: NGrove at July 27, 2007 04:41 PM (S/Had)
43
Thom:Hey Hawk, nobody's trying to get him in trouble?
Read the title to this post.
God.
You walk into a bank with a gun. They call the police. Who got you in trouble? Those who called the police?? NO. YOU!
Neo said it very nicely. Beuchamp's own stupidity is what will get him in trouble.
*IF* the incidents happened, he didn't report them to the proper people. TNR is NOT the proper people. (The bradley incident has been blown to hell by many vets who HAVE driven a bradley)
*IF* he is lying then he is guilty of slander
Posting/sharing movement of troops/units has been against OPSEC since at least 1984(and I am sure before). I doubt that has changed so he is guilty there.
HE did it all to himself. No one made him post it.
Do you not understand that no one held a gun to his head and said "POST THIS OR YOU DIE!"
He did it of his own (STUPID) free will.
It really isn't that hard to grasp!
Read the title to this post.
God.
You walk into a bank with a gun. They call the police. Who got you in trouble? Those who called the police?? NO. YOU!
Neo said it very nicely. Beuchamp's own stupidity is what will get him in trouble.
*IF* the incidents happened, he didn't report them to the proper people. TNR is NOT the proper people. (The bradley incident has been blown to hell by many vets who HAVE driven a bradley)
*IF* he is lying then he is guilty of slander
Posting/sharing movement of troops/units has been against OPSEC since at least 1984(and I am sure before). I doubt that has changed so he is guilty there.
HE did it all to himself. No one made him post it.
Do you not understand that no one held a gun to his head and said "POST THIS OR YOU DIE!"
He did it of his own (STUPID) free will.
It really isn't that hard to grasp!
Posted by: Hawk at July 27, 2007 04:44 PM (67CCE)
44
it will get a soldier in trouble with their chain of command.
any proof that this hasn't already happened ? (i.e. that he wasn't already reprimanded for this posting)
any proof that this hasn't already happened ? (i.e. that he wasn't already reprimanded for this posting)
Posted by: cleek at July 27, 2007 04:59 PM (V+jPs)
45
Hawk
Owens, by his own admission, wrote to the Foward Affairs Officer at Falcon saying something along the lines of: "Look at what he wrote! Isn't that a violation?..."
You're right, people's actions get them into trouble - and other people can try to help that cause to.
Owens, by his own admission, wrote to the Foward Affairs Officer at Falcon saying something along the lines of: "Look at what he wrote! Isn't that a violation?..."
You're right, people's actions get them into trouble - and other people can try to help that cause to.
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 05:24 PM (3jLID)
46
Avenger:
I was dodging spittle because you leapt from straight out of nowhere to assuming I blamed the President for the Tillman thing. I made no commentary on the thing in any way other than to predict that some people are going to get angry about the article.
I was dodging spittle because you leapt from straight out of nowhere to assuming I blamed the President for the Tillman thing. I made no commentary on the thing in any way other than to predict that some people are going to get angry about the article.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 05:39 PM (UVLFE)
47
"Bohica22":::Looking back at his writings with a new perspective, it all seems so Emo, doesn't it? It has that whiny, my life is so hard, my life is filled with infinite sadness, my life is filled with absurdity
YES!!! some can be on the front line yet know NOTHING
some can be on the couch yet know MUCH
YES!!! some can be on the front line yet know NOTHING
some can be on the couch yet know MUCH
Posted by: Karl at July 27, 2007 07:23 PM (rl2qd)
48
"Doc Washbored":::
I guess I was putting too cynical a spin on it--precisely the sin I'm accusing others of committing.
glad to see you can be HONEST once in a while
EVERYONE knows hes a real soldier!!!
the PROBLEM is that hes spreading pernishous rumers about glock pistols and about running over dogs
PLUS he leeked operations data to the jihadis!!!
I guess I was putting too cynical a spin on it--precisely the sin I'm accusing others of committing.
glad to see you can be HONEST once in a while
EVERYONE knows hes a real soldier!!!
the PROBLEM is that hes spreading pernishous rumers about glock pistols and about running over dogs
PLUS he leeked operations data to the jihadis!!!
Posted by: Karl at July 27, 2007 07:28 PM (rl2qd)
49
So if the left says that if you support the war, you need to go fight it...then if Foer believes, you need liberals to sign up and go report anonymously on the war, why hasn't Foer signed up for a stint?
Why send a punk kid who barely understands life.
Certainly Foer could have come up with more believeable stories.
Why send a punk kid who barely understands life.
Certainly Foer could have come up with more believeable stories.
Posted by: Poppy at July 27, 2007 08:17 PM (dJFjD)
50
Don't let the lefties spin this - that we all claimed this guy didn't exist. That is BS, and they know it. It's easily provable all over the web.
Sure, some made that claim, but many did not, and I am one of them. I simply did not believe that he made fun of a burned woman in a crowded chow hall, because my experience in the military made that seem impossible.
What the left is trying to do is pull a "win" out of this fiasco, sort of a web version of moving from one cover position to another.
Sure, some made that claim, but many did not, and I am one of them. I simply did not believe that he made fun of a burned woman in a crowded chow hall, because my experience in the military made that seem impossible.
What the left is trying to do is pull a "win" out of this fiasco, sort of a web version of moving from one cover position to another.
Posted by: cletus at July 27, 2007 08:40 PM (G1ZI0)
51
leapt from straight out of nowhere to assuming I blamed the President for the Tillman thing.
Having trouble with punctuation semantics? I suggest reading up on what the question mark is supposed to mean.
Having trouble with punctuation semantics? I suggest reading up on what the question mark is supposed to mean.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 27, 2007 08:42 PM (V2Vet)
52
I had noticed the entry with the deployment dates also. I mentioned it to some of the folks who were running with the story, but was ignored. :::shrug:::
Posted by: baldilocks at July 27, 2007 08:42 PM (26Vjl)
53
Jim, vicious military haters like Thom really do believe that all soldiers do things like mocking victims of an ied attack in a mess hall and go around with a baby skull in his helmet. Their seething rage for this country and our soldiers cloud their thinking.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 27, 2007 08:54 PM (Lgw9b)
54
An email from Beauchump's 1st Sgt. that squarly contradicts the little slimeballs claims.
Below is a correspondence I had with PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s Co. 1SG. I e-mailed him via AKO and did not expect him to have the time to answer, but I’m proud to say he did. Looks like The New Republic’s representative lackey has alot of explaining to do. My original e-mail is at the bottom. Enjoy!
SFC McElroy,
I’m not in the habit of answering these email’s. It would be far too many. I appreciate all the support from home and I can assure you that not a single word of this was true. We’ve been fighting this fight for quite some time. Numerous soldiers within my unit have served on several deployments and this is my third year as a First Sergeant in this unit. My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. This soldier has other underlining issues which I’m sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. I can’t and won’t divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. I’m proud of my soldiers and would gladly give my life for any one of them. Please continue to keep them with you in your prayers and thank God that we have these courageous men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Americans, and the people of this struggling nation.
Sincerely,
1SG Hatley
Found at The Foxhole --http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/update-on-the-new-republics-man-in-iraq/
Below is a correspondence I had with PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s Co. 1SG. I e-mailed him via AKO and did not expect him to have the time to answer, but I’m proud to say he did. Looks like The New Republic’s representative lackey has alot of explaining to do. My original e-mail is at the bottom. Enjoy!
SFC McElroy,
I’m not in the habit of answering these email’s. It would be far too many. I appreciate all the support from home and I can assure you that not a single word of this was true. We’ve been fighting this fight for quite some time. Numerous soldiers within my unit have served on several deployments and this is my third year as a First Sergeant in this unit. My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. This soldier has other underlining issues which I’m sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. I can’t and won’t divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. I’m proud of my soldiers and would gladly give my life for any one of them. Please continue to keep them with you in your prayers and thank God that we have these courageous men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Americans, and the people of this struggling nation.
Sincerely,
1SG Hatley
Found at The Foxhole --http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/update-on-the-new-republics-man-in-iraq/
Posted by: mesablue at July 27, 2007 09:04 PM (KCOdQ)
55
Eh, everything below the first line should be quoted from The Foxhole.
Posted by: mesablue at July 27, 2007 09:05 PM (KCOdQ)
56
does Major Kirk Luedeke know that ? did you tell him ?
did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.
Posted by cleek at July 27, 2007 03:35 PMPublicizing the dates of troop movements during a war has been a violation of the UCMJ since the UCMJ was composed. The reason that any armed force would not want its enemies to know the dates of its comings and goings should be obvious.
did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.
Posted by cleek at July 27, 2007 03:35 PMPublicizing the dates of troop movements during a war has been a violation of the UCMJ since the UCMJ was composed. The reason that any armed force would not want its enemies to know the dates of its comings and goings should be obvious.
Posted by: baldilocks at July 27, 2007 09:06 PM (26Vjl)
57
Thom,
Enough of the Chickenhawk crap. I have been to Iraq and am currently in Afghanistan. In Iraq, I was a First Sergeant, the primary troop leader, disciplinarian, trainer, etc., for 400 soldiers.
If you read in my first post this quote from the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces."
Thom - "Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?"
He ain't the only guy in his unit, genius. All those other guys are "in Iraq, killing and maybe dying" as well but now they are distracted by this chump accusing them of heinous behavior. Those guys are now going out on combat missions with this distraction in their minds.
Also, Beauchamp HAS TO BE PUNISHED or there will be a complete breakdown in discipline in this unit. Period. Beauchamp wrote what he wrote to discredit the military effort in Iraq which in turns discredits all those other guys in his unit. If his behavior isn't punishable, what is?
Plus, he most likely violated a direct order. Most units have a policy that before a Soldier can publish stories, especially ones credited as actual events, that the content must be screened and approved by the PAO.
Don't give me that Chickenhawk crap.
Doc - "y7, I saw the Tillman article as related in tone and content to the Beauchamp piece, so I was just tossing it into the mix."
No, the irony was just overwhelming and you needed a diversion. The only thing related to the two is your kneejerk tendency to believe the worst about the military and the government. Personally, I think its time to leave Pat Tillman ALONE. The right used him as a poster child for selfless service and now the left wants to use him as a murdered-by-the-president anti-warrior? Please drop it. It is a tragedy and I feel for his family's loss. And for his family's sake, I wish the world would leave him alone.
Next, I think that anyone who raised an eyebrow at the "near-certainty" comment is entirely justified. Accusations of this level should require a higher standard than that.
Enough of the Chickenhawk crap. I have been to Iraq and am currently in Afghanistan. In Iraq, I was a First Sergeant, the primary troop leader, disciplinarian, trainer, etc., for 400 soldiers.
If you read in my first post this quote from the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces."
Thom - "Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?"
He ain't the only guy in his unit, genius. All those other guys are "in Iraq, killing and maybe dying" as well but now they are distracted by this chump accusing them of heinous behavior. Those guys are now going out on combat missions with this distraction in their minds.
Also, Beauchamp HAS TO BE PUNISHED or there will be a complete breakdown in discipline in this unit. Period. Beauchamp wrote what he wrote to discredit the military effort in Iraq which in turns discredits all those other guys in his unit. If his behavior isn't punishable, what is?
Plus, he most likely violated a direct order. Most units have a policy that before a Soldier can publish stories, especially ones credited as actual events, that the content must be screened and approved by the PAO.
Don't give me that Chickenhawk crap.
Doc - "y7, I saw the Tillman article as related in tone and content to the Beauchamp piece, so I was just tossing it into the mix."
No, the irony was just overwhelming and you needed a diversion. The only thing related to the two is your kneejerk tendency to believe the worst about the military and the government. Personally, I think its time to leave Pat Tillman ALONE. The right used him as a poster child for selfless service and now the left wants to use him as a murdered-by-the-president anti-warrior? Please drop it. It is a tragedy and I feel for his family's loss. And for his family's sake, I wish the world would leave him alone.
Next, I think that anyone who raised an eyebrow at the "near-certainty" comment is entirely justified. Accusations of this level should require a higher standard than that.
Posted by: y7 at July 27, 2007 10:05 PM (Cixed)
58
I wrote about Beauchamp when his Shock Troops article first appeared. I never claimed he did not exist, but I did say that in many many years of being a military spouse who had eaten in dozens of mess halls and officer's dining rooms, I could not imagine in any possible way, any active duty person denigrating one of their female own and being responsible for public ridicule without it being immediately reported to the Commanding Officer, the XO or to the Command Master Chief or Sgt. at Arms. It just would not happen in the first place and if by some weird alignment of evil it did happen, it would have been all over the command within minutes and the offending parties would be facing swift disciplinary action including a dose of mandatory sensitivity training.
This little whiny twerp said he joined the Army because he was basically lazy. This is a smear right from the git go because it assumes on Beauchamp's part that the Army wants lazy little boys to join up. My husband was the Intake Officer at NTC-San Diego for almost 5 years, and I know for a fact that the lazy, spoiled little boys didn't make it in boot camp past the first 3 days. That is the Navy, I doubt the Army is too much different. Lazy means danger to the rest of the unit. Disloyalty of the type that Beauchamp displays means danger to the rest of the unit and to regional operations. Publishing troop movements including dates for movement of their major equipment is giving aid to the enemy. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is toast and I hope he rots.
And let us not forget, the reason Beauchamp, his editor wifey and TNR thought they could get away with all this is because they believe in their hearts that anyone in the military is intellectually deficient, primitive and animalistic. Everything is seen thru this prism.
This little whiny twerp said he joined the Army because he was basically lazy. This is a smear right from the git go because it assumes on Beauchamp's part that the Army wants lazy little boys to join up. My husband was the Intake Officer at NTC-San Diego for almost 5 years, and I know for a fact that the lazy, spoiled little boys didn't make it in boot camp past the first 3 days. That is the Navy, I doubt the Army is too much different. Lazy means danger to the rest of the unit. Disloyalty of the type that Beauchamp displays means danger to the rest of the unit and to regional operations. Publishing troop movements including dates for movement of their major equipment is giving aid to the enemy. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is toast and I hope he rots.
And let us not forget, the reason Beauchamp, his editor wifey and TNR thought they could get away with all this is because they believe in their hearts that anyone in the military is intellectually deficient, primitive and animalistic. Everything is seen thru this prism.
Posted by: Sara at July 27, 2007 10:46 PM (hGL+y)
59
Hey, mesablue - that's a big scoop IMO - if authentic - that e-mail from someone claiming to be STB's 1SG. As far as I know those are the first words on this all from one of STB's comrades. I've already passed it on, and I would not be surprised to see it all over the place tomorrow.
Posted by: CK MacLeod at July 27, 2007 11:19 PM (dvksz)
60
No, the irony was just overwhelming and you needed a diversion. The only thing related to the two is your kneejerk tendency to believe the worst about the military and the government.
Again with the telling me how I actually feel about something, blithely ignoring whatever I may have to say about it. Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties in addition to your own?
No, the irony was just overwhelming and you needed a diversion. The only thing related to the two is your kneejerk tendency to believe the worst about the military and the government.
Again with the telling me how I actually feel about something, blithely ignoring whatever I may have to say about it. Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties in addition to your own?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 27, 2007 11:54 PM (UVLFE)
61
Pretty sure Jodi is a lefty spoofer.
Posted by: Pertasd at July 28, 2007 12:29 AM (yfQVY)
62
Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties in addition to your own?
reading this idiocy I am left laughing at Lefties cardiac arrest over Washington Posts hiring of Ben Demeche.
reading this idiocy I am left laughing at Lefties cardiac arrest over Washington Posts hiring of Ben Demeche.
Posted by: Pertasd at July 28, 2007 12:31 AM (yfQVY)
63
mesablue,
Thanks for the link to "The Foxhole." The Sergeant's letter prompted a short blog post at Winds of Change.
Thanks for the link to "The Foxhole." The Sergeant's letter prompted a short blog post at Winds of Change.
Posted by: AMac at July 28, 2007 01:34 AM (1WnOb)
64
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Doc. Now I am seeing a pattern. I am keeping track of your positions. That is much easier than the whole of the leftie empire.
And, of course, you were "sure" the Tillman story would piss some people off. Guilty of your accusation own there, Doc. Don't you get tired of knowing how all us righties think?
And, of course, you were "sure" the Tillman story would piss some people off. Guilty of your accusation own there, Doc. Don't you get tired of knowing how all us righties think?
Posted by: y7 at July 28, 2007 03:02 AM (Cixed)
65
"Why send a punk kid who barely understands life...."
I have read that this guy's Myspace entry says he is 24 years old.
I have read that this guy's Myspace entry says he is 24 years old.
Posted by: davod at July 28, 2007 03:20 AM (llh3A)
66
Actually, this imbecile, beauchump, can be charged with sedition as well as UCMJ violations.
TNR can face sedition charges as well.
A Jacksonian shows how they violated the law:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/07/wagers-
of-deceit.html
TNR can face sedition charges as well.
A Jacksonian shows how they violated the law:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/07/wagers-
of-deceit.html
Posted by: Ben USN (Ret) at July 28, 2007 08:32 AM (oI4Y2)
67
Emohawk. I like it.
Posted by: Dan Collins at July 28, 2007 08:45 AM (Ouds1)
68
y7:
Recycling my positions from up above:
There will be more than time enough to hang Beauchamp from the highest tree in Baghdad after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not. It sound like the Glock thing is being discredited with facts. That's step one. Now maybe people could approach the other stories the same way.
Also:
Let's go ahead and disprove his story and make him take his lumps for lying or, conversely, prove his story and make other malefactors take their lumps.
There's a world of difference between "let's get the facts" and hating the military. I fully understand that you don't see the distinction, but it doesn't mean that it's not there. I'm not even sure where you're getting the whole "hate the military" idea. Which positions of mine have you "kept track of" (and, I've got to tell you, that comes off as more than a little creepy) that demonstrate this supposed hate?
Remember: not liking you doesn't count as hatred of the military.
Recycling my positions from up above:
There will be more than time enough to hang Beauchamp from the highest tree in Baghdad after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not. It sound like the Glock thing is being discredited with facts. That's step one. Now maybe people could approach the other stories the same way.
Also:
Let's go ahead and disprove his story and make him take his lumps for lying or, conversely, prove his story and make other malefactors take their lumps.
There's a world of difference between "let's get the facts" and hating the military. I fully understand that you don't see the distinction, but it doesn't mean that it's not there. I'm not even sure where you're getting the whole "hate the military" idea. Which positions of mine have you "kept track of" (and, I've got to tell you, that comes off as more than a little creepy) that demonstrate this supposed hate?
Remember: not liking you doesn't count as hatred of the military.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 09:01 AM (+A74p)
69
I posted a comment on blackfive before Scott Thomas' identity was known asking if he was a real soldier serving in Iraq. With Jason Blair and Stephen Glass fabricating facts and reporting on them, one must consider the possibility that Scott is not a soldier in Iraq, but a reporter composing a fictional account in some office on H-Street in Washington.
People who know about Bradleys and Glocks and FOB Falcon had serious questions about the things Scott claimed. The PAO denied the existence of a female contractor with a burned face, denied the discovery of a mass grave and cast doubt that a Bradley could or would be used to kill dogs in the manner described in this piece.
The assertion that these events were commonplace in Iraq struck me as highly unlikely. The military is too disciplined and too open to keep this under wraps. Had an NCO or officer seen or heard about any of these incidents, swift and severe corrective would have been taken on the spot.
I fault Scott Thomas Beauchamp for fabricating this terrible prose, but I also fault TNR for printing it without verifying the facts because it fit their agenda.
People who know about Bradleys and Glocks and FOB Falcon had serious questions about the things Scott claimed. The PAO denied the existence of a female contractor with a burned face, denied the discovery of a mass grave and cast doubt that a Bradley could or would be used to kill dogs in the manner described in this piece.
The assertion that these events were commonplace in Iraq struck me as highly unlikely. The military is too disciplined and too open to keep this under wraps. Had an NCO or officer seen or heard about any of these incidents, swift and severe corrective would have been taken on the spot.
I fault Scott Thomas Beauchamp for fabricating this terrible prose, but I also fault TNR for printing it without verifying the facts because it fit their agenda.
Posted by: arch at July 28, 2007 09:12 AM (YqAqT)
70
"Why send a punk kid who barely understands life...."
I have read that this guy's Myspace entry says he is 24 years old.
Age is just a number. Beauchamp is immature, and yet there are many young men, probably in his Company, who have far more discipline and maturity despite lesser chronological age.
Part of the way you can tell is that he wants to be a hero, but not for doing anything heroic. He's looking for a shortcut to celebrity and adulation, while the real heroes around him take a "Just doin' my job" approach.
I have read that this guy's Myspace entry says he is 24 years old.
Age is just a number. Beauchamp is immature, and yet there are many young men, probably in his Company, who have far more discipline and maturity despite lesser chronological age.
Part of the way you can tell is that he wants to be a hero, but not for doing anything heroic. He's looking for a shortcut to celebrity and adulation, while the real heroes around him take a "Just doin' my job" approach.
Posted by: Pablo at July 28, 2007 09:12 AM (yTndK)
71
The 1SGT alludes to other issues that PVT Beauchamp has - that explains his rank after all that service and the fact that he once was a PFC.
My wife is in Iraq and we were not allowed to know exact dates of deployment - any movement of troops was classified - he violated OPSEC for sure.
I was one that did not think he existed - I think I was fooled by the fact that the stories had been edited - probably by a non-military type - Beauchamp wrote DFAC, editor changed it to Chow hall because he/she did not think the audience knew what a chow hall was - there was a lot of that in the writings, so I thought that a non-military person wrote it - the fact that I made the mistake and he turns out to be real in no way diminishes the fact that the burden of proof for all these stories lies with TNR. They did not fact check them or they would be able to produce their corroboration in an instant. They took his word for it and did not check the facts at all. The easiest person to produce should be the female contractor - she should be easy to single out by his description, and she should be more than happy to point out the scumbags that derided her in the DFAC. If that story is true the guys that laughed at her and taunted her should be give official punishment and non-official punishment(blanket parties in my day).
The stories did not sound plausible, the words used did not sound like they came from a person who is over there, so a number of us doubted his existence. There were a number of bloggers that did think he was real and in fact isolated his unit down to a fairly low level.
My wife is in Iraq and we were not allowed to know exact dates of deployment - any movement of troops was classified - he violated OPSEC for sure.
I was one that did not think he existed - I think I was fooled by the fact that the stories had been edited - probably by a non-military type - Beauchamp wrote DFAC, editor changed it to Chow hall because he/she did not think the audience knew what a chow hall was - there was a lot of that in the writings, so I thought that a non-military person wrote it - the fact that I made the mistake and he turns out to be real in no way diminishes the fact that the burden of proof for all these stories lies with TNR. They did not fact check them or they would be able to produce their corroboration in an instant. They took his word for it and did not check the facts at all. The easiest person to produce should be the female contractor - she should be easy to single out by his description, and she should be more than happy to point out the scumbags that derided her in the DFAC. If that story is true the guys that laughed at her and taunted her should be give official punishment and non-official punishment(blanket parties in my day).
The stories did not sound plausible, the words used did not sound like they came from a person who is over there, so a number of us doubted his existence. There were a number of bloggers that did think he was real and in fact isolated his unit down to a fairly low level.
Posted by: MikeT at July 28, 2007 09:24 AM (gSL8Q)
72
Notice the way the lefties concentrate on shifting the goalposts around, trying to find any speculation that turns out to be not 100% accurate, so they can turn a detail into a complete refutation of the whole. Funny, they never seem to hold themselves to that standard.
Their approach is simple: keep the focus on any impefection of the acusations, rather than the obvious underlying crime. When slandering the military, they love the "narrative". When denying the fact that this is their purpose, they love the details. Lefties demand perfection of everyone but themselves, and too often we get caught up in playing their game. But I suppose honest people are vulnerable to that.
Their approach is simple: keep the focus on any impefection of the acusations, rather than the obvious underlying crime. When slandering the military, they love the "narrative". When denying the fact that this is their purpose, they love the details. Lefties demand perfection of everyone but themselves, and too often we get caught up in playing their game. But I suppose honest people are vulnerable to that.
Posted by: sherlock at July 28, 2007 09:29 AM (ojW85)
73
Is this something to be happy about? Wouldn't this just feed the argument of those who want to limit most any milblog of those on active duty? I don't think people should hide any opsec violation, but the cure may be as bad as the disease.
Posted by: mc at July 28, 2007 09:38 AM (Y5RIN)
74
Thom, do you remember a soldier named Jessie Macbeth?
Answer: No. That little incident is into the memory hole. Never happened. And completely irrelevant to this little incident.
1SG Hatley has denied all of Beauchamp's claims. Are you gonna ask him to "prove it"?
Answer: just his opinion, nothing to prove. You prove it.
Why do you hate 1SG Hatley?
Answer: "I don't hate anybody. Blah, blah, blah, blah." Insert ad hominum here.
Answer: No. That little incident is into the memory hole. Never happened. And completely irrelevant to this little incident.
1SG Hatley has denied all of Beauchamp's claims. Are you gonna ask him to "prove it"?
Answer: just his opinion, nothing to prove. You prove it.
Why do you hate 1SG Hatley?
Answer: "I don't hate anybody. Blah, blah, blah, blah." Insert ad hominum here.
Posted by: klrfz1 at July 28, 2007 09:43 AM (FWdjR)
75
Just trying to save some time.
Posted by: klrfz1 at July 28, 2007 09:44 AM (FWdjR)
76
Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties
Ohhh, "secret thoughts" - very dramatic. No need for mind reading here though, an occasional stroll through DKos and DU, or an Olbermann episode is sufficient to get a very public non-secret read on where the left's headspace is at on any given day.
Ohhh, "secret thoughts" - very dramatic. No need for mind reading here though, an occasional stroll through DKos and DU, or an Olbermann episode is sufficient to get a very public non-secret read on where the left's headspace is at on any given day.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 28, 2007 10:37 AM (8Dgyh)
77
Ohhh, "secret thoughts" - very dramatic. No need for mind reading here though
I can't think of any other term for it, Avenger. The interpretations you and your brethren give of what I post here are often diametrically opposed to what I actually write and, amazingly, even contradict what I am under the impression I believe.
I've never read a thread over at Kos, and I've never seen Olbermann, but it's your position that I take my marching orders from them. It's news to me. I think we that we can safely classify ideas I didn't even know I had (but that you can ferret out with your mad mindreading skillz) as "secret."
Ohhh, "secret thoughts" - very dramatic. No need for mind reading here though
I can't think of any other term for it, Avenger. The interpretations you and your brethren give of what I post here are often diametrically opposed to what I actually write and, amazingly, even contradict what I am under the impression I believe.
I've never read a thread over at Kos, and I've never seen Olbermann, but it's your position that I take my marching orders from them. It's news to me. I think we that we can safely classify ideas I didn't even know I had (but that you can ferret out with your mad mindreading skillz) as "secret."
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 11:05 AM (+A74p)
78
y7, ya know what's funny? The word "chickenhawk" has only been used twice in this thread - and both were by you. That's just funny.
And y7, when I'm talking to dogs, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a dog! arrr arr arr woof..." If I'm talking to girly men, don't (unless you're a girly man) jump in. If I'm talking to people who haven't served in he military - go sit down. I'm not talking to you. I'm taling to them.
Here's the post I believe you're referring to:
"Wait - even sillier: And American soldier - in Iraq - fighting with and for Americans - being portrayed as a soldier smearer. And many of those helping out in that mind-boggling smear are people who are pro-war in Iraq, are able to serve in that war...but won't."
You see how that works?
And finally, a question: have you ever in your time as a combat soldier done something or seen something that was outside of standard operating procedure; and did you report every instance of that?
***And being a soldier doesn't make you a mind reader. Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group. You just don't know. You're speculating into that because of his writing makes you look silly.
And y7, when I'm talking to dogs, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a dog! arrr arr arr woof..." If I'm talking to girly men, don't (unless you're a girly man) jump in. If I'm talking to people who haven't served in he military - go sit down. I'm not talking to you. I'm taling to them.
Here's the post I believe you're referring to:
"Wait - even sillier: And American soldier - in Iraq - fighting with and for Americans - being portrayed as a soldier smearer. And many of those helping out in that mind-boggling smear are people who are pro-war in Iraq, are able to serve in that war...but won't."
You see how that works?
And finally, a question: have you ever in your time as a combat soldier done something or seen something that was outside of standard operating procedure; and did you report every instance of that?
***And being a soldier doesn't make you a mind reader. Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group. You just don't know. You're speculating into that because of his writing makes you look silly.
Posted by: Thom at July 28, 2007 11:19 AM (d4K1L)
79
It would not be too much to point out that "Scott Thomas, the dispassionate and neutral soldier/reporter of super facts for a super new age" does NOT, in fact, exist. That is a TNR fiction. And a Beauchamp fiction, too. "But but but," the Left will bluster, "nobody said he was." Except that they did. And "Jamil Hussein", as they represented him, doesn't exist either. Rigor, Foer, or Mortis, you choose. Mortis seems to be winning.
Posted by: commander0 at July 28, 2007 11:41 AM (U/Ljk)
80
Thom:
"Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group. You just don't know. You're speculating into that because of his writing makes you look silly."
I dunno, that sergeant's e-mail struck me as more than a little damning even without the actual substance of the lad's "reportage". Somehow I don't think with his attitude about stupid boring Army he's one of the "cool kids".
"Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group. You just don't know. You're speculating into that because of his writing makes you look silly."
I dunno, that sergeant's e-mail struck me as more than a little damning even without the actual substance of the lad's "reportage". Somehow I don't think with his attitude about stupid boring Army he's one of the "cool kids".
Posted by: commander0 at July 28, 2007 11:47 AM (U/Ljk)
81
Look. lets all dial down on the left vs. right thing, ok?
This war has made all sides look asinine many times over, and before we are done in Iraq, the cycle will be repeated.
In all likelihood, we all be dissappointed when the truth comes out.
Probably no confusingly dressed, disfigured woman was mocked; A Bradley on a combat mission was not hot-rodded around in an act of canine-cide; that no soldier on patrol wore a child's skull as a hat.
Probably Beauchamp was just a young dope hopped up on punk.
Probably TNR was lazy and less-than-rigorous in giving an assignment to the husband of a writer there.
There are sins done in the name of ideology, and then there are the sins that result from human nature. Im gonna run with human nature.
This war has made all sides look asinine many times over, and before we are done in Iraq, the cycle will be repeated.
In all likelihood, we all be dissappointed when the truth comes out.
Probably no confusingly dressed, disfigured woman was mocked; A Bradley on a combat mission was not hot-rodded around in an act of canine-cide; that no soldier on patrol wore a child's skull as a hat.
Probably Beauchamp was just a young dope hopped up on punk.
Probably TNR was lazy and less-than-rigorous in giving an assignment to the husband of a writer there.
There are sins done in the name of ideology, and then there are the sins that result from human nature. Im gonna run with human nature.
Posted by: Mcgruder at July 28, 2007 12:02 PM (sc+cU)
82
y7, ya know what's funny? The word "chickenhawk" has only been used twice in this thread - and both were by you. That's just funny.
Not actually true. "chickenhawk" smears have been tossed into this thread roughly a dozen times by tbagg and john cole readers who surfed over to drop in the ad hom insult that they no doubt keep in a template somewhere for such purposes. Of course, as they've added nothing of value to the conversation, they were deleted in relatively short order.
y7, ya know what's funny? The word "chickenhawk" has only been used twice in this thread - and both were by you. That's just funny.
Not actually true. "chickenhawk" smears have been tossed into this thread roughly a dozen times by tbagg and john cole readers who surfed over to drop in the ad hom insult that they no doubt keep in a template somewhere for such purposes. Of course, as they've added nothing of value to the conversation, they were deleted in relatively short order.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 28, 2007 12:41 PM (HcgFD)
83
CY, I stand corrected. Deletions, deletions. In any case, y7 was incorrect in his bluster toward me.
Posted by: Thom at July 28, 2007 01:25 PM (3jLID)
84
CTY, why have you stopped accepting my posts?
Posted by: Thom at July 28, 2007 01:40 PM (3jLID)
85
O at least the last one. There's no bad words in it or anything. What auto trigger did I hit?
Posted by: Thom at July 28, 2007 01:42 PM (3jLID)
86
Why do should we believe y7 was in the mil?
Is it because you agree with his point of view? If CY didn't would you datamin him?
How can MikeT prove his wife is in the military?
From this point on, to maintain consistency all people claiming military service should scan a picture of their paychecks (after being data mined for irregularities of course)
If its good enough for Mr B. its good enough for all of the milbloggers.
Is it because you agree with his point of view? If CY didn't would you datamin him?
How can MikeT prove his wife is in the military?
From this point on, to maintain consistency all people claiming military service should scan a picture of their paychecks (after being data mined for irregularities of course)
If its good enough for Mr B. its good enough for all of the milbloggers.
Posted by: gil at July 28, 2007 01:43 PM (7JpXj)
Posted by: Thom at July 28, 2007 01:43 PM (3jLID)
88
Hmmmm.
@ Thom
"Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group."
Completely idiotic nonsense.
Soldiers that are respected get promoted because they do things that earn that respect and those very same things will result in promotions.
If Beauchamp was such a great soldier then why did he go from PFC (PV3) to Private (PV2)?
Respected soldiers don't get Article 15's.
@ Thom
"Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group."
Completely idiotic nonsense.
Soldiers that are respected get promoted because they do things that earn that respect and those very same things will result in promotions.
If Beauchamp was such a great soldier then why did he go from PFC (PV3) to Private (PV2)?
Respected soldiers don't get Article 15's.
Posted by: memomachine at July 28, 2007 02:26 PM (0aIoB)
89
Hmmmm.
@ Doc Washboard
"I've never read a thread over at Kos, and I've never seen Olbermann, but it's your position that I take my marching orders from them. It's news to me."
Pretty amazing.
Even I've read some of the nonsense on Kos and have watched Olbermann a couple times.
But you've kept yourself virgin all this time.
@ Doc Washboard
"I've never read a thread over at Kos, and I've never seen Olbermann, but it's your position that I take my marching orders from them. It's news to me."
Pretty amazing.
Even I've read some of the nonsense on Kos and have watched Olbermann a couple times.
But you've kept yourself virgin all this time.
Posted by: memomachine at July 28, 2007 02:28 PM (0aIoB)
90
Hmmmm.
Ok. So has TNR actually coughed up some proof or are we still waiting for those twits to find their ass?
Ok. So has TNR actually coughed up some proof or are we still waiting for those twits to find their ass?
Posted by: memomachine at July 28, 2007 02:31 PM (0aIoB)
91
There is something very important about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp story which, I think, has gone largely unnoticed.
Whatever else Private Beauchamp may or may not be, he is first and foremost a Soldier.
As such, he is bound to uphold the Soldier’s Creed:
The Soldier’s Creed
I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
Whether his story is true or not does not matter. Either way, he has failed to uphold his duties as a Soldier.
I find it very sad that so few can understand this. Before he ever went to write his stories, did any of his friends at TNR remind him of his duties? As his allies in the media leap to his defense, do they realize that regardless of the veracity of his stories, he has failed by breaking a code of honor? Do the bloggers who decry his silencing as a means of pro-war demagoguery understand that his silence has to do with his failure to behave like a Soldier?
There was a time in this country where so many people had served that the nation as a whole understood the importance of honor and duty. Now, very few understand service and instead everything is placed in a context of politics and partisanship.
That is quite sad.
Whatever else Private Beauchamp may or may not be, he is first and foremost a Soldier.
As such, he is bound to uphold the Soldier’s Creed:
The Soldier’s Creed
I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
Whether his story is true or not does not matter. Either way, he has failed to uphold his duties as a Soldier.
I find it very sad that so few can understand this. Before he ever went to write his stories, did any of his friends at TNR remind him of his duties? As his allies in the media leap to his defense, do they realize that regardless of the veracity of his stories, he has failed by breaking a code of honor? Do the bloggers who decry his silencing as a means of pro-war demagoguery understand that his silence has to do with his failure to behave like a Soldier?
There was a time in this country where so many people had served that the nation as a whole understood the importance of honor and duty. Now, very few understand service and instead everything is placed in a context of politics and partisanship.
That is quite sad.
Posted by: tom a. at July 28, 2007 02:37 PM (iWlkZ)
92
@ Doc Washboard
Pretty amazing.
Even I've read some of the nonsense on Kos and have watched Olbermann a couple times.
But you've kept yourself virgin all this time.
Well, yes, despite your clear skepticism. I don't have cable and I don't get a single TV channel out here in the mountains, for one thing, so that takes care of the Olbermann. And while I visit quite a few Lefty sites, Kos is not among them.
@ Doc Washboard
Pretty amazing.
Even I've read some of the nonsense on Kos and have watched Olbermann a couple times.
But you've kept yourself virgin all this time.
Well, yes, despite your clear skepticism. I don't have cable and I don't get a single TV channel out here in the mountains, for one thing, so that takes care of the Olbermann. And while I visit quite a few Lefty sites, Kos is not among them.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 03:05 PM (+A74p)
93
The interpretations you and your brethren give of what I post here are often diametrically opposed to what I actually write and, amazingly, even contradict what I am under the impression I believe.
Language can be a scalpel or a blunt instrument. The choice is yours.
Perhaps you should simply choose your words more carefully to reflect what your claimed true intent is if you don't want to be misunderstood? There are many to choose from and an array of punctuation options for accessorizing them.
For example, when I use a question mark I intend it to be parsed as a question mark was intended to be parsed, and how it it taught in every school in the nation -- not as a period as someone might wish it to be parsed trying to distort my intent.
Language can be a scalpel or a blunt instrument. The choice is yours.
Perhaps you should simply choose your words more carefully to reflect what your claimed true intent is if you don't want to be misunderstood? There are many to choose from and an array of punctuation options for accessorizing them.
For example, when I use a question mark I intend it to be parsed as a question mark was intended to be parsed, and how it it taught in every school in the nation -- not as a period as someone might wish it to be parsed trying to distort my intent.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 28, 2007 03:30 PM (8Dgyh)
94
For example, when I use a question mark I intend it to be parsed as a question mark was intended to be parsed, and how it it taught in every school in the nation -- not as a period as someone might wish it to be parsed trying to distort my intent.
This, my friend, is what we call "backing and filling."
As an aside, what's your line of work?
For example, when I use a question mark I intend it to be parsed as a question mark was intended to be parsed, and how it it taught in every school in the nation -- not as a period as someone might wish it to be parsed trying to distort my intent.
This, my friend, is what we call "backing and filling."
As an aside, what's your line of work?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 03:46 PM (+A74p)
95
Thom said:
"commander0
You said: "I dunno." Yup, you don't."
You are teh most clevererest poster ever.
"commander0
You said: "I dunno." Yup, you don't."
You are teh most clevererest poster ever.
Posted by: commander0 at July 28, 2007 04:43 PM (U/Ljk)
96
As an aside, what's your line of work?
I'm a computer programmer and test engineer by trade. I specialize in low level assembler code work and the nitty gritty guts of device drivers and operating systems. Precision of expression is an absolute requirement for me and has been for 25 years in the business.
I'm not "backing and filling", I'm simply wielding the English language with the same precision I might use to craft an operating system's file system or memory management.
I'm a computer programmer and test engineer by trade. I specialize in low level assembler code work and the nitty gritty guts of device drivers and operating systems. Precision of expression is an absolute requirement for me and has been for 25 years in the business.
I'm not "backing and filling", I'm simply wielding the English language with the same precision I might use to craft an operating system's file system or memory management.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 28, 2007 04:56 PM (8Dgyh)
97
Impressive. Since we're in a pissing match here, I've been an English teacher for seventeen years. You can go ahead and try to teach me the ins and outs of word choice and the varied uses of punctuation, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to take me anywhere I haven't already been.
Had you really wanted to know who I thought was behind the death, you might have written something on the order of, "So who do you think was behind the death?" Instead, you tried to feed me an answer that you thought I'd leap at, and I'm betting that you were drooling at the thought of turning my response into some rant about BDS.
If you're as precise with your use of language as you say, the fact that you dropped the President's name into the discussion out of nowhere is as telling as your choice of end punctuation.
I didn't step into your little trap, but I encourage you to keep trying. It's cute.
Had you really wanted to know who I thought was behind the death, you might have written something on the order of, "So who do you think was behind the death?" Instead, you tried to feed me an answer that you thought I'd leap at, and I'm betting that you were drooling at the thought of turning my response into some rant about BDS.
If you're as precise with your use of language as you say, the fact that you dropped the President's name into the discussion out of nowhere is as telling as your choice of end punctuation.
I didn't step into your little trap, but I encourage you to keep trying. It's cute.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 05:14 PM (+A74p)
98
"Doc Washedup":::
Once again the AVENGER has crushed you like the LIEberal bug you are HA, HA HA, HA
he proudly wields the SCALPEL of CONSERVATISM,,, a SOLDIER
you FLAIL ABOUT with your short and chubby BLUNT INSTRUMENT,,, bleeding heart oh dont be mean to the terrorists
in the back of youre mind you know GEORGE W BUSH will be remember as a HERO and it drives you crazy... BDS!!!
Once again the AVENGER has crushed you like the LIEberal bug you are HA, HA HA, HA
he proudly wields the SCALPEL of CONSERVATISM,,, a SOLDIER
you FLAIL ABOUT with your short and chubby BLUNT INSTRUMENT,,, bleeding heart oh dont be mean to the terrorists
in the back of youre mind you know GEORGE W BUSH will be remember as a HERO and it drives you crazy... BDS!!!
Posted by: Karl at July 28, 2007 05:46 PM (rl2qd)
99
in the back of youre mind you know GEORGE W BUSH will be remember as a HERO and it drives you crazy... BDS!!!
Speaking of functionally illiterate...
in the back of youre mind you know GEORGE W BUSH will be remember as a HERO and it drives you crazy... BDS!!!
Speaking of functionally illiterate...
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 05:59 PM (+A74p)
100
Since we're in a pissing match here, I've been an English teacher for seventeen years. You can go ahead and try to teach me the ins and outs of word choice and the varied uses of punctuation, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to take me anywhere I haven't already been.
Forgive me for butting in, but Doc Washboard, you do seem rather full of yourself.
When I was in high school, we were assigned a thesis topic at the beginning of each school year, 9 thru 12. Our Senior Thesis determined whether we would graduate. It was "graded" by several different teachers who taught the student during the year. A thesis with a very high grade, usually A+ or A++ was sent on to the state writing contest.
My Senior Thesis got remarks like "brilliant," "very interesting and observant," "original thought about an old subject," "exceptional insight," "an understanding of the struggle of man way beyond her years," etc. I got an A++ and it was sent on to the state contest and I tied for first place. I would have won outright except for one small problem. The English teacher judge wrote in the margins, "too bad Miss G. missed school the day commas following introductory adverbial clauses was taught and that she never learned about split infinitives. She downgraded the overall paper grade from A++ to A. I was mortified at the time and never wrote publicly again until I started my blog. Now I don't care if it passes anal-retentive English teacher muster. If I see b.s. I call it b.s. and figure everyone gets where I'm coming from, even when I end with a preposition, miss a comma, or split an infinitive.
But since you like direct questions so much, let me ask - when you read the newspaper or a news magazine, do you read for construction or do you read for content and information? Do you dismiss documented evidence because the documenter made some punctuation or obscure grammatical error that only an English teacher would notice? Do you dismiss the years and years of experience about a subject because the person isn't a classical writer?
For me, I'll take my own experience and that of those I respect about whether Beauchamp is a pissant poseur or the real deal. You just don't get it -- TNR didn't care if Beauchamp was a pissant poseur because his articles advanced their own anti-military agenda and that is all that counted. It isn't that there aren't bad apples in an organization as large as our U.S. armed forces, no one is saying that. Of course there are. The difference is that those of us with years of experience know that the bad apples are not welcome and are dealt with when found, not celebrated. For the TNRs of the world, bad apples are turned into folk heroes. Some of the most outstanding military leaders I've known in my considerably long lifetime can't speak a grammatical sentence, are sometimes crass and crude, but somehow when it comes to leading their troops, they are trusted and revered and generate the kind of loyalty that makes others willing to lay down their lives, if necessary. They do not violate OPSEC, they are never lazy about their duty, the words honor and duty mean something to them, and they do not use that duty as a stepping stone to a civilian creative writing career denigrating their experience. They have finally tuned b.s. detectors because their lives and those of their men depend on it.
Forgive me for butting in, but Doc Washboard, you do seem rather full of yourself.
When I was in high school, we were assigned a thesis topic at the beginning of each school year, 9 thru 12. Our Senior Thesis determined whether we would graduate. It was "graded" by several different teachers who taught the student during the year. A thesis with a very high grade, usually A+ or A++ was sent on to the state writing contest.
My Senior Thesis got remarks like "brilliant," "very interesting and observant," "original thought about an old subject," "exceptional insight," "an understanding of the struggle of man way beyond her years," etc. I got an A++ and it was sent on to the state contest and I tied for first place. I would have won outright except for one small problem. The English teacher judge wrote in the margins, "too bad Miss G. missed school the day commas following introductory adverbial clauses was taught and that she never learned about split infinitives. She downgraded the overall paper grade from A++ to A. I was mortified at the time and never wrote publicly again until I started my blog. Now I don't care if it passes anal-retentive English teacher muster. If I see b.s. I call it b.s. and figure everyone gets where I'm coming from, even when I end with a preposition, miss a comma, or split an infinitive.
But since you like direct questions so much, let me ask - when you read the newspaper or a news magazine, do you read for construction or do you read for content and information? Do you dismiss documented evidence because the documenter made some punctuation or obscure grammatical error that only an English teacher would notice? Do you dismiss the years and years of experience about a subject because the person isn't a classical writer?
For me, I'll take my own experience and that of those I respect about whether Beauchamp is a pissant poseur or the real deal. You just don't get it -- TNR didn't care if Beauchamp was a pissant poseur because his articles advanced their own anti-military agenda and that is all that counted. It isn't that there aren't bad apples in an organization as large as our U.S. armed forces, no one is saying that. Of course there are. The difference is that those of us with years of experience know that the bad apples are not welcome and are dealt with when found, not celebrated. For the TNRs of the world, bad apples are turned into folk heroes. Some of the most outstanding military leaders I've known in my considerably long lifetime can't speak a grammatical sentence, are sometimes crass and crude, but somehow when it comes to leading their troops, they are trusted and revered and generate the kind of loyalty that makes others willing to lay down their lives, if necessary. They do not violate OPSEC, they are never lazy about their duty, the words honor and duty mean something to them, and they do not use that duty as a stepping stone to a civilian creative writing career denigrating their experience. They have finally tuned b.s. detectors because their lives and those of their men depend on it.
Posted by: Sara at July 28, 2007 06:44 PM (hGL+y)
101
Forgive me for butting in, but Doc Washboard, you do seem rather full of yourself.
When I was in high school, we were assigned a thesis topic at the beginning of each school year, 9 thru 12. Our Senior Thesis determined whether we would graduate. It was "graded" by several different teachers who taught the student during the year. A thesis with a very high grade, usually A+ or A++ was sent on to the state writing contest.
My Senior Thesis got remarks like "brilliant," "very interesting and observant," "original thought about an old subject," "exceptional insight," "an understanding of the struggle of man way beyond her years," etc. I got an A++ and it was sent on to the state contest and I tied for first place.
Washbored is FULL of himself! YES!!!
When I was in high school, we were assigned a thesis topic at the beginning of each school year, 9 thru 12. Our Senior Thesis determined whether we would graduate. It was "graded" by several different teachers who taught the student during the year. A thesis with a very high grade, usually A+ or A++ was sent on to the state writing contest.
My Senior Thesis got remarks like "brilliant," "very interesting and observant," "original thought about an old subject," "exceptional insight," "an understanding of the struggle of man way beyond her years," etc. I got an A++ and it was sent on to the state contest and I tied for first place.
Washbored is FULL of himself! YES!!!
Posted by: Karl at July 28, 2007 06:51 PM (rl2qd)
102
I'm guessing that you won't be able to take me anywhere I haven't already been.
Your slackness must be intentional or due to laziness rather than lack of fundamental knowledge then.
Your slackness must be intentional or due to laziness rather than lack of fundamental knowledge then.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 28, 2007 07:05 PM (8Dgyh)
103
But since you like direct questions so much, let me ask - when you read the newspaper or a news magazine, do you read for construction or do you read for content and information? Do you dismiss documented evidence because the documenter made some punctuation or obscure grammatical error that only an English teacher would notice? Do you dismiss the years and years of experience about a subject because the person isn't a classical writer?
These are rhetorical questions, I take it? Or would you really like an answer? You went on and composed a little speech after you asked them, so I wasn't sure.
But since you like direct questions so much, let me ask - when you read the newspaper or a news magazine, do you read for construction or do you read for content and information? Do you dismiss documented evidence because the documenter made some punctuation or obscure grammatical error that only an English teacher would notice? Do you dismiss the years and years of experience about a subject because the person isn't a classical writer?
These are rhetorical questions, I take it? Or would you really like an answer? You went on and composed a little speech after you asked them, so I wasn't sure.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 28, 2007 07:51 PM (+A74p)
104
Karl, you obviously missed the point. Once my paper was downgraded by the comma police, I did not believe any of the praise and lost all confidence that I could write at all. The difference between me the 17 year old and me 45 years later is that now I don't give a damn whether others think I can write or not, if I have something to say, I say it for my own satisfaction. And I still don't like to write, much preferring to do the research behind the scenes, which is really what the praise was all about anyway, although I didn't know it back then.
Doc W. - No speeches. I've learned from experience who to trust and who to call b.s. on. One of the few benefits of old age. You don't need to tell me your answers, but it wouldn't hurt to ask yourself the questions when evaluating whose opinions are the more trustworthy, especially on matters military.
Doc W. - No speeches. I've learned from experience who to trust and who to call b.s. on. One of the few benefits of old age. You don't need to tell me your answers, but it wouldn't hurt to ask yourself the questions when evaluating whose opinions are the more trustworthy, especially on matters military.
Posted by: Sara at July 28, 2007 08:42 PM (hGL+y)
105
TNR didn't care if Beauchamp was a pissant poseur because his articles advanced their own anti-military agenda
Have you read the New Republic since about 1985 or so? Whatever was going on over there it wasn't an anti-military agenda.
Have you read the New Republic since about 1985 or so? Whatever was going on over there it wasn't an anti-military agenda.
Posted by: sj at July 28, 2007 09:57 PM (moqTh)
106
Sara: I'm right with you on those who have nothing better than try and correct grammar/punctuation. One thing I have always said when posting to people in a discussion or flame war is this:
If you post a reply and the absolute best thing a person can come back with is that you missed some punctuation or misspelled some word or pointing out your typos, you have won the argument.
If all they can do is to come back with a personal attack instead of addressing your message .... well, I think you get the picture
(The one exception I make is when the person in question has a history of doing that and then gets busted for the same ... then it is just reaping what you sow *EG*)
One thing I learned in speech class was to "consider your audience." I see this consideration blown out of the water on an almost daily basis. My writing and choice of words totally depends on which blog I am making posts.
I look beyond the grammar. I try to see what the person is trying to communicate. Doing other wise actually does expose someone's personality flaws
If you post a reply and the absolute best thing a person can come back with is that you missed some punctuation or misspelled some word or pointing out your typos, you have won the argument.
If all they can do is to come back with a personal attack instead of addressing your message .... well, I think you get the picture
(The one exception I make is when the person in question has a history of doing that and then gets busted for the same ... then it is just reaping what you sow *EG*)
One thing I learned in speech class was to "consider your audience." I see this consideration blown out of the water on an almost daily basis. My writing and choice of words totally depends on which blog I am making posts.
I look beyond the grammar. I try to see what the person is trying to communicate. Doing other wise actually does expose someone's personality flaws
Posted by: Hawk at July 28, 2007 09:58 PM (67CCE)
107
Karl, you obviously missed the point. Once my paper was downgraded by the comma police, I did not believe any of the praise and lost all confidence that I could write at all. The difference between me the 17 year old and me 45 years later is that now I don't give a damn whether others think I can write or not, if I have something to say, I say it for my own satisfaction. And I still don't like to write, much preferring to do the research behind the scenes, which is really what the praise was all about anyway, although I didn't know it back then.
AGREED!!!
WASHBOARD cant get over himself!!!
AGREED!!!
WASHBOARD cant get over himself!!!
Posted by: Karl at July 28, 2007 11:06 PM (rl2qd)
108
The fact that TNR was not anti-war in the past has nothing to do with how things have been run since Foer ascended to editor.
TNR caved to the crazies, now they are paying for that mistake.
TNR caved to the crazies, now they are paying for that mistake.
Posted by: mesablue at July 28, 2007 11:14 PM (KCOdQ)
109
Thom - "Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?"
See, Thom, this is the basis of my "bluster" toward you. The quote above is a chickenhawk statement. Can you explain it otherwise? I clearly quoted this statement in my "bluster" toward you, as I have done here, in the post that refer to. I never addressed the quote that you referred to in the "bluster" accusation. So do you see how it works? I quoted you and then you misquoted me. Wait, that isn't how it works.
You seem to want to silence the non-military members here by saying they have no right to question this guy since he is in Iraq and they are sitting somewhere other than Iraq. You seem to say that, since you address them as non-military people and not me, that you can call them chickenhawks all you want even when non-chickenhawks identify their analyses as reasonable. Is that right? Lets look at the quote:
Thom: "And y7, when I'm talking to dogs, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a dog! arrr arr arr woof..." If I'm talking to girly men, don't (unless you're a girly man) jump in. If I'm talking to people who haven't served in he military - go sit down. I'm not talking to you. I'm taling to them."
Let me paraphrase: "When I am calling someone a chickenhawk, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a chickenhawk! arrr arr arr woof" Or would it be better with a "bawk bawk caw caw?"
Go sit down.
Doc, you mentioned my first name in another post. "(and, I've got to tell you, that comes off as more than a little creepy)" Seems like we are keeping track of each other's positions and beliefs fairly well.
When we get into these arguments, you invariably claim that you are only taking the Devil's Advocate role in any controversy that makes the US, the military, or republicans look bad. Yet you seem to seldom take that role when it is Left wing cause being discussed. Curious.
gil, scan a paycheck? You what to "datamine" something that doesn't exist. We don't get paychecks, we get Leave and Earnings statements and a direct deposit. You are dumber than you sound if you think I am posting that for you!
See, Thom, this is the basis of my "bluster" toward you. The quote above is a chickenhawk statement. Can you explain it otherwise? I clearly quoted this statement in my "bluster" toward you, as I have done here, in the post that refer to. I never addressed the quote that you referred to in the "bluster" accusation. So do you see how it works? I quoted you and then you misquoted me. Wait, that isn't how it works.
You seem to want to silence the non-military members here by saying they have no right to question this guy since he is in Iraq and they are sitting somewhere other than Iraq. You seem to say that, since you address them as non-military people and not me, that you can call them chickenhawks all you want even when non-chickenhawks identify their analyses as reasonable. Is that right? Lets look at the quote:
Thom: "And y7, when I'm talking to dogs, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a dog! arrr arr arr woof..." If I'm talking to girly men, don't (unless you're a girly man) jump in. If I'm talking to people who haven't served in he military - go sit down. I'm not talking to you. I'm taling to them."
Let me paraphrase: "When I am calling someone a chickenhawk, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a chickenhawk! arrr arr arr woof" Or would it be better with a "bawk bawk caw caw?"
Go sit down.
Doc, you mentioned my first name in another post. "(and, I've got to tell you, that comes off as more than a little creepy)" Seems like we are keeping track of each other's positions and beliefs fairly well.
When we get into these arguments, you invariably claim that you are only taking the Devil's Advocate role in any controversy that makes the US, the military, or republicans look bad. Yet you seem to seldom take that role when it is Left wing cause being discussed. Curious.
gil, scan a paycheck? You what to "datamine" something that doesn't exist. We don't get paychecks, we get Leave and Earnings statements and a direct deposit. You are dumber than you sound if you think I am posting that for you!
Posted by: y7 at July 29, 2007 12:05 AM (Cixed)
110
And Thom, I never witnessed any atrocities, any torture, or any improper escalations of force.
I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I never saw any prisoner abuse while I was there. One MP was observed engaging in questionable behavior. The behavior was more rude than anything. But to tolerate it, is to accept it. My unit's soldiers ended the behavior on the spot. Once it was brought to my attention, I notified his First Sergeant. His First Sergeant removed him from the detainee environment and assigned him to a less desirable convoy detail for the remainder of his tour. Then the MP's commander hit him with an company grade Article 15 with a reduction of one E grade.
Within one half hour, 10 of my soldiers reported the MP to me. That is how it is supposed to work and how it DOES work. That is the key argument against the burned woman story.
I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I never saw any prisoner abuse while I was there. One MP was observed engaging in questionable behavior. The behavior was more rude than anything. But to tolerate it, is to accept it. My unit's soldiers ended the behavior on the spot. Once it was brought to my attention, I notified his First Sergeant. His First Sergeant removed him from the detainee environment and assigned him to a less desirable convoy detail for the remainder of his tour. Then the MP's commander hit him with an company grade Article 15 with a reduction of one E grade.
Within one half hour, 10 of my soldiers reported the MP to me. That is how it is supposed to work and how it DOES work. That is the key argument against the burned woman story.
Posted by: y7 at July 29, 2007 12:35 AM (Cixed)
111
Doc Jello - I'm out of pocket for a while and someone else steps up to call you on your weaselly ways. Thanks y7.
You may think it's creepy for someone to keep track of your positions, but you create so many for yourself on the same subject during the course of single thread it's the only way anyone can keep what paases for your arguments straight. And your "I never claimed," "I never said," hasn't worked out to well for you has it.
I shudder to think what you are teaching our youngsters.
You may think it's creepy for someone to keep track of your positions, but you create so many for yourself on the same subject during the course of single thread it's the only way anyone can keep what paases for your arguments straight. And your "I never claimed," "I never said," hasn't worked out to well for you has it.
I shudder to think what you are teaching our youngsters.
Posted by: daletrocks at July 29, 2007 07:06 AM (0pZel)
112
y7 -
It was clearly tounge and cheek. I am merely saying that there is no proof that you serve in mil. You will have to subject yourself to a a public "outing" just like Mr. B has gone through. If you prove you were in the mil then you will have to subject yourself and everything you have every typed to be psychoanalized and mined for illeagal attivities
It was clearly tounge and cheek. I am merely saying that there is no proof that you serve in mil. You will have to subject yourself to a a public "outing" just like Mr. B has gone through. If you prove you were in the mil then you will have to subject yourself and everything you have every typed to be psychoanalized and mined for illeagal attivities
Posted by: gil at July 29, 2007 08:10 AM (MIgd+)
113
An English teacher for 17 years? Bwahahahahaha!!!! Figures! Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 29, 2007 10:29 AM (Lgw9b)
114
An English teacher for 17 years? Bwahahahahaha!!!! Figures! Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
AGREED!!! teachers are LOSERS
HA HA, HA HA, HA
AGREED!!! teachers are LOSERS
HA HA, HA HA, HA
Posted by: Karl at July 29, 2007 10:52 AM (rl2qd)
115
I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I never saw any prisoner abuse while I was there.
THANK YOU
it was fraternity hazeing, the boys letting off a little steam NOT TORTURE
THANK YOU
it was fraternity hazeing, the boys letting off a little steam NOT TORTURE
Posted by: Karl at July 29, 2007 10:55 AM (rl2qd)
116
gil,
And I would have to submit to having my paycheck datamined for irregularities!!
The problem you have with me, I believe, is that you can't call me a chickenhawk. Of course, you don't use that word, you merely construct a sentence that implies the charge. You have done so no less than three times in this thread. Now, personally, I think you should shut up with the chickenhawk talk unless you are in the military.
Military people are the only ones that have a compelling reason to use the term. We are the ones who suffer when the "chickenhawks" send us to war. How does someone being a chickenhawk dramatically change your life? I mean, other than bestowing feelings of moral and intellectual superiority on you...
In fact, the only harm a war might do to you is if the conduct of the war, by either the President or the Soldiers, reflects negatively on the United States and her people.
I understand Bush derangement syndrome. People that adamantly hate Bush feel his actions disparage the United States and they protest to distance themselves from that harm. "Not in my name!" they say.
But with this guy, he is, for the most part, a regular American. Millions of people have served in the military and millions more will. There have been only 43 presidents.
Like them or not, Presidents are extraordinary people. And yet the left distances itself from the extraordinary people and embraces men like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
It is the same reason I speak so strongly about this man. I want to distance myself from any comparisons with his behavior at the same moment he tries to cast the shadow of his behavior on me.
Anyway. Now if I have to prove that I am in the military, does Doc have to prove he is an English teacher? If everyone has to post something to establish credibility, what will you post?
If you need proof of my past or current service, perhaps you can "datamine" my postings for irregularities.
You have given me a list of things I "have to" subject myself to. First, I have to do no such thing. Second, I have not committed any OPSEC or UCMJ violations here.
I guess before I get to have speech as free as yours, I have to pay for it first, huh? My first installment is a scanned and "datamined for irregularities" paycheck?
And I would have to submit to having my paycheck datamined for irregularities!!
The problem you have with me, I believe, is that you can't call me a chickenhawk. Of course, you don't use that word, you merely construct a sentence that implies the charge. You have done so no less than three times in this thread. Now, personally, I think you should shut up with the chickenhawk talk unless you are in the military.
Military people are the only ones that have a compelling reason to use the term. We are the ones who suffer when the "chickenhawks" send us to war. How does someone being a chickenhawk dramatically change your life? I mean, other than bestowing feelings of moral and intellectual superiority on you...
In fact, the only harm a war might do to you is if the conduct of the war, by either the President or the Soldiers, reflects negatively on the United States and her people.
I understand Bush derangement syndrome. People that adamantly hate Bush feel his actions disparage the United States and they protest to distance themselves from that harm. "Not in my name!" they say.
But with this guy, he is, for the most part, a regular American. Millions of people have served in the military and millions more will. There have been only 43 presidents.
Like them or not, Presidents are extraordinary people. And yet the left distances itself from the extraordinary people and embraces men like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
It is the same reason I speak so strongly about this man. I want to distance myself from any comparisons with his behavior at the same moment he tries to cast the shadow of his behavior on me.
Anyway. Now if I have to prove that I am in the military, does Doc have to prove he is an English teacher? If everyone has to post something to establish credibility, what will you post?
If you need proof of my past or current service, perhaps you can "datamine" my postings for irregularities.
You have given me a list of things I "have to" subject myself to. First, I have to do no such thing. Second, I have not committed any OPSEC or UCMJ violations here.
I guess before I get to have speech as free as yours, I have to pay for it first, huh? My first installment is a scanned and "datamined for irregularities" paycheck?
Posted by: y7 at July 29, 2007 11:57 AM (Cixed)
117
Karl, What happened at Abu Ghraib was unacceptable. It was a company level failure, i.e., Commander and First Sergeant. It is a First Sergeant's job to maintain standards of discipline; he failed.
But it is an interesting parallel.
The abuse at Abu Ghraib is exactly what "Mr. B" wanted to see and the level of depravity he wanted to write about. He didn't see it. I think he is lying.
I think it is interesting that I have said without a doubt that the Army as a whole would not tolerate that behavior from a group and yet here is a group that did much worse. The incidents at Abu Ghraib only reinforce that opinion.
The whistle-blower in the Abu Ghraib case blew the whistle to his chain of command, not TNR, because his first imperative was a moral one to stop the behavior, not get published.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
My unit was taught a class on this before we deployed. The article has been politicized some, "What happens when you put good people in an evil place? "
I would argue it studies unconditional control and power. The behavior and settings in the Stanford Study and in Abu Ghraib does not even closely reflect the one "Mr. B" wrote about.
But it is an interesting parallel.
The abuse at Abu Ghraib is exactly what "Mr. B" wanted to see and the level of depravity he wanted to write about. He didn't see it. I think he is lying.
I think it is interesting that I have said without a doubt that the Army as a whole would not tolerate that behavior from a group and yet here is a group that did much worse. The incidents at Abu Ghraib only reinforce that opinion.
The whistle-blower in the Abu Ghraib case blew the whistle to his chain of command, not TNR, because his first imperative was a moral one to stop the behavior, not get published.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
My unit was taught a class on this before we deployed. The article has been politicized some, "What happens when you put good people in an evil place? "
I would argue it studies unconditional control and power. The behavior and settings in the Stanford Study and in Abu Ghraib does not even closely reflect the one "Mr. B" wrote about.
Posted by: y7 at July 29, 2007 12:38 PM (Cixed)
118
It was clearly tounge and cheek. I am merely saying that there is no proof that you serve in mil.
I've seen y7's Bronze Star docs, his theater ribbon docs, and a photo of him in a hot sandy place in full combat gear, camel by his side.
Do not question his service again.
It was clearly tounge and cheek. I am merely saying that there is no proof that you serve in mil.
I've seen y7's Bronze Star docs, his theater ribbon docs, and a photo of him in a hot sandy place in full combat gear, camel by his side.
Do not question his service again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 29, 2007 01:52 PM (HcgFD)
119
y7
We wouldn't know a thing about Abu Ghraib if someone hadnt gone to the press. And you shoot your argument in the foot when you say that this pfc should have gone up his chain of command then point out that the AG chain of command was shot.
And are you honestly saying that if he went to some Sgt. and said, "So and so ran over a dog and laughed at this lady" that the Sgt. wouldn't wonder what the hell was wrong with him?
We wouldn't know a thing about Abu Ghraib if someone hadnt gone to the press. And you shoot your argument in the foot when you say that this pfc should have gone up his chain of command then point out that the AG chain of command was shot.
And are you honestly saying that if he went to some Sgt. and said, "So and so ran over a dog and laughed at this lady" that the Sgt. wouldn't wonder what the hell was wrong with him?
Posted by: Thom at July 29, 2007 02:13 PM (3jLID)
120
I keep hearing the Cartman voice.
"Do not question his service again."
Cy, do you not realize how silly such statements make you look?
"Do not question his service again."
Cy, do you not realize how silly such statements make you look?
Posted by: Thom at July 29, 2007 02:15 PM (3jLID)
121
Cy, do you not realize how silly such statements make you look?
QUIT questioning the service of US SOLDIERS!!!
-and-
REMEMBER this is CY's BLOG!!! RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAY!
QUIT questioning the service of US SOLDIERS!!!
-and-
REMEMBER this is CY's BLOG!!! RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAY!
Posted by: Karl at July 29, 2007 02:38 PM (rl2qd)
122
Wow. 121 comments. I poke my head in here and I'm astonished by the traffic.
On the last few comments, I've had similar experiences. I've had a commenter who was arguing along liberal lines claim that I was a "chickenhawk". It wasn't just that he was questioning my service. He was making a claim that I wasn't in the service. When I reminded him that I had indeed served, he should have been ashamed.
But he wasn't. He actually kept trying to make more claims. It was weird.
On the last few comments, I've had similar experiences. I've had a commenter who was arguing along liberal lines claim that I was a "chickenhawk". It wasn't just that he was questioning my service. He was making a claim that I wasn't in the service. When I reminded him that I had indeed served, he should have been ashamed.
But he wasn't. He actually kept trying to make more claims. It was weird.
Posted by: brando at July 29, 2007 03:54 PM (rDQC9)
123
Tom with an h - From my perspective it is you who is looking stupid, petty, and silly.
What legitimate need did you have to know about Abu Ghraib? Did that information help your understanding of the war?
What legitimate need did you have to know about Abu Ghraib? Did that information help your understanding of the war?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 29, 2007 04:08 PM (0pZel)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 29, 2007 04:32 PM (HcgFD)
125
Hmmmm.
@ Doc Washboard
"Well, yes, despite your clear skepticism. I don't have cable and I don't get a single TV channel out here in the mountains, for one thing, so that takes care of the Olbermann. And while I visit quite a few Lefty sites, Kos is not among them."
Ahh that explains it then.
I grew up in a rural area in New Hampshire and had to deal with the same thing. No cable and few broadcast stations.
Frankly you haven't missed anything.
@ Doc Washboard
"Well, yes, despite your clear skepticism. I don't have cable and I don't get a single TV channel out here in the mountains, for one thing, so that takes care of the Olbermann. And while I visit quite a few Lefty sites, Kos is not among them."
Ahh that explains it then.
I grew up in a rural area in New Hampshire and had to deal with the same thing. No cable and few broadcast stations.
Frankly you haven't missed anything.
Posted by: memomachine at July 29, 2007 05:59 PM (0aIoB)
126
Thom,
Let me clarify my post about the abuse at Abu Ghraib.
The company level failure came because the CO and 1SG lived on Camp Victory, about 25 minute convoy from Abu Ghraib. The failure I mentioned was the failure to supervise and to prevent the behavior in the first place. The Commander and First Sergeant were simply not on site.
After the soldier notified his Chain of Command, the command intervened and a full investigation was already in progress when the story broke in the news.
Karl,
I sent documents to CY because I saw where the argument was going. gil wants to call people that disagree with him chickenhawks to shut them up and he needed to find a different angle to shut me up. He chose the "prove it" line of attack.
I didn't post my LES but I proved it nonetheless. And my doing so sadly proves that my speech isn't as free as yours.
Let me clarify my post about the abuse at Abu Ghraib.
The company level failure came because the CO and 1SG lived on Camp Victory, about 25 minute convoy from Abu Ghraib. The failure I mentioned was the failure to supervise and to prevent the behavior in the first place. The Commander and First Sergeant were simply not on site.
After the soldier notified his Chain of Command, the command intervened and a full investigation was already in progress when the story broke in the news.
Karl,
I sent documents to CY because I saw where the argument was going. gil wants to call people that disagree with him chickenhawks to shut them up and he needed to find a different angle to shut me up. He chose the "prove it" line of attack.
I didn't post my LES but I proved it nonetheless. And my doing so sadly proves that my speech isn't as free as yours.
Posted by: y7 at July 30, 2007 12:08 AM (Cixed)
127
Hmmmm.
1. TNR still hasn't provided any proof of any allegation made. What the hell is taking so long?
2. It would be nice if all the liberals screaming about Abu Ghraib had just once, even if just once, screamed about how Americans prisoners have been treated since the Geneva Conventions were first signed.
Frankly the Geneva Conventions are a waste of paper and should be repudiated. This paper hasn't prevent American soldiers from being abused, raped, tortured and probably murdered. So why we are still signatories doesn't make any sense to me.
3. One of these days the liberal set are going to have a war they're going to want to fight.
I hope they realize this "chickenhawk" meme is going to seriously bite them on the ass then and forever after. And considering how many times Clinton sent in the troops during his two terms I seriously doubt the next Democrat in the White House will be all that reluctant to do so.
1. TNR still hasn't provided any proof of any allegation made. What the hell is taking so long?
2. It would be nice if all the liberals screaming about Abu Ghraib had just once, even if just once, screamed about how Americans prisoners have been treated since the Geneva Conventions were first signed.
Frankly the Geneva Conventions are a waste of paper and should be repudiated. This paper hasn't prevent American soldiers from being abused, raped, tortured and probably murdered. So why we are still signatories doesn't make any sense to me.
3. One of these days the liberal set are going to have a war they're going to want to fight.
I hope they realize this "chickenhawk" meme is going to seriously bite them on the ass then and forever after. And considering how many times Clinton sent in the troops during his two terms I seriously doubt the next Democrat in the White House will be all that reluctant to do so.
Posted by: memomachine at July 30, 2007 12:48 AM (0aIoB)
128
y7:I guess before I get to have speech as free as yours, I have to pay for it first, huh? My first installment is a scanned and "datamined for irregularities" paycheck?
Have you noticed that anytime someone claims to be in the military and somehow cast those serving in a bad light that not one shred of evidence is needed to accept those ramblings as the gospel truth?
Yet, let someone who is serving or has served post against said writings and suddenly you need to subject yourself to proving yourself? That you served or some such.
This is not the first place I have seen it and have encountered it on several blogs. And as always it ends up being some liberal bleeding heart or some anti-war/anti-violence person.
If you look around, Beauchamp's story has been torn to shreds on many levels especially his Bradley fairy tale. That alone would make me question anything else from the source and yet, I see people who are clinging (for dear life) to the hope that everything else he said is/was true.
[Small rant]
I will NEVER understand people who think that a hug or some kind talk will somehow fix the dahmers, gacys and other crazies in the world. That we can share a coke and sit around a campfire singing kumbaya and hold hands.
When you love someone or something enough and that something is threatened, natural animal instinct of survival kicks in and you protect.
Besides cowardice, the only reason I can see this not happening is pure insanity.
[end rant]
To those who are HONORABLY serving currently and to those who have HONORABLY served: Having been there myself in the past - THANK YOU!
Have you noticed that anytime someone claims to be in the military and somehow cast those serving in a bad light that not one shred of evidence is needed to accept those ramblings as the gospel truth?
Yet, let someone who is serving or has served post against said writings and suddenly you need to subject yourself to proving yourself? That you served or some such.
This is not the first place I have seen it and have encountered it on several blogs. And as always it ends up being some liberal bleeding heart or some anti-war/anti-violence person.
If you look around, Beauchamp's story has been torn to shreds on many levels especially his Bradley fairy tale. That alone would make me question anything else from the source and yet, I see people who are clinging (for dear life) to the hope that everything else he said is/was true.
[Small rant]
I will NEVER understand people who think that a hug or some kind talk will somehow fix the dahmers, gacys and other crazies in the world. That we can share a coke and sit around a campfire singing kumbaya and hold hands.
When you love someone or something enough and that something is threatened, natural animal instinct of survival kicks in and you protect.
Besides cowardice, the only reason I can see this not happening is pure insanity.
[end rant]
To those who are HONORABLY serving currently and to those who have HONORABLY served: Having been there myself in the past - THANK YOU!
Posted by: Hawk at July 30, 2007 01:23 AM (EJbfk)
129
Hmmmmm.
IMHO if anybody demands I prove my past service in the USMC all I have to say is ...
"Bite my shiny non-metal a$$!"
Like I'm going to waste so much as 2 seconds fulfilling a demand by a liberal.
IMHO if anybody demands I prove my past service in the USMC all I have to say is ...
"Bite my shiny non-metal a$$!"
Like I'm going to waste so much as 2 seconds fulfilling a demand by a liberal.
Posted by: memomachine at July 30, 2007 08:48 AM (3pvQO)
130
It's a little late to chime in here, perhaps, and most of you probably don't really give a damn what I think about this anyway, but here goes:
What happened at Abu Ghraib matters, and it does help us understand the conduct of the war. We need to know about it. If American soldiers are torturing prisoners of war just for fun, we need to make some changes in the recruitment process, because we are giving military authority to the wrong people.
This matters because at least half the battle against insurgents is swamp-clearing work, and we can't do that if our troops on the ground are making personal enemies of the local population.
Similarly, it matters whether or not Beauchamp's accusations are true. First, they suggest that our troops see the Iraqis not as people, but as subhuman types worthy only of our scorn and ridicule. This does not help our cause.
But it also suggests that we have soldiers who show less than the high moral standards than we should expect of them. The best example of this is Beauchamp himself, who decided that he should write about his experiences (or fantasies) in a national magazine. If they are fictional (and I am convinced that at least some are), he should have saved them for his self-published novel. If they are true, he should have had the moral courage to avoid that behavior himself, bring the behavior to the attention of his chain of command or the IG, and take his accusations to a reporter to blow the whistle only if his superiors took no action.
And sometimes the whistle must be blown, our childhood lessons about tattling notwithstanding. We do ourselves no service as a people, and the Army does itself no service as an organization with high standards to dehumanize the local populations in areas where we must take military action. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" makes for a cool t-shirt, but the sentiment is morally wrong and operationally counterproductive. I doubt that God would be amused if we sent Him such a task.
What happened at Abu Ghraib matters, and it does help us understand the conduct of the war. We need to know about it. If American soldiers are torturing prisoners of war just for fun, we need to make some changes in the recruitment process, because we are giving military authority to the wrong people.
This matters because at least half the battle against insurgents is swamp-clearing work, and we can't do that if our troops on the ground are making personal enemies of the local population.
Similarly, it matters whether or not Beauchamp's accusations are true. First, they suggest that our troops see the Iraqis not as people, but as subhuman types worthy only of our scorn and ridicule. This does not help our cause.
But it also suggests that we have soldiers who show less than the high moral standards than we should expect of them. The best example of this is Beauchamp himself, who decided that he should write about his experiences (or fantasies) in a national magazine. If they are fictional (and I am convinced that at least some are), he should have saved them for his self-published novel. If they are true, he should have had the moral courage to avoid that behavior himself, bring the behavior to the attention of his chain of command or the IG, and take his accusations to a reporter to blow the whistle only if his superiors took no action.
And sometimes the whistle must be blown, our childhood lessons about tattling notwithstanding. We do ourselves no service as a people, and the Army does itself no service as an organization with high standards to dehumanize the local populations in areas where we must take military action. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" makes for a cool t-shirt, but the sentiment is morally wrong and operationally counterproductive. I doubt that God would be amused if we sent Him such a task.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 30, 2007 10:42 AM (iL2/6)
131
R. Stanton - I agree with you point that IF any of Beauchamp's allegations are true, running them up the chain of command was the appropriate response rather than taking them to the media, unless he was trying to cover his own ass. I assume you also feel the same way about those "courageous whistleblowers" who spilled their guts about this country's national security secrets to the New York Times, Washington Post and other media outlets rather than running their concerns up normal chains within the government, including various inspector generals and congress.
I don't buy your "we" the public argument when the appropriate authorities are already taking corrective action on situations such as Abu Ghraib. Look at what gun jumping by Jack Murthatard has done for the Marines villified in the Haditha incident.
I don't buy your "we" the public argument when the appropriate authorities are already taking corrective action on situations such as Abu Ghraib. Look at what gun jumping by Jack Murthatard has done for the Marines villified in the Haditha incident.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 30, 2007 11:15 AM (0pZel)
132
Daleyrocks:
Without knowing just which gut-spilling you mean, I cannot say whether or not I can compare them to Beauchamp's "whistleblowing," or agree that it was wrong.
Generally speaking, however, I agree that people in government or military jobs should use the established process for showing their moral courage before speaking to reporters.
That said, I would differentiate between whistleblowing that genuinely harms US national security and that which exposes illegal or immoral behavior, or simply damages the reputations or electoral prospects of business or government leaders.
Regarding AG specifically, it looked to me like the "appropriate authorities" were ignoring the problem until it hit the news. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, I would like to see it.
If they were not, the soldier who went to the media did the right thing, in my opinion. The hard right always trumps the easy wrong, and I am sure y7 would agree.
And I wonder why you feel a need to make it difficult for me to agree with you. As a combat arms vet (and no, I have no intention of proving it to anyone), I think Beauchamp is a liar and a s***bag and a traitor to his unit. He deserves what he gets for publishing movement times and bypassing the chain of command.
But why do you think you have to use a term like "Murthatard" in this discussion? What does that add to the debate? Why does CY tolerate your implication that Jack Murtha--a decorated, bona fide war hero--is mentally deficient because he does not agree with you? And would CY tolerate me if I called you "daleytard?"
Now and then I read through postings and comments here, and make some small effort to present the other side of some of the issues to his echo chamber. A fool's errand, to be sure, and I've been called a fool often enough to know there may be something to it. It is what it is.
But CY constantly amazes me by threatening to ban me for "personal attacks," even as he lets "Murthatard" pass and himself uses derogatory terms like "silk pony." These would appear to meet any "personal attack that does not contribute to the discussion," standard, but he has not jumped in to apply it to anyone who calls liberals names--only liberals who blast people he agrees with.
This is Confederate Yankee, not Foggy Bottom Line, so no sense in calling foul. But it does make it look like the point of the site is not to discuss politics and other issues--but to provide a forum for calling political opponents names. If that's all you want, you can have it. Your cognitive dissonance keeps you from recognizing reality anyway.
Without knowing just which gut-spilling you mean, I cannot say whether or not I can compare them to Beauchamp's "whistleblowing," or agree that it was wrong.
Generally speaking, however, I agree that people in government or military jobs should use the established process for showing their moral courage before speaking to reporters.
That said, I would differentiate between whistleblowing that genuinely harms US national security and that which exposes illegal or immoral behavior, or simply damages the reputations or electoral prospects of business or government leaders.
Regarding AG specifically, it looked to me like the "appropriate authorities" were ignoring the problem until it hit the news. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, I would like to see it.
If they were not, the soldier who went to the media did the right thing, in my opinion. The hard right always trumps the easy wrong, and I am sure y7 would agree.
And I wonder why you feel a need to make it difficult for me to agree with you. As a combat arms vet (and no, I have no intention of proving it to anyone), I think Beauchamp is a liar and a s***bag and a traitor to his unit. He deserves what he gets for publishing movement times and bypassing the chain of command.
But why do you think you have to use a term like "Murthatard" in this discussion? What does that add to the debate? Why does CY tolerate your implication that Jack Murtha--a decorated, bona fide war hero--is mentally deficient because he does not agree with you? And would CY tolerate me if I called you "daleytard?"
Now and then I read through postings and comments here, and make some small effort to present the other side of some of the issues to his echo chamber. A fool's errand, to be sure, and I've been called a fool often enough to know there may be something to it. It is what it is.
But CY constantly amazes me by threatening to ban me for "personal attacks," even as he lets "Murthatard" pass and himself uses derogatory terms like "silk pony." These would appear to meet any "personal attack that does not contribute to the discussion," standard, but he has not jumped in to apply it to anyone who calls liberals names--only liberals who blast people he agrees with.
This is Confederate Yankee, not Foggy Bottom Line, so no sense in calling foul. But it does make it look like the point of the site is not to discuss politics and other issues--but to provide a forum for calling political opponents names. If that's all you want, you can have it. Your cognitive dissonance keeps you from recognizing reality anyway.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 30, 2007 06:31 PM (+i83E)
133
But it also suggests that we have soldiers who show less than the high moral standards than we should expect of them.
Ft. Carson and about a dozen others are full of that kind. So?
Ft. Carson and about a dozen others are full of that kind. So?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 30, 2007 10:49 PM (8Dgyh)
134
R. Stanton - Jack Murtha is a public figure not a commenter on this blog. Ibelieve our host has taken you to task over your personal attacks against other commenters primarily as opposed to public figures. I find it interesting that you avoided discussing Murtha's actual conduct with respect to the military, but because it is so represhensible, there is really nothing to defend. He should apologize and retire.
On national security leaks, of course the left's position is that they need exposure because they represent illegal programs and the terrorists knew we were conducting these activities anyway. Therefore there was no harm and no foul. I guess that's why the DOJ is conducting criminal investigations over the leaks, right.
On national security leaks, of course the left's position is that they need exposure because they represent illegal programs and the terrorists knew we were conducting these activities anyway. Therefore there was no harm and no foul. I guess that's why the DOJ is conducting criminal investigations over the leaks, right.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 31, 2007 10:10 AM (0pZel)
135
Hmmmm.
@ R. Stanton Scott
"Regarding AG specifically, it looked to me like the "appropriate authorities" were ignoring the problem until it hit the news. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, I would like to see it."
Completely and utterly false.
The US Army was starting to prosecute when Hersh wrote an article based on press releases by the US Army. You have it exactly backwards.
Frankly I usually respond to demands for documentation with "Research it yourself" because one persons acceptable source is often not acceptable to another.
But here ya go:
WikiPedia
WikiPedia is a good source for any liberals and at least in this case the data is mostly correct.
I quote:
"As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report a criminal investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since May 2003 where four Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had been formally charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with detainee abuse. In April 2004 reports of the abuse, as well as graphic pictures showing American military personnel in the act of abusing prisoners, came to public attention, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 2 and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story.[2] Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.[3]"
So the official investigation was well underway in May of 2003 and the big public media drama show began in April of 2004. What WikiPedia doesn't show is that the media was apprised of these investigations long before April of 2004 but since there weren't any photos it wasn't sexy enough for them to run with it.
I think you need to revise your position.
@ R. Stanton Scott
"Regarding AG specifically, it looked to me like the "appropriate authorities" were ignoring the problem until it hit the news. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, I would like to see it."
Completely and utterly false.
The US Army was starting to prosecute when Hersh wrote an article based on press releases by the US Army. You have it exactly backwards.
Frankly I usually respond to demands for documentation with "Research it yourself" because one persons acceptable source is often not acceptable to another.
But here ya go:
WikiPedia
WikiPedia is a good source for any liberals and at least in this case the data is mostly correct.
I quote:
"As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report a criminal investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since May 2003 where four Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had been formally charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with detainee abuse. In April 2004 reports of the abuse, as well as graphic pictures showing American military personnel in the act of abusing prisoners, came to public attention, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 2
and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story.[2] Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.[3]"
So the official investigation was well underway in May of 2003 and the big public media drama show began in April of 2004. What WikiPedia doesn't show is that the media was apprised of these investigations long before April of 2004 but since there weren't any photos it wasn't sexy enough for them to run with it.
I think you need to revise your position.
Posted by: memomachine at July 31, 2007 01:07 PM (3pvQO)
136
Hmmm.
@ R. Stanton Scott
"If they were not, the soldier who went to the media did the right thing, in my opinion. The hard right always trumps the easy wrong, and I am sure y7 would agree."
Completely and utterly false.
What that soldier did was enormous and unnecessary damage to the US, US military and our efforts in this war. The individuals involved had been investigated and were being prosecuted even as the photos were released. What actually happened was that, I believe, the photos were being used by a defense attorney to try and force the US military to offer a lesser plea bargain. In exchange for which the attorney would hand over the photos.
Which would be completely unacceptable for any military court.
@ R. Stanton Scott
"If they were not, the soldier who went to the media did the right thing, in my opinion. The hard right always trumps the easy wrong, and I am sure y7 would agree."
Completely and utterly false.
What that soldier did was enormous and unnecessary damage to the US, US military and our efforts in this war. The individuals involved had been investigated and were being prosecuted even as the photos were released. What actually happened was that, I believe, the photos were being used by a defense attorney to try and force the US military to offer a lesser plea bargain. In exchange for which the attorney would hand over the photos.
Which would be completely unacceptable for any military court.
Posted by: memomachine at July 31, 2007 01:15 PM (3pvQO)
137
Hmmmm.
@ R. Stanton Scott
"But why do you think you have to use a term like "Murthatard" in this discussion? What does that add to the debate? Why does CY tolerate your implication that Jack Murtha--a decorated, bona fide war hero--is mentally deficient because he does not agree with you?"
I prefer the term "Murthatard" to describe Murtha because he is an idiot.
This is the man who thought the greatest thing would be for American troops to exit Iraq and then provide security from **Okinawa**.
Okinawa is thousands of miles away from Iraq.
The idea of trying to provide physical security in Iraq from Okinawa is just frankly totally idiotic.
@ R. Stanton Scott
"But why do you think you have to use a term like "Murthatard" in this discussion? What does that add to the debate? Why does CY tolerate your implication that Jack Murtha--a decorated, bona fide war hero--is mentally deficient because he does not agree with you?"
I prefer the term "Murthatard" to describe Murtha because he is an idiot.
This is the man who thought the greatest thing would be for American troops to exit Iraq and then provide security from **Okinawa**.
Okinawa is thousands of miles away from Iraq.
The idea of trying to provide physical security in Iraq from Okinawa is just frankly totally idiotic.
Posted by: memomachine at July 31, 2007 03:34 PM (3pvQO)
138
If the Army was investigating the infractions at AG before Hersh wrote the article, and the soldier in question went to the press to try securing a plea bargain, then I stand corrected. I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." I think the claim-maker should be able to back it up, and since I don't have the facts I won't dispute your assertion. Nevertheless, I think that all things considered exposing this was a good thing.
I don't see any reason to differentiate between personal attacks against public figures and commenters on this blog. If the point here is to have a political debate--a civil political debate--then personal attacks against anyone should fail the standard for civil discourse. Disagreement with politicians is the nature of the American Democratic beast, but name-calling adds nothing, whatever our personal opinions about their character, intelligence, or morals.
CY apparently agrees, since Daleyrock's post calliing Murtha a "horse's ass" and asking if he could call me "Scottie" (Answer: No--you may call me Sergeant First Class Scott from now on) seems to have vanished from the thread.
If the United States Government is violating international law, signed treaties that became US law with ratification, or our own statutes and Constitution, then the individuals doing so need to be exposed as criminals, national security notwithstanding. If US law becomes meaningless--if we ignore our values and principles because we are afraid of dying--then we as a people, and as individuals, have no moral courage, and the American experiment deserves to go the way of Rome--our system has no value to humanity if we are willing to support whatever outrageous acts the governnment claimed necessary to our "security." In this case, we are no better than our enemies.
I don't see any reason to differentiate between personal attacks against public figures and commenters on this blog. If the point here is to have a political debate--a civil political debate--then personal attacks against anyone should fail the standard for civil discourse. Disagreement with politicians is the nature of the American Democratic beast, but name-calling adds nothing, whatever our personal opinions about their character, intelligence, or morals.
CY apparently agrees, since Daleyrock's post calliing Murtha a "horse's ass" and asking if he could call me "Scottie" (Answer: No--you may call me Sergeant First Class Scott from now on) seems to have vanished from the thread.
If the United States Government is violating international law, signed treaties that became US law with ratification, or our own statutes and Constitution, then the individuals doing so need to be exposed as criminals, national security notwithstanding. If US law becomes meaningless--if we ignore our values and principles because we are afraid of dying--then we as a people, and as individuals, have no moral courage, and the American experiment deserves to go the way of Rome--our system has no value to humanity if we are willing to support whatever outrageous acts the governnment claimed necessary to our "security." In this case, we are no better than our enemies.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 31, 2007 09:02 PM (C0lLV)
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 09:57 AM (3pvQO)
140
Hmmmm.
@ R. Stanton Scott
1. "If the Army was investigating the infractions at AG before Hersh wrote the article"
There is no "if". Those are the facts and I provided a link.
2. ", and the soldier in question went to the press to try securing a plea bargain, then I stand corrected."
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE IMAGES; Soldier's Family Set in Motion Chain of Events on Disclosure
Mudville Gazette
(AG) Mar: SSg Frederick's uncle William sent an e-mail message to retired colonel David Hackworth's Web. The NY Times describes Hackworth as "a retired colonel and a muckraker who was always willing to take on the military establishment." That e-mail message would put Mr. Lawson in touch with the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" and help set in motion events that led to the public disclosure of the graphic photographs and an international crisis for the Bush administration. The Times reports on 8 May: (7)
The irony, Mr. Lawson said, is that the public spectacle might have been avoided if the military and the federal government had been responsive to his claims that his nephew was simply following orders. Mr. Lawson said he sent letters to 17 members of Congress about the case earlier this year, with virtually no response, and that he ultimately contacted Mr. Hackworth's Web site out of frustration, leading him to cooperate with a consultant for "60 Minutes II."
"The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes," he said. "But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case." (7)
3. "I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." I think the claim-maker should be able to back it up, and since I don't have the facts I won't dispute your assertion."
I say that simply because liberals will often resort to denying my evidence because they don't like the source website. Or they use that as a tactic to avoid having to apologize for being completely and utterly wrong.
And considering that it took me all of 25 seconds to find the above, I think that illustrates this nicely.
4. "Nevertheless, I think that all things considered exposing this was a good thing."
Wrong again. Why? Because it was blown completely out of proportion. The abuses at Abu Ghraib happened over a very short period of time and were *already being investigated for court-martials*. Instead the massive publicity badly damaged American efforts in the middle east and has arguably helped terrorists in their recruiting efforts.
What good, if any, has come from the publicity of Abu Ghraib? Illustrate this in precise detail please.
5. "I don't see any reason to differentiate between personal attacks against public figures and commenters on this blog."
Good for you. I don't follow this so I really don't care.
6. "personal opinions about their character, intelligence, or morals."
Sorry but arguing that American forces can provide physical security in Iraq from **Okinawa** is specifically and arguably stupid.
7. "CY apparently agrees"
It's his blog.
8. "and asking if he could call me"
Doesn't involve me.
9. "In this case, we are no better than our enemies"
Complete nonsense. You have a viewpoint in this of a child. It's like those people who say "America can never be the same". Utter nonsense.
@ R. Stanton Scott
1. "If the Army was investigating the infractions at AG before Hersh wrote the article"
There is no "if". Those are the facts and I provided a link.
2. ", and the soldier in question went to the press to try securing a plea bargain, then I stand corrected."
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE IMAGES; Soldier's Family Set in Motion Chain of Events on Disclosure
Mudville Gazette
(AG) Mar: SSg Frederick's uncle William sent an e-mail message to retired colonel David Hackworth's Web. The NY Times describes Hackworth as "a retired colonel and a muckraker who was always willing to take on the military establishment." That e-mail message would put Mr. Lawson in touch with the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" and help set in motion events that led to the public disclosure of the graphic photographs and an international crisis for the Bush administration. The Times reports on 8 May: (7)
The irony, Mr. Lawson said, is that the public spectacle might have been avoided if the military and the federal government had been responsive to his claims that his nephew was simply following orders. Mr. Lawson said he sent letters to 17 members of Congress about the case earlier this year, with virtually no response, and that he ultimately contacted Mr. Hackworth's Web site out of frustration, leading him to cooperate with a consultant for "60 Minutes II."
"The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes," he said. "But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case." (7)
3. "I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." I think the claim-maker should be able to back it up, and since I don't have the facts I won't dispute your assertion."
I say that simply because liberals will often resort to denying my evidence because they don't like the source website. Or they use that as a tactic to avoid having to apologize for being completely and utterly wrong.
And considering that it took me all of 25 seconds to find the above, I think that illustrates this nicely.
4. "Nevertheless, I think that all things considered exposing this was a good thing."
Wrong again. Why? Because it was blown completely out of proportion. The abuses at Abu Ghraib happened over a very short period of time and were *already being investigated for court-martials*. Instead the massive publicity badly damaged American efforts in the middle east and has arguably helped terrorists in their recruiting efforts.
What good, if any, has come from the publicity of Abu Ghraib? Illustrate this in precise detail please.
5. "I don't see any reason to differentiate between personal attacks against public figures and commenters on this blog."
Good for you. I don't follow this so I really don't care.
6. "personal opinions about their character, intelligence, or morals."
Sorry but arguing that American forces can provide physical security in Iraq from **Okinawa** is specifically and arguably stupid.
7. "CY apparently agrees"
It's his blog.
8. "and asking if he could call me"
Doesn't involve me.
9. "In this case, we are no better than our enemies"
Complete nonsense. You have a viewpoint in this of a child. It's like those people who say "America can never be the same". Utter nonsense.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 10:25 AM (3pvQO)
141
Hmmm.
@ R. Stanton Scott
Oh and in case you're unaware of this the phrase "I was only following orders" is not a defense in the US military. You are responsible for your own actions. And if you are given an order that is illegal, then you not only cannot follow those orders but you must also report those orders to higher authority immediately. If that higher authority does not appear to have acted on this information and you continue to be given illegal orders *then* you need to jump the chain of command. All of this is explained to all serving members of the US military on at least a yearly basis.
I got the spiel every year when I was in the USMC (1982). Heck they even showed the movie "Breaker Morant" once to illustrate it.
@ R. Stanton Scott
Oh and in case you're unaware of this the phrase "I was only following orders" is not a defense in the US military. You are responsible for your own actions. And if you are given an order that is illegal, then you not only cannot follow those orders but you must also report those orders to higher authority immediately. If that higher authority does not appear to have acted on this information and you continue to be given illegal orders *then* you need to jump the chain of command. All of this is explained to all serving members of the US military on at least a yearly basis.
I got the spiel every year when I was in the USMC (1982). Heck they even showed the movie "Breaker Morant" once to illustrate it.
Posted by: memomachine at August 01, 2007 10:52 AM (3pvQO)
142
R. Stanton - Regarding your statement:
"I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." "
I believe that is exactly the tactic you used above, R. Stanton, and memeomachine elected to do the work for you anyway to prove that you were wrong once more.
That Okinawa strategy of Murtha's, I agree, was a stroke of pure genius. I also enjoyed the "slow bleed" strategy he cooked up with his Soros funded friends at MORON.com earlier this year. How did that work out for him R.Stanton?
"I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." "
I believe that is exactly the tactic you used above, R. Stanton, and memeomachine elected to do the work for you anyway to prove that you were wrong once more.
That Okinawa strategy of Murtha's, I agree, was a stroke of pure genius. I also enjoyed the "slow bleed" strategy he cooked up with his Soros funded friends at MORON.com earlier this year. How did that work out for him R.Stanton?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 01, 2007 03:03 PM (0pZel)
Posted by: memomachine at August 02, 2007 09:04 AM (3pvQO)
144
Re: Scottie Beauchamp and the U.S. killing machine.
Americans are fools....
Treated like mushroons (Fed sh!t and kept in the dark) by the war drummers of the Jewish owned and operated US corporate media they truly believe that their shell shocked GI's are not capable of being the killers that they have become.
One has only to see the photos of the charred up bodies of Falljah's women curled around their babies as the American MK-77 napalm and/or White Phosphoros bomb blasts engulfed them to know that you don't murder 1,000,000 innocent civilians in 4 years without commiting a fire storm of massacures and war crimes.
The US/Isral 'homicide twins' have come out of this Middle Easstern war the 'King Killers' of humanity. If you added up all the killings committed by the Arabs since the late 1940's when they were fending off the Zionist trespassers escaping the war in Europe you would find that they have not murdered nor massacured even 3% of what the rabid trespasser Jews and Americans have killed in just 4+ years in Iraq.
When WTC II & III arrive and NYC and Maimi are engulfed in a dirty radioactive cloud the world will (((clap))) their hands and talk to American's about the painful effects of 'Blowback.'
The Jewish low lives have brought us this far - from WTC to Iraqi. let us pray that Messer Ahmadinejad gets the "BIG ONE" and then let us pray for a Judenrein Middle East so the world can get back to solving its energy and race problems.
TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.
dba: IDidntVote4ThebassTerd@msn.com
"Kill 'em all Hezbollah - Let their G-D sort them out."
Anti-Semitic rant?
Naw, after all what is more anti-Semitic than the daily murder, maiming and displacement of Semitic Palestinians?
Americans are fools....
Treated like mushroons (Fed sh!t and kept in the dark) by the war drummers of the Jewish owned and operated US corporate media they truly believe that their shell shocked GI's are not capable of being the killers that they have become.
One has only to see the photos of the charred up bodies of Falljah's women curled around their babies as the American MK-77 napalm and/or White Phosphoros bomb blasts engulfed them to know that you don't murder 1,000,000 innocent civilians in 4 years without commiting a fire storm of massacures and war crimes.
The US/Isral 'homicide twins' have come out of this Middle Easstern war the 'King Killers' of humanity. If you added up all the killings committed by the Arabs since the late 1940's when they were fending off the Zionist trespassers escaping the war in Europe you would find that they have not murdered nor massacured even 3% of what the rabid trespasser Jews and Americans have killed in just 4+ years in Iraq.
When WTC II & III arrive and NYC and Maimi are engulfed in a dirty radioactive cloud the world will (((clap))) their hands and talk to American's about the painful effects of 'Blowback.'
The Jewish low lives have brought us this far - from WTC to Iraqi. let us pray that Messer Ahmadinejad gets the "BIG ONE" and then let us pray for a Judenrein Middle East so the world can get back to solving its energy and race problems.
TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.
dba: IDidntVote4ThebassTerd@msn.com
"Kill 'em all Hezbollah - Let their G-D sort them out."
Anti-Semitic rant?
Naw, after all what is more anti-Semitic than the daily murder, maiming and displacement of Semitic Palestinians?
Posted by: TheAZCowBoy at August 02, 2007 05:43 PM (5/evw)
Posted by: memomachine at August 03, 2007 12:32 PM (3pvQO)
July 26, 2007
Blog History Repeating
The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:48 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Folks,
All you need do to begin to understand this pathetic fool is read what he has written in the past few days. Click "second time as farce."
TNR? This is your guy. We all smelled a rat right away, even before this clear evidence of...delusion.
This is your guy. This is also YOU. You WANTED to believe his deranged ranting.
You're gonna "re-report" the story?
What story.
All you need do to begin to understand this pathetic fool is read what he has written in the past few days. Click "second time as farce."
TNR? This is your guy. We all smelled a rat right away, even before this clear evidence of...delusion.
This is your guy. This is also YOU. You WANTED to believe his deranged ranting.
You're gonna "re-report" the story?
What story.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 27, 2007 05:59 AM (d1qfW)
2
Turns out Scott is married to New Republic reporter-researcher, Elizabebeth Reeve. New Republic editor, Franklin Foer, says that marriage is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html
Posted by: Mrs Greyhawk at July 27, 2007 09:08 AM (3iNHS)
3
And, it now appears that the "farce" link is to a spoof of Thomas.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 27, 2007 10:32 AM (d1qfW)
4
Yeah--and a funny one!
Posted by: Tully at July 28, 2007 01:02 PM (kEQ90)
Scott Thomas Comes Forward... And Answers Precisely Nothing
The New Republic blog The Plank is featuring an entry from disputed diarist Scott Thomas, who has now come forward as Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and now the fun truly begins.
There are two parts to this entry: a preface from "the editors," and then a statement by Beauchamp himself. I'll now discuss each at length, and in turn.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:44 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
awesome job!
i predict that the investigation will prove that s.t. beauchamp is a liar.
this will NOT launch his writing career or one poltics - except if he wants to write for a leftist organization in the MSM, or run as a democrat!
heh.
i predict that the investigation will prove that s.t. beauchamp is a liar.
this will NOT launch his writing career or one poltics - except if he wants to write for a leftist organization in the MSM, or run as a democrat!
heh.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 26, 2007 05:00 PM (DGAA5)
2
Beauchamp says that he decided to come forward today and stand by his writing. That was the right thing to do.
Reading today's "Ace" posts and their links, it is also clear that Pvt. Beauchamp had been identified by numerous people last night. And Ace claims that the an inquiry about Scott Thomas Beauchamp was left at the TNR switchboard.
So perhaps stepping into the limelight was an active choice, or perhaps it was a case of making a virtue out of necessity.
Reading today's "Ace" posts and their links, it is also clear that Pvt. Beauchamp had been identified by numerous people last night. And Ace claims that the an inquiry about Scott Thomas Beauchamp was left at the TNR switchboard.
So perhaps stepping into the limelight was an active choice, or perhaps it was a case of making a virtue out of necessity.
Posted by: AMac at July 26, 2007 05:28 PM (Djzc+)
3
Well-done, and thanks for quoting extensively from the original pieces - a valuable reminder, so many posts and twists and turns after Michael Goldfarb put up his first WEEKLY STANDARD piece on this controversy, that the descriptions went rather far beyond reporting what Foer at once point recently referred to as a few "practical jokes." If Foer actually believed that, then I guess he could have had the series entitled "Joke Troops."
Har-de-har-har.
Har-de-har-har.
Posted by: CK MacLeod at July 26, 2007 05:38 PM (dvksz)
4
How can this guy get more liberal everyday when he supported Dean and was editor in chief of liberal campus news magazine?
Posted by: Liberrocky at July 26, 2007 06:02 PM (JIq9A)
5
Doc, didn't we already cover this? When you state something as true when it's known to be false, then that's lying.
Glocks are common. People other than the IP have them. There's nothing confusing about that. Once you admit that fact, it will go a lot easier for you.
I still haven't forgotten your 'nobody' comment. There's still time to repent, just like there's still time for Beauchamp to repent.
Glocks are common. People other than the IP have them. There's nothing confusing about that. Once you admit that fact, it will go a lot easier for you.
I still haven't forgotten your 'nobody' comment. There's still time to repent, just like there's still time for Beauchamp to repent.
Posted by: brando at July 26, 2007 06:12 PM (rDQC9)
6
On the bright side, his membership in Iraq Veterans Against the War is assured. I hear they're saving Jesse MacBeth's spot for him.
Posted by: Pablo at July 26, 2007 06:54 PM (yTndK)
7
Well done CY.
I don't think anyone was doubting that this guy existed. We doubted the horsecrap he was selling as "his experiences".
I don't think anyone was doubting that this guy existed. We doubted the horsecrap he was selling as "his experiences".
Posted by: Conservative CBU at July 26, 2007 06:56 PM (La7YV)
8
Brando:
To review:
I've never seen any Lefties say whatever it is you accused them of saying--I can't even remember what it was now, so I must applaud your grudge-holding abilities--and you then tell me that, because an alleged Lefty allegedly told you something in an alleged private conversation that I was not part of, I was therefore lying?
It seems more likely that you are indulging yourself in a bit of convenient dissembling.
An exercise for the student: look up the definition of "lying." I don't think you have a firm grasp of the concept.
To review:
I've never seen any Lefties say whatever it is you accused them of saying--I can't even remember what it was now, so I must applaud your grudge-holding abilities--and you then tell me that, because an alleged Lefty allegedly told you something in an alleged private conversation that I was not part of, I was therefore lying?
It seems more likely that you are indulging yourself in a bit of convenient dissembling.
An exercise for the student: look up the definition of "lying." I don't think you have a firm grasp of the concept.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 26, 2007 07:07 PM (p4XnL)
9
On some level, I hope that at least some of his stories are true...so that there are grounds for prosecuting him for failing to report and/or participating in these "antics".
Posted by: TBinSTL at July 26, 2007 07:09 PM (2J6+t)
10
Why should we care AT ALL about his background? His time at a college paper, participating in a pro-life march,etc.
The simple question is: is he telling the truth? Not a single blog post on any site today has brought us ANY closer to answering that.
The simple question is: is he telling the truth? Not a single blog post on any site today has brought us ANY closer to answering that.
Posted by: john at July 26, 2007 07:11 PM (7wtnL)
Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at July 26, 2007 07:33 PM (Owdur)
12
Best takedown I've seen on this whole sordid tale. Bookmark!
Posted by: DaveB at July 26, 2007 07:38 PM (+x5cj)
13
Man, he's a private? He's so screwed. The left should be happy though, they'll have a new posterboy martyr. This should be cute.
Posted by: paully at July 26, 2007 07:47 PM (jiuMy)
14
Wow Doc. You're now staking your word on a topic that you don't remember? Um, That's probably a bad idea.
And you can drop the whole "alleged" part. What I said was true. Cause that's how I roll.
Doc, no need to remember, and you can't be saved by feigning ignorance. That's what's so cool about the written word. You can just go back and re-read what you lied about. That's sort of the basis for civilization, and modern society. We can pass on our knowledge by writing stuff down.
The down side is that when you lie Doc, is that you are sort of undermining civilization itself. So please don't do that.
Anyway, I have good news to report to you. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm trying to help you be better. You actually have a way out, by apologizing to me, changing your ways, and by me granting you forgiveness. Time's running out. Last chance. Don't do to yourself what Lex Steele did to himself.
Oh, and now that we've solved that...Glocks are still common.
And you can drop the whole "alleged" part. What I said was true. Cause that's how I roll.
Doc, no need to remember, and you can't be saved by feigning ignorance. That's what's so cool about the written word. You can just go back and re-read what you lied about. That's sort of the basis for civilization, and modern society. We can pass on our knowledge by writing stuff down.
The down side is that when you lie Doc, is that you are sort of undermining civilization itself. So please don't do that.
Anyway, I have good news to report to you. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm trying to help you be better. You actually have a way out, by apologizing to me, changing your ways, and by me granting you forgiveness. Time's running out. Last chance. Don't do to yourself what Lex Steele did to himself.
Oh, and now that we've solved that...Glocks are still common.
Posted by: brando at July 26, 2007 08:09 PM (rDQC9)
15
Is it important to know that "scott Thomas" isintimately involved with a staffer at TNR?
YES - It is now clear that there is a person on the TNR staff that knew the "diarst" was lying and embellishing. How do I know? She is engaged/married to a guy she has known since college days and trips to abortion rallies. Please explain how she could possibly believe the guy she is going to spend her life with is insulting a disfigured woman. At best, he can claim it wasn't really him but he was "protecting" others. But the girlfriend/wife knew this was a load.
YES - It is now clear that there is a person on the TNR staff that knew the "diarst" was lying and embellishing. How do I know? She is engaged/married to a guy she has known since college days and trips to abortion rallies. Please explain how she could possibly believe the guy she is going to spend her life with is insulting a disfigured woman. At best, he can claim it wasn't really him but he was "protecting" others. But the girlfriend/wife knew this was a load.
Posted by: chris at July 26, 2007 08:18 PM (pZ7IB)
16
Maybe you should go to Iraq to check out his stories.
Oh wait. The knee.... forget I even mentioned it.
Oh wait. The knee.... forget I even mentioned it.
Posted by: tbogg at July 26, 2007 08:24 PM (u2IYY)
17
I have put in my time in the military as a NCO. And there is no way that NCOs are going sit by and watch something like that mess hall incident without taking abrupt action. Especially since this was a small base and the indications are that this jerk was a known troublemaker.
Furthermore, at least in my branch of the service, mess halls are staffed by a small group of Military Police that are there to maintain order.
Action would have been taken for no other reason that if the woman filed a complaint their butts would have been on the burner if it came out that they were present.
And as for punishment, whether he was lying or not he is liable under the UCMJ:
"934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. "
This fits his actions perfectly, we'll just have to see whether the Army wants to pursue this.
BK
Furthermore, at least in my branch of the service, mess halls are staffed by a small group of Military Police that are there to maintain order.
Action would have been taken for no other reason that if the woman filed a complaint their butts would have been on the burner if it came out that they were present.
And as for punishment, whether he was lying or not he is liable under the UCMJ:
"934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. "
This fits his actions perfectly, we'll just have to see whether the Army wants to pursue this.
BK
Posted by: agesilaus at July 26, 2007 08:29 PM (gx2Nd)
18
"An exercise for the student: look up the definition of "lying." I don't think you have a firm grasp of the concept."
"When you state something as true when it's known to be false, then that's lying."
Looks like he's got a pretty good grasp of what lying means.
Of course, to a liberal it depends on what "is" is. Right?
"When you state something as true when it's known to be false, then that's lying."
Looks like he's got a pretty good grasp of what lying means.
Of course, to a liberal it depends on what "is" is. Right?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at July 26, 2007 08:52 PM (La7YV)
19
I suspect that the reason for this is that the facts simply aren't there.
Not so much as a nibble on my $1,000 cash reward offer for witnesses who will corroborate - even after all the hoopla of the past few days.
Come on - there's gotta be some trooper out there would like to pick up a fast grand for testifying under oath that Thomas's allegations are in fact true.
Not so much as a nibble on my $1,000 cash reward offer for witnesses who will corroborate - even after all the hoopla of the past few days.
Come on - there's gotta be some trooper out there would like to pick up a fast grand for testifying under oath that Thomas's allegations are in fact true.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 26, 2007 09:40 PM (natUQ)
20
Even giving the guy miles of credit until we find out more, things look really bad.
If for nothing else, a soldier who would "out" his buddies for personal gain is a dirt bag, and by definition of very shaky credibility and character.
If for nothing else, a soldier who would "out" his buddies for personal gain is a dirt bag, and by definition of very shaky credibility and character.
Posted by: Ray G at July 26, 2007 09:43 PM (YsM4s)
21
You'll get your answers, just as soon as I get that ball-gag I've had my eyes on, and not one second before. I mean, I've got a honeymoon to plan for...
Posted by: scott thomas at July 26, 2007 11:33 PM (YgMQV)
22
Keep after this guy, hound him right out of the military for LYING!!!! I so hope they courts-martial him and he gets a dishonorable discharge along with the entire nation knowing he's a stinking liar.
Posted by: Bill at July 27, 2007 01:13 AM (ypqMo)
23
Well as someone currently serving in Iraq I question your character and integrity and if the investigation finds that what you wrote was true then your entire squad is ate up in a major way and has a leadership problem big time! As for the DFAC incident if it turns out to be true I can only wish I had been there so I could have kicked your asses into next week! Stupid fraggin private it figures.
Posted by: Oldcrow at July 27, 2007 03:17 AM (q7b5Y)
24
The PAO, MAJ Leudeke, indicates a formal investigation is taking place. I believe that means a 15-6 investigation is taking place. A dis-interested field grade officer will be assigned to investigate both the allegations that Beauchamp made as well as his behavior in this thing.
I imagine the incident has reached, at a minimum, Brigade level, and probably has General Officer attention. He will probably get an Field Grade Article 15. I would recommend the maximum punishment but not a dishonorable discharge. That would be reduction in grade to E1, loss of four weeks pay over 2 months, 45 days of extra duty, 45 days of restriction, $1400 fine, and General Officer Letter of Reprimand in his Performance fiche. I doubt that he will be Court Martialled unless he requests it. I hope he can salvage a General or Honorable Discharge for his service.
I think that is fair. And, for your info PFC Beauchamp, I was a First Sergeant in Iraq and I never considered the events you described as plausible.
I imagine the incident has reached, at a minimum, Brigade level, and probably has General Officer attention. He will probably get an Field Grade Article 15. I would recommend the maximum punishment but not a dishonorable discharge. That would be reduction in grade to E1, loss of four weeks pay over 2 months, 45 days of extra duty, 45 days of restriction, $1400 fine, and General Officer Letter of Reprimand in his Performance fiche. I doubt that he will be Court Martialled unless he requests it. I hope he can salvage a General or Honorable Discharge for his service.
I think that is fair. And, for your info PFC Beauchamp, I was a First Sergeant in Iraq and I never considered the events you described as plausible.
Posted by: y7 at July 27, 2007 03:54 AM (Cixed)
25
I'm not sure how much the culture of the military has changed since I left in 1986. I doubt its changed very dramatically though.
In that culture this guy would have difficulty getting a meal at the chow hall or going to the latrine at this point. My guess is the only reason he "came forward" is the people in his unit figured out who he was and confronted him. There's no way he voluntarily revealed himself as the author of this drivel. Much more likely he made the decision to reveal himself whilst backed into a corner with a crowd of about 8-10 NCOs standing around him with their arms crossed. He is an idiot.
His complaints about his "comrades in arms" being slandered sound a lot to me like someone that wants to lessen the severity of the repeated ass-kickings he's going to be receiving as he is processed out of the service over the next few months. Unfortunately for this turd if he thinks his fellow soldiers are stupid enough to buy his attempt to transfer blame for that to someone that DIDN'T write it he's mistaken. The people he serves with represent a cut above the average in the US, not a cut below as believed by the left.
I won't go farther into it than that I guess, except to say that I sure as hell wouldn't want to be him right now. This is a guy that has every single person in his vicinity - a war zone, mind you - wanting to beat the living crap out of him. He has not even one single friend there, I assure you.
What an idiot.
In that culture this guy would have difficulty getting a meal at the chow hall or going to the latrine at this point. My guess is the only reason he "came forward" is the people in his unit figured out who he was and confronted him. There's no way he voluntarily revealed himself as the author of this drivel. Much more likely he made the decision to reveal himself whilst backed into a corner with a crowd of about 8-10 NCOs standing around him with their arms crossed. He is an idiot.
His complaints about his "comrades in arms" being slandered sound a lot to me like someone that wants to lessen the severity of the repeated ass-kickings he's going to be receiving as he is processed out of the service over the next few months. Unfortunately for this turd if he thinks his fellow soldiers are stupid enough to buy his attempt to transfer blame for that to someone that DIDN'T write it he's mistaken. The people he serves with represent a cut above the average in the US, not a cut below as believed by the left.
I won't go farther into it than that I guess, except to say that I sure as hell wouldn't want to be him right now. This is a guy that has every single person in his vicinity - a war zone, mind you - wanting to beat the living crap out of him. He has not even one single friend there, I assure you.
What an idiot.
Posted by: DaveW at July 27, 2007 06:07 AM (foG69)
26
A small correction. This soldier claims he is a member of the 1st Infantry Division, not the 4th ID.
-JS
-JS
Posted by: JS at July 27, 2007 06:42 AM (0QkZW)
27
Hmmmm.
Frankly the real victims in this idiotic tragedy are the other soldiers in the 1/18, Alpha company most especially.
Frankly the real victims in this idiotic tragedy are the other soldiers in the 1/18, Alpha company most especially.
Posted by: memomachine at July 27, 2007 09:53 AM (3pvQO)
28
Hmmmm.
"I imagine the incident has reached, at a minimum, Brigade level, and probably has General Officer attention."
Well that's *my* definition of "oh s**t!".
When the general commanding your division is getting a morning briefing on you, that's when you know it's going to be a bad day.
"I imagine the incident has reached, at a minimum, Brigade level, and probably has General Officer attention."
Well that's *my* definition of "oh s**t!".
When the general commanding your division is getting a morning briefing on you, that's when you know it's going to be a bad day.
Posted by: memomachine at July 27, 2007 09:57 AM (3pvQO)
29
Maybe you should go to Iraq to check out his stories.
Oh wait. The knee.... forget I even mentioned it.
Yes, it does suck.
Now, remind me again, tbagg, what malady keeps you from joining up forthe "good war" in Afghanistan?
Maybe you should go to Iraq to check out his stories.
Oh wait. The knee.... forget I even mentioned it.
Yes, it does suck.
Now, remind me again, tbagg, what malady keeps you from joining up forthe "good war" in Afghanistan?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 27, 2007 10:09 AM (EPsu8)
30
Hahahhahaha. this private is screwed so bad. someone in my unit went congressional and that was hell, just wait till this duechebag has to stand in front of several 05 and up types with his first sergeant and sergeant major walking him in the room. that and his direct line NCO would be in that room too answering questions. hahahahhha. then this guy is going to be serving detail after detail until he either gets courtmarshalled or sent home early to be beat up at every NCO club on post. why does this strike me as so fitting though i dont know. oh by the way i give it about a 50 50 shot his firing pin or some other piece of his weapon if not the entire thing will come up missing before he leaves if he hasnt been relieved of it already. nothing like a missing weapon to really jack someone up. or the old oh hey look what i found laying in the latrine first sergeant, looks like private scotty doesnt know how to keep accountability of his weapon.
Posted by: E4Puke at July 27, 2007 12:40 PM (yiDbr)
31
"Now, remind me again, tbagg, what malady keeps you from joining up forthe "good war" in Afghanistan?"
Dude, I didn't know you could pick and choose which war you went to. It's all so obvious now. All our troop in Iraq are there because THEY WANT TO BE!!! That clinches it. The left is being deliberately deceptive on the whole Iraq issue, because if the troops DIDN'T like it in Iraq, they'd all just hop over to Afghanistan.
Brilliant!
Dude, I didn't know you could pick and choose which war you went to. It's all so obvious now. All our troop in Iraq are there because THEY WANT TO BE!!! That clinches it. The left is being deliberately deceptive on the whole Iraq issue, because if the troops DIDN'T like it in Iraq, they'd all just hop over to Afghanistan.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Jody at July 27, 2007 01:34 PM (ISz5u)
32
Actually we had Marines switch units just before our deployment so they could go to Iraq, and we were well over TO.
I noticed that this is a reoccurring theme with a certain faction in the US, so I usually try to correct it when I can. So here's the straight dope. Despite the efforts of a good chunk of our population, the individuals in our armed forces are still volunteers.
I noticed that this is a reoccurring theme with a certain faction in the US, so I usually try to correct it when I can. So here's the straight dope. Despite the efforts of a good chunk of our population, the individuals in our armed forces are still volunteers.
Posted by: brando at July 27, 2007 08:09 PM (rDQC9)
33
If being a veteran is somehow required to have a valid opinion on the war, then we still win hands down.
Prior service and active duty personnel are overwhelmingly on board with the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere.
Semper Fi
Prior service and active duty personnel are overwhelmingly on board with the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere.
Semper Fi
Posted by: Ray G at July 27, 2007 09:10 PM (YsM4s)
34
Maybe you should go to Iraq to check out his stories.
Because we all know how much respect Tbagg has for people who actually do that, like M. Malkin and B. Preston, Yon, Roggio, Totten, Ardolino, etc...
The trouble with stepping in something like Tbagg is the time it takes to scrape it off your shoe.
Because we all know how much respect Tbagg has for people who actually do that, like M. Malkin and B. Preston, Yon, Roggio, Totten, Ardolino, etc...
The trouble with stepping in something like Tbagg is the time it takes to scrape it off your shoe.
Posted by: Pablo at July 28, 2007 09:19 AM (yTndK)
July 25, 2007
House of Glass
Incredible Claims
It was precisely one week ago yesterday that Michael Goldfarb focused the blogosphere on the third in a series of dispatches from a U.S. Army soldier in Iraq, posting under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas" in the magazine, The New Republic.
The third story Thomas relays in "Shock Troops" was of a sadistic Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) driver who liked:
No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.
In his blog entry entitled "Fact or Fiction?," Goldfarb, asked the milblogging (military blogging) community to investigate the veracity of Thomas claims. Doubters—including active duty U.S. Army soldiers currently or formerly posted at FOB Falcon and nearby areas—immediately began to deconstruct and dismiss Thomas' claims as probable works of fiction. Soldiers stationed at FOB Falcon in the recent past and present deny ever seeing a burned woman such as Thomas described as being on the base. To date there has been no corroboration that a wounded woman matching this description has ever been at FOB Falcon. Other soldiers have cost doubts on whether there was ever a grave full of children's remains uncovered while constructing a combat outpost southwest of Baghdad, though others find it plausible that an unmarked cemetery—apparently not all that uncommon in the area—may have been found and moved. Regardless of whether or not a cemetery may have been uncovered, other soldiers flatly deny that the close-fitting modern Army helmet has enough room for anything other than the wearer's own skull. Soldiers and military vehicle specialists intimately familiar with Bradley IFVs have flatly stated that these vehicles cannot be driven as described in Thomas' account due to their construction and the limitations of the laws of physics. In all three examples cited by Thomas in this third dispatch, the behavior of the actors and the apathy displayed by apparently dozens of soldiers during each atrocity has been heavily criticized by military veterans who flatly deny that such events could take place in a military culture where such inaction can be a criminal offense for those who refuse to report it or intervene. Absolutely Fabulist
...to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs.
Elements of Thomas' two previous dispatches have also come under fire for being very unlikely. In "War Bonds" (subscription required), Thomas claims that:
The brief amount of information allowed outside the New Republic subscriber firewall neglects to mention the specific kind of vehicle in question, but as only wheeled vehicles have tires, the description weeds out both Bradley IFVs and M1 Abrams tanks. That leaves us with HMMWVs (Humvees) and eight-wheeled Stryker Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs) as the two most-common wheeled vehicles used on patrols. Both of these vehicles classes are equipped with run-flat tires designed to go for miles before needing to be changed. That intentional design detail engendered into both vehicles would make changing a tire in a river of "reeking fluids" a very unlikely event. Sandwiched between these two increasingly suspect stories was Thomas' second dispatch, one that I think should have sent up a red flag to the editors of The New Republic. In "Dead of Night," (subscription required), Thomas made an embarrassing gaffe, followed by a potentially defamatory charge:
In Baghdad, a busted infrastructure has left entire neighborhoods navigable by vehicle only. The sector we soldiers patrol is known unaffectionately as "Little Venice" because of the dark brown rivers of sewage that backwash from broken pipes. The biggest fear in these parts isn't sniper fire or IEDs, but a flat tire that forces you to wade through the reeking fluids.
Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of modern firearms knows that no pistol, rifle, submachine gun, or machine gun deployed in the world today uses ammunition "with a square back," in 9mm Parabellum, or in any other caliber. For feeding reliability, all currently used ammunition has tubular cases with a round rim. But past this wildly inaccurate of description of the recovered casing , Thomas went on to defame the Iraqi police, inaccurately stating as fact that, "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police." That statement is so astoundingly incorrect as to be laughable. While Glocks are carried by many Iraqi police officers, Glocks are among the most common handguns in Iraq, easily found and purchased, and carried by those on each side of the conflict and Iraqi civilians alike. A Pattern of Failed Editorial Oversight
Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belongs to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.
All three stories sent to The New Republic by the soldier writing under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas" has elements that may have been worth questioning by an alert editor. I honestly doubt that most editors would have known that many American wheeled combat vehicles have run flat tires, and so I can readily forgive them for not making that particular catch. I'm still left to wonder, however, if having a sharp editor with a military background might have been able to deflate Thomas as a fabulist in advance of the publication of his very first post. But even without a military background, I'd expect for most editors to recognize the red flag present in his second post--when he makes the claim of a "square back" cartridge casing--just from watching the occasional episode of CSI. I'd also expect them to make at least a cursory attempt to check Thomas' inflammatory claim only the Iraqi police carry Glocks, and recognize all the political undertones that such a loaded charge implies. It would have taken very little effort—no more than several minutes on Google with any variation of "iraq" and "glock" as the search terms—to note that these pistols are very popular and quite common in Iraq, being coveted by soldiers, police, militiamen, insurgents, criminal gangs, contractors, and civilians alike. These few brief moments un-taken would have shown Thomas' claim and implication to be flatly wrong. The editors at The New Republic did not bother to take that time. TNR editors apparently did not bother to challenge Thomas to provide support for the verbal assault he claims to have committed again a disfigured woman on FOB Falcon. There is no indication that they ever made the attempt to contact the Public Affairs Officer at FOB Falcon to see if such a woman even existed, even though I've found in my experience PAOs are typically far more likely to respond to requests from journalists—and even bloggers—in a more timely manner than would an infantry soldier on extended patrols. TNR editors apparently failed to ask the common sense questions about the desecrated bodies claim. Why would any soldier subject himself to wearing a section of a human skull covered with rotting flesh both day and night? Even if the audience did find it uproariously funny, what sight gag remains entertaining for hour after hour? Why would any group, no matter how jaded, be "folding in half with laughter" at the sight of a man parading around wearing a portion of child's rotting skull as a cap? Could a soldier even get a piece of skull into an Army helmet and wear it? There is no evidence that TNR saw fit to question any of this story at all. Likewise, either through carelessness or laziness, Franklin Foer and his editorial staff never apparently made the common-sense connection that Bradley drivers do not have the latitude to joyride alone through the streets of Iraqi towns, randomly and sadistically destroying infrastructure, buildings, and stalls in crowded markets, while swerving recklessly to attack dogs. The unlikelihood of this story being true, again, apparently went unchallenged until after publication. Picking Up The Pieces at The New Republic
So what becomes of Franklin Foer and the now twice-fooled New Republic? We'll know soon enough if there are any jobs lost as a result of this scandal, but I would opine that if dismissals do result, there is certainly enough justification for them. One thing I would hope that TNR and other news organizations might now consider is hiring military veterans to vet stories coming out of combat zones for obvious inconsistencies. It would, at the very least, provide a more contextual, experienced layer of fact-checking to flag stories that may not be accurate. And What of Scott Thomas?
The New Republic has an interesting decision to make regarding Scott Thomas. While I'd generally consider advising against "outing" lairs hidden by pseudonyms, Thomas apparently created stories that were little more than defamous fiction. They owe Scott Thomas nothing for his treacherous deceit of both TNR and the U.S. Army. Publicly publishing who he is—or at least communicating his name to his commanders—might be the first step in recovering from this debacle. It's time to pay the piper. I wonder how many people will share paying the bill.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmmm.
Actually it's far more than that.
Unless TNR can substantiate every allegation made by "Thomas" then TNR has an **obligation** to out "Thomas".
And if "Thomas" really is a serving soldier then that person absolutely must be held accountable under the UCMJ.
Actually it's far more than that.
Unless TNR can substantiate every allegation made by "Thomas" then TNR has an **obligation** to out "Thomas".
And if "Thomas" really is a serving soldier then that person absolutely must be held accountable under the UCMJ.
Posted by: memomachine at July 25, 2007 09:52 AM (3pvQO)
2
Re: the "square back" shell casing
The firing pin (technically a "striker") of a Glock pistol has a rectangular face. This results in a rectangular imprint on the fired primer. It is a very distintive mark, if you know what to look for. There are a few other pistols with rectangular strikers, but none are as ubiquitous as the Glock.
This is not to say that the TNR piece wasn't incorrect or falsified. I'm only offering an explanation for what could have been a poor case of editing. Non-gunnies may read "square primer strike" and substitute "square back".
The "back" referred to in this instance seems to mean the case head, and there are no square 9mm Parabellum cartridges, by definition. However, the slide of a Glock pistol does look square when viewed from the rear.
All of this leads me to believe that the 9mm casing anecdote is fiction with bungled details thrown in for flavor.
The firing pin (technically a "striker") of a Glock pistol has a rectangular face. This results in a rectangular imprint on the fired primer. It is a very distintive mark, if you know what to look for. There are a few other pistols with rectangular strikers, but none are as ubiquitous as the Glock.
This is not to say that the TNR piece wasn't incorrect or falsified. I'm only offering an explanation for what could have been a poor case of editing. Non-gunnies may read "square primer strike" and substitute "square back".
The "back" referred to in this instance seems to mean the case head, and there are no square 9mm Parabellum cartridges, by definition. However, the slide of a Glock pistol does look square when viewed from the rear.
All of this leads me to believe that the 9mm casing anecdote is fiction with bungled details thrown in for flavor.
Posted by: Mark Mogler at July 25, 2007 11:49 AM (9pQsi)
3
Even if we buy the statement that Scott
Thomas is a soldier, did anyone think to
ask which side he's on?
Thomas is a soldier, did anyone think to
ask which side he's on?
Posted by: Don Zimmer at July 25, 2007 11:49 AM (TRiN6)
4
>> The only shell casings that look like that belongs to Glocks.
Umm, it's even simpler. Glocks don't use distinctive ammo - you can't look at an empty case and figure out what kind of gun shot it.
Umm, it's even simpler. Glocks don't use distinctive ammo - you can't look at an empty case and figure out what kind of gun shot it.
Posted by: Andy Freeman at July 25, 2007 12:10 PM (//8m/)
Posted by: Karl at July 25, 2007 12:19 PM (qje1A)
6
>> you can't look at an empty case and figure out what kind of gun shot it.
Actually, several models of H&K rifles have fluted chambers and quite violent extraction/ejection mechanisms ... it's possible to look at mangled and striped spent casings and determine with a fair degree of confidence that they came out of an H&K rifle.
Actually, several models of H&K rifles have fluted chambers and quite violent extraction/ejection mechanisms ... it's possible to look at mangled and striped spent casings and determine with a fair degree of confidence that they came out of an H&K rifle.
Posted by: iohk at July 25, 2007 12:29 PM (Aq3yp)
7
I served 1964-1970, back in the Dark Ages. When I served most of us considered battle scars as a badge of honor.
While there might be a small minority that would ridicule a person with bad burn scars anyone over the rank of E-4 would call them on it and a large percentage of the rank and file would stomp a mudhole is "Scott Thomas's ass.
Now I haven't kept track of how the military is these days, Hell I still don't own anything OD Green, but I can't imagine that soldiers would put up with this nonsense.
While there might be a small minority that would ridicule a person with bad burn scars anyone over the rank of E-4 would call them on it and a large percentage of the rank and file would stomp a mudhole is "Scott Thomas's ass.
Now I haven't kept track of how the military is these days, Hell I still don't own anything OD Green, but I can't imagine that soldiers would put up with this nonsense.
Posted by: Peter at July 25, 2007 01:08 PM (7MeZM)
8
My gut says that Scott likely is in the service. Perhaps he has heard the scuttlebutt with the inevitable exaggerations added for effect. Perhaps he witnessed some or all of the base events and added this own embellishments. Maybe he is in combat arms, or maybe he is a REMF. Not sure it matters.
In any event, I still conclude he uses artistic license to deliver his own 'Full Metal Jacket', and isn't concerned that the intended 'shock effect' comes at the expense of the reputations of far better people than himself.
If TNR proves these events occurred, I think it goes from bad to worse...he transforms from lying dirtbag, to someone who seeks to profit from these foul acts, rather than have the courage to correct them, as he is duty bound. Or worse yet, he performs and encourages more of them to continue the script.
For the sake of his comrades, I hope he is just a liar.
In any event, I still conclude he uses artistic license to deliver his own 'Full Metal Jacket', and isn't concerned that the intended 'shock effect' comes at the expense of the reputations of far better people than himself.
If TNR proves these events occurred, I think it goes from bad to worse...he transforms from lying dirtbag, to someone who seeks to profit from these foul acts, rather than have the courage to correct them, as he is duty bound. Or worse yet, he performs and encourages more of them to continue the script.
For the sake of his comrades, I hope he is just a liar.
Posted by: mike at July 25, 2007 01:28 PM (WDJHD)
9
This is why the Weekly World News has gone belly-up: They can't compete with the armies of fabulists--I mean fact-checkers--at the New Republic, CBS, New Yorker, PBS, and so on.
Posted by: pst314 at July 25, 2007 01:31 PM (OA547)
10
"... I ... conclude he uses artistic license to deliver his own 'Full Metal Jacket'...
Posted by mike at July 25, 2007 01:28 PM"
Oh great, now you've made me realize that in a few years we'll see a book/movie deal from this liar.
Posted by mike at July 25, 2007 01:28 PM"
Oh great, now you've made me realize that in a few years we'll see a book/movie deal from this liar.
Posted by: DoorHold at July 25, 2007 02:20 PM (EjE0n)
11
"Scott Thomas", by his own account, is in multiple violations of the UCMJ. By keeping his true name confidential, TNR is protecting him from prosecution. That makes them his accessories.
If "Scott Thomas" is lying, then he is defaming the US Miltary and the Iraqi Police, and giving the enemy propaganda assistance. Which I would call "aid and comfort to the enemy"
If "Scott Thomas" is lying, then he is defaming the US Miltary and the Iraqi Police, and giving the enemy propaganda assistance. Which I would call "aid and comfort to the enemy"
Posted by: LarryD at July 25, 2007 04:33 PM (0cpwi)
12
Well, which is it, LarryD? Is he a figment of some TNR editor's imagination, or is he a real guy who is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" and thus needs to be drawn and quartered before being broken on the wheel?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 25, 2007 05:22 PM (nl/0y)
13
Is he a figment of some TNR editor's imagination, or is he a real guy who is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" and thus needs to be drawn and quartered before being broken on the wheel?
I see no requirement for mutual exclusivity here.
I see no requirement for mutual exclusivity here.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 25, 2007 06:19 PM (natUQ)
14
"Scott Thomas" is evidence that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The "Square Back" thing is evidence of his/her profound ignorance of firearms. He read something somewhere about the Glock firing pin, and, not knowing what a firing pin is, or does, misunderstood it, and then magnified his/her misunderstanding in writing this piece of nonsense.
Everybody here is bending over backwards to give this creep the benefit of the doubt by using words that allow that perhaps it's all true, if highly unlikely,
Cut it OUT! What he/she wrote is OBVIOUSLY, UTTERLY FALSE! And we all KNOW it.
We're in a WAR folks! People who defend the enemy, talk like the enemy ARE the enemy.
We didn't go looking to get indictments against each surviving Japanese pilot who attacked Pearl Harbor. We just shot down ANY Jap plane we saw until they signed their surrender. That's how it works in a war.
"Scott Thomas" is the enemy. Tokyo Rose served seven years in prison after WW II for playing American popular music, and spouting Japanese propaganda over the radio to our troops. Seven Years. The charge was Treason.
Better think about that, Scott Thomas. This war will get ugly. Think about that, and whom you are supporting.
Everybody here is bending over backwards to give this creep the benefit of the doubt by using words that allow that perhaps it's all true, if highly unlikely,
Cut it OUT! What he/she wrote is OBVIOUSLY, UTTERLY FALSE! And we all KNOW it.
We're in a WAR folks! People who defend the enemy, talk like the enemy ARE the enemy.
We didn't go looking to get indictments against each surviving Japanese pilot who attacked Pearl Harbor. We just shot down ANY Jap plane we saw until they signed their surrender. That's how it works in a war.
"Scott Thomas" is the enemy. Tokyo Rose served seven years in prison after WW II for playing American popular music, and spouting Japanese propaganda over the radio to our troops. Seven Years. The charge was Treason.
Better think about that, Scott Thomas. This war will get ugly. Think about that, and whom you are supporting.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 25, 2007 11:18 PM (d1qfW)
15
Something tells me that if a group of TNR reporters and editors went to lunch in DC and someone with AIDS sat at the table behind them and one of the TNR folks started making fun and jokes about the person with AIDS, the staff wouldn't feel the need to keep that persons identity secret. Why is the disfigured women treated differently by TNR? Would TNR still keep his identitty secret if he had admitting to following her back to her barracks and raping her? Just how far does TNR let their writers go with abusing people to make good war stories? Sexual harrassment, public embarrasment, disgusting jokes addreessed to the women is OK by TNR, but rape wouldn't be OK? Or would it?
Posted by: Poppy at July 26, 2007 05:52 AM (3ngib)
16
My bet is that this 'Scott' is a REMF sitting inside the green zone with internet access, regretting joining the military, and far too much time on his hands. If the Army tries to find him, they should start by checking the commo techs- seriously.
- Jon C., ex Army satcom tech.
- Jon C., ex Army satcom tech.
Posted by: Jon C. at July 26, 2007 06:27 AM (g6m78)
17
TNR has now issued its first substantive response. Scott Thomas wrote in to identify himself as Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
The important questions about the veracity of Beauchamp's accounts should now be answered in fairly short order. The "Who," "When," and "Where" are, obviously, narrowed down a great deal.
The issues centering around whether TNR Editor Foer (and readers like me) were pwned will probably take somewhat longer to be illuminated. At this writing, Mr. Foer is stil standing behind the "Baghdad Diarist" accounts.
The important questions about the veracity of Beauchamp's accounts should now be answered in fairly short order. The "Who," "When," and "Where" are, obviously, narrowed down a great deal.
The issues centering around whether TNR Editor Foer (and readers like me) were pwned will probably take somewhat longer to be illuminated. At this writing, Mr. Foer is stil standing behind the "Baghdad Diarist" accounts.
Posted by: AMac at July 26, 2007 08:40 AM (qQPIT)
18
OK Vanguards, one of your teammates has accused some of you with some serious UCMJ violations. What you gonna do?
Posted by: David at July 26, 2007 09:52 AM (z1+Ce)
19
According to the Dept of Defense public info website...http://benefits.military.com/reg/buddy_finder_reg.do...
There is NO Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the US army as of when I write this.
There is NO Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the US army as of when I write this.
Posted by: Jeff Slaton at July 26, 2007 10:36 AM (yAk6d)
20
Actually, that is not a DoD website. And, according to the AKO white pages, there is most definitely a PV2 Scott Beauchamp currently serving in 1/18IN.
Posted by: Jonathon at July 26, 2007 10:44 AM (HuKPy)
21
The most shocking aspect of this whole story is that those writing in find the accounts of the TNR diarist so unbelievable. Has anybody writing on this and other blogs actually ever hung out with Joes in Iraq? These are teenagers. Yes they wear the uniform, but they aint angels people.
I spent nearly five months at Falcon in 2005 and saw some outrageous behavior. The unit I was with RIP’ed with 1st Cav., those guys were out of control when we got there. The sergeant major banned soldiers from going to parts of the T building because of the late night sex parties going on. Everybody knew which door to go knock on for entertainment. Then he fired all the Iraqi female terps because some of them were turning tricks with the Joes. And the Joes porn collections, some guys brought external had drives loaded with nothing else. Not to mention the very brisk trade in adult DVDs carried on between Joes and the locals.
Is it so hard to believe that your little angel soldiers are not? These are red blooded American youth, spending more than a year far from home, in a hostile country with very little diversion and not enough adult supervision. Mixing male and female soldiers, what do you think is going to happen? I spent some entertaining hours watching on the JLENS infra-red camera couples hooking up around the base in places where they thought were hidden. It’s not just Iraq either. Everybody on Kandahar base knows SF gets the best booze (Turkish vodka), that female foreign contractors on base moonlight as prostitutes, and that the Joes party when they can get away with it. What do you expect?
The fact that you find it incomprehensible, (against the laws of physics?!!) that Bradleys run into things is laughable and betrays your complete ignorance of the reality in Iraq. Big tracked vics, Abrams included, accidentally run into cars, curbs, market stalls, dogs all the time. What, do you think Baghdad has wide open boulevards devoid of traffic? People, the often narrow city streets are choked with cars and everything else. Someone wrote in saying American vics don’t swerve in Iraq because of IEDs, that its not SOP. They swerve all the time! They swerve to avoid potholes in the road that may contain an IED, they swerve when they go under overpasses, they swerve to avoid other cars, people in the road, sacks of garbage. Yes, it’s possible to swerve a Bradley or run over a curb without throwing a track, I’ve seen it done, many times.
Did you hear the time an Abrams rolling down Route Irish at speed accidentally ran over an Iraqi mini-bus, crushing a half dozen of its occupants? No, of course you didn’t. But it happened. Don’t think just because you didn’t hear about something back here in the states that it didn’t happen?
Dogs in Iraq run out in front of the vics, they get run over. SOP. BFD.
And the changing a tire in sewage. Look, much of West Rashid in southern Baghdad is a sea of sewage. Anybody who says otherwise has never been there. Yes the Humvee has run flat tires. Does that mean you don’t get out and change the tire when you get a flat? No. Because the vehicle doesn’t operate so well when it has a flat, you’re not going to cancel mission and go back to the FOB because of a flat. No, you’re going to change the tire and continue mission. Do you choose to change it in the sewage filled street? No, you pull the Humvee to a spot of high ground or paved road out of the sewage to do it. You people have obviously never been to Iraq.
And to think that some field grade PAO claims he knows what the Joes are doing and not doing, what a joke. You betray your ignorance by talking about these things of which you know nothing. You have no idea what goes on over there.
I spent nearly five months at Falcon in 2005 and saw some outrageous behavior. The unit I was with RIP’ed with 1st Cav., those guys were out of control when we got there. The sergeant major banned soldiers from going to parts of the T building because of the late night sex parties going on. Everybody knew which door to go knock on for entertainment. Then he fired all the Iraqi female terps because some of them were turning tricks with the Joes. And the Joes porn collections, some guys brought external had drives loaded with nothing else. Not to mention the very brisk trade in adult DVDs carried on between Joes and the locals.
Is it so hard to believe that your little angel soldiers are not? These are red blooded American youth, spending more than a year far from home, in a hostile country with very little diversion and not enough adult supervision. Mixing male and female soldiers, what do you think is going to happen? I spent some entertaining hours watching on the JLENS infra-red camera couples hooking up around the base in places where they thought were hidden. It’s not just Iraq either. Everybody on Kandahar base knows SF gets the best booze (Turkish vodka), that female foreign contractors on base moonlight as prostitutes, and that the Joes party when they can get away with it. What do you expect?
The fact that you find it incomprehensible, (against the laws of physics?!!) that Bradleys run into things is laughable and betrays your complete ignorance of the reality in Iraq. Big tracked vics, Abrams included, accidentally run into cars, curbs, market stalls, dogs all the time. What, do you think Baghdad has wide open boulevards devoid of traffic? People, the often narrow city streets are choked with cars and everything else. Someone wrote in saying American vics don’t swerve in Iraq because of IEDs, that its not SOP. They swerve all the time! They swerve to avoid potholes in the road that may contain an IED, they swerve when they go under overpasses, they swerve to avoid other cars, people in the road, sacks of garbage. Yes, it’s possible to swerve a Bradley or run over a curb without throwing a track, I’ve seen it done, many times.
Did you hear the time an Abrams rolling down Route Irish at speed accidentally ran over an Iraqi mini-bus, crushing a half dozen of its occupants? No, of course you didn’t. But it happened. Don’t think just because you didn’t hear about something back here in the states that it didn’t happen?
Dogs in Iraq run out in front of the vics, they get run over. SOP. BFD.
And the changing a tire in sewage. Look, much of West Rashid in southern Baghdad is a sea of sewage. Anybody who says otherwise has never been there. Yes the Humvee has run flat tires. Does that mean you don’t get out and change the tire when you get a flat? No. Because the vehicle doesn’t operate so well when it has a flat, you’re not going to cancel mission and go back to the FOB because of a flat. No, you’re going to change the tire and continue mission. Do you choose to change it in the sewage filled street? No, you pull the Humvee to a spot of high ground or paved road out of the sewage to do it. You people have obviously never been to Iraq.
And to think that some field grade PAO claims he knows what the Joes are doing and not doing, what a joke. You betray your ignorance by talking about these things of which you know nothing. You have no idea what goes on over there.
Posted by: JD at July 26, 2007 11:04 AM (fkAfU)
22
These are teenagers. Yes they wear the uniform, but they aint angels people.
There was a big hooraw at this site not long ago over this very concept. Those who suggested that some soldiers might be human rather than angelic were, if I'm remembering correctly, called "traitors" and accused of "smearing the military."
These are teenagers. Yes they wear the uniform, but they aint angels people.
There was a big hooraw at this site not long ago over this very concept. Those who suggested that some soldiers might be human rather than angelic were, if I'm remembering correctly, called "traitors" and accused of "smearing the military."
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 26, 2007 11:26 AM (hOvEf)
23
one of your teammates has accused some of you with some serious UCMJ violations. What you gonna do?
Since the incidents likely never happened, or were grossly exaggerated, the correct response would be, ummm...nothing at all.
Since the incidents likely never happened, or were grossly exaggerated, the correct response would be, ummm...nothing at all.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 26, 2007 11:31 AM (natUQ)
24
JD,
No one is saying that soldiers are angels. Rather, what I hear is that these incidents are obviously embellished. The big kicker is how public they are. Doing stuff in public would get the attention of a authority figure to bust them. Sure people were having sex and jacking off on base, but were they doing that on missions or in the DFAC? There is a huge difference between the two, as public acts imply general acceptance. Running over a dog when it's in the way is a far cry from keeping score over a long period of time.
One last thing, JD - when have you heard any criticism regarding soldiers' sexual escapades here? I've read material from all over the blogosphere on this topic, and I've not heard a peep about sex or porn.
No one is saying that soldiers are angels. Rather, what I hear is that these incidents are obviously embellished. The big kicker is how public they are. Doing stuff in public would get the attention of a authority figure to bust them. Sure people were having sex and jacking off on base, but were they doing that on missions or in the DFAC? There is a huge difference between the two, as public acts imply general acceptance. Running over a dog when it's in the way is a far cry from keeping score over a long period of time.
One last thing, JD - when have you heard any criticism regarding soldiers' sexual escapades here? I've read material from all over the blogosphere on this topic, and I've not heard a peep about sex or porn.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at July 26, 2007 12:51 PM (c24eK)
25
JD, there's a huge difference between the ususal "Privates do the craziest things" and the stories of PFC Thomas. There's crazy and then there's sociopath and these are the latter. This PFC and his friends have some serious mental issues, or he wants us to think he has serious mental issues. "Don't mess with me man, don't you know I'm loco, ese?"
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 26, 2007 01:27 PM (oC8nQ)
26
The story's now moving at warp speed... I'll step back for a while. But take a look at Marine Lt. Col Matthew Jones' post over at The Plank, comment #108, for a thoughtful perspective from a serving officer.
Posted by: AMac at July 26, 2007 03:18 PM (Djzc+)
27
I have a question for anyone who might have an answer:
Did Jamil Hussein wind up being real or fake?
I frankly lost track of what the hell was going on near the end of that whole process.
Did Jamil Hussein wind up being real or fake?
I frankly lost track of what the hell was going on near the end of that whole process.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 26, 2007 03:30 PM (hOvEf)
28
Hmmm.
Jamil Hussein is a real Iraqi police captain who proffered fake stories to the AP.
So it's one of those true & fake things.
Jamil Hussein is a real Iraqi police captain who proffered fake stories to the AP.
So it's one of those true & fake things.
Posted by: memomachine at July 27, 2007 09:48 AM (3pvQO)
29
The first guy who posted about the casings is correct, and the subsequent posters missed the point. I've got two glocks, and it is very easy to identify when the casings came from a glock. The firing pin is recangular, with the actual punching surface of the pin being circular in the center, when the pin hits the primer it leaves an indentation kinda like this [*] , except its a more pronounced, raised retangular pattern with a deeper round indentation in the center. If the guy that fabricated this story has any sense about him, this is what he was referring to, and just picked up a line about glocks having distinctive marks off an episode of CSI.
Posted by: James at July 30, 2007 04:44 PM (hBXfz)
July 24, 2007
Two Simple Questions for Franklin Foer
Yesterday, after days of withering criticism by named military officers, well-recognized combat journalists, and anonymous soldiers over the claims made by pseudonym-hidden "Scott Thomas," I suggested that the New Republic boil down their investigation to answering two simple questions:
- When did the verbal assault take place on the badly-burned woman at FOB Falcon?
- What was the name and location of the combat outpost where a mass grave was discovered?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm sorry, but the Mr Thomas narrative has too many cliche's and stereotypes to be real. Yes, there is always a hint of truth to certain stereotypes, but almost every part of the story is based on stock characters or situations. How many do we see here
Military Stock Characters:
1. The Writer/Poet
2. The Misogynist
3. The Torturer
4. The Joker
5. The incompetant Lieutenant
7. The grizzled senior NCO
8. The Latently Gay Homophobe
Military Stock Situations:
1. The Chow Hall
2. In the barracks
3. On Patrol
4. Working the crap detail (lots of digging)
Other featured fallacies:
1. The 'secret' mercenary army
2. The tens of thousands of maimed/disfigured soldiers
Military Stock Characters:
1. The Writer/Poet
2. The Misogynist
3. The Torturer
4. The Joker
5. The incompetant Lieutenant
7. The grizzled senior NCO
8. The Latently Gay Homophobe
Military Stock Situations:
1. The Chow Hall
2. In the barracks
3. On Patrol
4. Working the crap detail (lots of digging)
Other featured fallacies:
1. The 'secret' mercenary army
2. The tens of thousands of maimed/disfigured soldiers
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 24, 2007 09:03 AM (oC8nQ)
2
I love when bloggers think they matter.
Posted by: jeph at July 24, 2007 09:13 AM (J0Xcd)
3
CY:
Do not hold your breath on getting a response. If "Scott Thomas" is currently in theater has sphincter has probably tightened up significantly because of his fabulism and TNR will dodge by saying that they cannot respond in order to "protect" sources from exposure.
Do not hold your breath on getting a response. If "Scott Thomas" is currently in theater has sphincter has probably tightened up significantly because of his fabulism and TNR will dodge by saying that they cannot respond in order to "protect" sources from exposure.
Posted by: wjo at July 24, 2007 09:37 AM (r6omM)
4
I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to get stuck on those two questions, especially since it now seems that the "Saddam-era dumping ground" has likely been identified as in fact a children's cemetery, not a mass grave, associated with a particular unit and outpost attached to FOB Falcon. I don't believe that "Scott Thomas" uses the term "mass grave" in his piece (does he?).
The larger question is what if anything Foer could do to persuade anyone (other than perhaps himself) that the articles do not engage in exaggeration and embellishment for the sake of ingratiating the author with his editor and TNR's readers - that is, by satisfying their prejudices. As you yourself have recognized, Foer and his writer will likely never be able to persuade the rest of us that these stories are accurate either in detail or on the whole.
Anyway, it's not the skewed and distorted particulars that matter the most. The scandal has as much to do with the willingness of Foer to publish defamatory material, along with his and his associates' inability to recognize it as such. To Foer et al, the pieces are just atmospheric renderings of this inhumanity of THIS war, the equivalent in "belles lettres" of some of the TV and literary fiction set in Iraq that we've already seen, and that we're likely to see more and more of.
Put more simply, it's just war porn for BDS liberals. It happens to cross several lines of basic decency, but saying so risks getting caught up in the details again. It's what those details add up to - the image of a decadent military in an absurd and de-humanizing environment - that really matters. It's what people like Foer apparently believe about the war. They believe that stuff like this must be happening: THEY believe that WE are supporting a gigantic atrocity that MUST be eating away the souls of our soldiers. The author recognizes this idea over and over again when he seems to take pride in his own de-humanization. The confessional is what's winning over his publisher, and serving his editor's purposes. The particular details aren't important. Even the fact that a soldier would lie in this way serves the theme, if not quite as strongly.
In short, it's not just the military, or even principally the military, that's being defamed: It's the entire war that's being painted as deranged and evil, and the principle culprits are not the soldiers, but implicitly those of us who are could be so barbarically shameless as to support the enterprise.
The larger question is what if anything Foer could do to persuade anyone (other than perhaps himself) that the articles do not engage in exaggeration and embellishment for the sake of ingratiating the author with his editor and TNR's readers - that is, by satisfying their prejudices. As you yourself have recognized, Foer and his writer will likely never be able to persuade the rest of us that these stories are accurate either in detail or on the whole.
Anyway, it's not the skewed and distorted particulars that matter the most. The scandal has as much to do with the willingness of Foer to publish defamatory material, along with his and his associates' inability to recognize it as such. To Foer et al, the pieces are just atmospheric renderings of this inhumanity of THIS war, the equivalent in "belles lettres" of some of the TV and literary fiction set in Iraq that we've already seen, and that we're likely to see more and more of.
Put more simply, it's just war porn for BDS liberals. It happens to cross several lines of basic decency, but saying so risks getting caught up in the details again. It's what those details add up to - the image of a decadent military in an absurd and de-humanizing environment - that really matters. It's what people like Foer apparently believe about the war. They believe that stuff like this must be happening: THEY believe that WE are supporting a gigantic atrocity that MUST be eating away the souls of our soldiers. The author recognizes this idea over and over again when he seems to take pride in his own de-humanization. The confessional is what's winning over his publisher, and serving his editor's purposes. The particular details aren't important. Even the fact that a soldier would lie in this way serves the theme, if not quite as strongly.
In short, it's not just the military, or even principally the military, that's being defamed: It's the entire war that's being painted as deranged and evil, and the principle culprits are not the soldiers, but implicitly those of us who are could be so barbarically shameless as to support the enterprise.
Posted by: CK MacLeod at July 24, 2007 09:38 AM (dvksz)
5
Hmmmm.
Has Foer responded yet?
Frankly if everything was ok I'd imagine he'd respond immediately in order to gloat.
That it's taking this long for a writer who has already provided at least 3 articles makes me think that either Thomas is full of BS, TNR is up to it's butt in issues or both.
Has Foer responded yet?
Frankly if everything was ok I'd imagine he'd respond immediately in order to gloat.
That it's taking this long for a writer who has already provided at least 3 articles makes me think that either Thomas is full of BS, TNR is up to it's butt in issues or both.
Posted by: memomachine at July 24, 2007 01:21 PM (3pvQO)
6
CK, that's a long winded way to say "fake but accurate"
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 24, 2007 06:16 PM (Lgw9b)
7
Here's an even easier question for Mr Foer; where did you meet this writer? Was it here in the States? I think if the nebbish Foer had visited Iraq we would know about it by now. Therefore he has met "Scott" out side the AO. Was he in uniform? Did he present any creds? What a putrid fraud and what a sorry state these people must be in to a) insipidly believe such tales that violate not merely the laws of probability but the laws of physics and b) stake their personal identity on such claptrap, since obviously, however crummy they are, they are miles superior to any boneheaded babyraper of a soldier or, needless to say, George Bush. Like Alger Hiss and a thousand other garrish fictions, this will live on in the brainpans of our least worthy citizens 'til doom cracks. If not longer. Regardless of, or perhaps in spite of, their mendacity. I am fuming. Never will I let this bilge be pumped in my presence: not by my sainted mother. Not that she would in a million years.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 24, 2007 06:18 PM (LF+qW)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 24, 2007 10:33 PM (AIAsT)
9
And the person formerly known as Doc Washboard stands revealed as... Maureen Dowd!!!
I thought there was something familiar about the writing style, the casual disregard for the facts, the contempt for country, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad infinitum nauseam... and back.
Oh, and jeph, if we don't matter, then shouldn't you prove how much more of a life you have by being too busy to post here?
I thought there was something familiar about the writing style, the casual disregard for the facts, the contempt for country, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ad infinitum nauseam... and back.
Oh, and jeph, if we don't matter, then shouldn't you prove how much more of a life you have by being too busy to post here?
Posted by: SDN at July 25, 2007 05:13 AM (D/F5Y)
10
Quoting CK MacLeod: I don't believe that "Scott Thomas" uses the term "mass grave" in his piece (does he?).
Although the author does not use the term "mass grave," that is clearly the impression that is intended. The exact phrase is "Saddam-era dumping ground"; in context below:
it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort
The modifier "Saddam-era" certainly introduces the image of atrocities, with mass graves being a frequent product. So, I'm not sure what an alternative interpretation of the phrase might be. Old cars? No, the author certainly wishes to convey the image of a mass grave.
Although the author does not use the term "mass grave," that is clearly the impression that is intended. The exact phrase is "Saddam-era dumping ground"; in context below:
it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort
The modifier "Saddam-era" certainly introduces the image of atrocities, with mass graves being a frequent product. So, I'm not sure what an alternative interpretation of the phrase might be. Old cars? No, the author certainly wishes to convey the image of a mass grave.
Posted by: Bob Arthur at July 25, 2007 09:18 AM (pMqmr)
11
I'm imaging that the insurance policies on civilian contractors is pretty sweet.
If an individual did suffer disfiguring burns, I'm of the belief that they would have received significant compensation, sufficient enough so that returning to Iraq would not be neccessary.
Anybody know the policy for payment by the private contracting firms, for injuries suffered? I'm sure the libs would love to know, so that they could point out that civilian contractors are just fodder for hb and blackwater. Somehow I doubt that it is the case.
Still worth asking HB and Blackwater corporate what the compensation would be for someone who is injured while working for them.
If an individual did suffer disfiguring burns, I'm of the belief that they would have received significant compensation, sufficient enough so that returning to Iraq would not be neccessary.
Anybody know the policy for payment by the private contracting firms, for injuries suffered? I'm sure the libs would love to know, so that they could point out that civilian contractors are just fodder for hb and blackwater. Somehow I doubt that it is the case.
Still worth asking HB and Blackwater corporate what the compensation would be for someone who is injured while working for them.
Posted by: paul at July 25, 2007 11:37 AM (YQWyY)
12
Another small detail that troubles me...
If the contractor did suffer burns, they would have been older than a year, as the healing is usually atrociously slow, combining the 'taking' of a skin graft and the protection against infection until it is healed.
The implication that Scott Thomas knew that the individual suffered her injuries from an IED, and was also present when she returned( to the same location where the injuries were received) would suggest a timeline that exceeds even a 15 month rotation.
The ST initials, suggest that the 'writer' chose the pseudonym, as it would be 'TS' in military speak, inspired by 'TS' Eliot's Wasteland.
If the contractor did suffer burns, they would have been older than a year, as the healing is usually atrociously slow, combining the 'taking' of a skin graft and the protection against infection until it is healed.
The implication that Scott Thomas knew that the individual suffered her injuries from an IED, and was also present when she returned( to the same location where the injuries were received) would suggest a timeline that exceeds even a 15 month rotation.
The ST initials, suggest that the 'writer' chose the pseudonym, as it would be 'TS' in military speak, inspired by 'TS' Eliot's Wasteland.
Posted by: paul at July 25, 2007 11:56 AM (YQWyY)
13
SDN:
I was obviously kidding around, but I'm happy to give you the opportunity to blow off some steam, if you need one that badly.
I was obviously kidding around, but I'm happy to give you the opportunity to blow off some steam, if you need one that badly.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 25, 2007 03:00 PM (nl/0y)
July 23, 2007
Near Certainty
For his sake, I hope that Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic, is merely suffering from unfortunate phrasing:
Considering the explosive allegations made in Thomas' claims against both American soldiers and the Iraqi Police, Foer meant "absolute certainty," didn't he? (h/t reader AMac) Update: Yes, he did.
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So an Editor offers a source a pledge of anonymity, say to protect him from retaliation from superiors. Society benefits: the public is well served, because information that would have remained hidden is brought into the open, improving the debate and leading to better policy. Further, future whistleblowers in similar situations will be inclined to accept similar pledges.
So far, so good.
Now consider the case where the source is a liar, and the important information he disclosed is false. Is the Editor nonetheless morally bound to honor his vow to protect the source's identity? Society suffers--false information has poisoned the public policy debate. In addition, future fabulists will be inclined to take similar guarantees--because they hold even after discovery.
Perhaps the stronger case is that the Editor is morally obliged to reveal the liar's identity. A full exposure of circumstances corrects the record, helps other journalists avoid similar pitfalls, and serves as a disincentive for future truth-challenged individuals to use the Fourth Estate to spread disinformation.
Can the argument be made that an Editor in these straits should honor a promise of anonymity, on the grounds of either personal morality or advancing the common good?
So far, so good.
Now consider the case where the source is a liar, and the important information he disclosed is false. Is the Editor nonetheless morally bound to honor his vow to protect the source's identity? Society suffers--false information has poisoned the public policy debate. In addition, future fabulists will be inclined to take similar guarantees--because they hold even after discovery.
Perhaps the stronger case is that the Editor is morally obliged to reveal the liar's identity. A full exposure of circumstances corrects the record, helps other journalists avoid similar pitfalls, and serves as a disincentive for future truth-challenged individuals to use the Fourth Estate to spread disinformation.
Can the argument be made that an Editor in these straits should honor a promise of anonymity, on the grounds of either personal morality or advancing the common good?
Posted by: AMac at July 24, 2007 12:00 AM (ZPi6p)
2
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me--which is to say, The New Republic pushed this detritus because Foer and co. wanted to believe it was true. I'm hard pressed to come up with another explanation. What held true for Rather during the "fake-but-accurate" embarrassment seems to be the case here as well.
Posted by: Nathan Tabor at July 24, 2007 12:15 AM (HQYcw)
3
Wasn't Jesse MacBeth a "soldier" (or "Marine"), too?
One wonders how they knew, with whatever degree of certainty they now claim, that the fellow was a soldier?
Army ID? Showed up in BDUs? Has an Iraqi email address?
One would think you could provide said information without revealing the source.
Unit, service record, MOS, etc.?
One wonders how they knew, with whatever degree of certainty they now claim, that the fellow was a soldier?
Army ID? Showed up in BDUs? Has an Iraqi email address?
One would think you could provide said information without revealing the source.
Unit, service record, MOS, etc.?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 24, 2007 09:04 AM (/ZD7V)
4
"Update: Yes, he did."
This is interesting. Actually, the NYT did not state that TNR knew. It stated that Foer had met Thomas and knew with "near certainty".
Assuming, the NYT got the quote right, Foer had some tinge of doubt and this TNR statement doesn't necessarily change that. What it may be telling us is that Foer was not the first connection for Thomas to the TNR, but via some other TNR editor. It then came under Foer, who vetted with the meeting which during the interview fell back belatedly to a "near certainty", for reasons as yet unknown.
I would think that if Foer was momentarily pushed back by the all the criticism and it so influenced him that he guardedly stated "near certainty" to the NYT but regained his composure of thought afterwards, then TNR would have written that Foer was absolutely certain.
It may be that TNR is absolutely certain, but that may be the result of a consensus of editors at TNR taking as their own, another editor's level of certainty over that of Foer's.
I am still interested in when and how Foer met Thomas. Did Foer actually go to Iraq to "meet" him. Right now, I think that unlikely.
Was Foer's meeting an internet video hookup and could it have been confirmed by independent vid, say, on you-tube or via a press story showing he is there? Maybe.
But, if Foer met Thomas prior to Thomas leaving for Iraq, why was it necessary and what was the purpose? Was it to finalize his sending back what are now these dispatches?
This is interesting. Actually, the NYT did not state that TNR knew. It stated that Foer had met Thomas and knew with "near certainty".
Assuming, the NYT got the quote right, Foer had some tinge of doubt and this TNR statement doesn't necessarily change that. What it may be telling us is that Foer was not the first connection for Thomas to the TNR, but via some other TNR editor. It then came under Foer, who vetted with the meeting which during the interview fell back belatedly to a "near certainty", for reasons as yet unknown.
I would think that if Foer was momentarily pushed back by the all the criticism and it so influenced him that he guardedly stated "near certainty" to the NYT but regained his composure of thought afterwards, then TNR would have written that Foer was absolutely certain.
It may be that TNR is absolutely certain, but that may be the result of a consensus of editors at TNR taking as their own, another editor's level of certainty over that of Foer's.
I am still interested in when and how Foer met Thomas. Did Foer actually go to Iraq to "meet" him. Right now, I think that unlikely.
Was Foer's meeting an internet video hookup and could it have been confirmed by independent vid, say, on you-tube or via a press story showing he is there? Maybe.
But, if Foer met Thomas prior to Thomas leaving for Iraq, why was it necessary and what was the purpose? Was it to finalize his sending back what are now these dispatches?
Posted by: Dusty at July 24, 2007 09:43 AM (GJLeQ)
5
"near certainty" is code speak for: we swallowed what he said hook line and sinker without checking anything.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 24, 2007 10:33 AM (bV8PN)
6
When Foer saw 'near certainty' in print, he no doubt recognized that it was the equivalent of saying, 'The guy said he was in the army and I believed him.'
Since his career - and possibly the magazine's future - depends on this story being credible, he upgraded his certainty to 'absolute'.
It's not, of course. Absolute certainty would be based on documentary evidence which he could already have presented in defense of the story, or at the very least characterized. And he's only 'certain' the guy is a soldier, which is the least and easiest threshold that TNR has to get over.
But who knows, it might work. AP published rumors and falsehoods from their source 'Jamil Hussein'. They successfully transformed the debate into a question of whether their source existed at all. When they produced him, they celebrated their vindication. But the stories were still false.
Maybe that's what Foer has in mind.
Since his career - and possibly the magazine's future - depends on this story being credible, he upgraded his certainty to 'absolute'.
It's not, of course. Absolute certainty would be based on documentary evidence which he could already have presented in defense of the story, or at the very least characterized. And he's only 'certain' the guy is a soldier, which is the least and easiest threshold that TNR has to get over.
But who knows, it might work. AP published rumors and falsehoods from their source 'Jamil Hussein'. They successfully transformed the debate into a question of whether their source existed at all. When they produced him, they celebrated their vindication. But the stories were still false.
Maybe that's what Foer has in mind.
Posted by: lyle at July 24, 2007 12:00 PM (TQ+KV)
7
CY, the NYT has escalated the 'certainty' controversy now that it has edited out the "near certainty" from their original reporting without noting the correction or why it did so.
Check it out; it's gone.
Ace has some questions.
Check it out; it's gone.
Ace has some questions.
Posted by: Dusty at July 24, 2007 01:15 PM (GJLeQ)
8
With "absolute certainty" we have "soldiers" in Alaska too. Just saying...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 24, 2007 05:47 PM (bV8PN)
9
no he didn't
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 24, 2007 06:10 PM (Lgw9b)
10
"No, he didn't" what, CI? Have questions?
Posted by: Dusty at July 24, 2007 08:08 PM (GJLeQ)
11
CY claims that Foer was merely suffering from "unfortunate phrasing." My link shows that the New York reporter is standing by the quote. What Foer did was call the Times with his "new quote" to cover for him and the Times complied.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 25, 2007 09:13 AM (Lgw9b)
12
K, thanks.
Posted by: Dusty at July 25, 2007 03:59 PM (GJLeQ)
RIP: Christiana Hendrix
Christiana Hendrix, wife of Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury, died this weekend in a motorcycle accident. Mike, you and your family have my sincere condolences and prayers in this most tragic of times.
As Glenn notes, "Words are completely inadequate in these situations, but they're also essential." Please stop by and offer your condolences for the loss Mike and Christiana's family is experiencing, and if you are a religious person, consider offering up a prayer for those who remain behind. Update: Jeff Goldstein's grandmother passed away today as well.
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills—
where does my help come from? 2 My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth. 3 He will not let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will not slumber; 4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep. 5 The LORD watches over you—
the LORD is your shade at your right hand; 6 the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night. 7 The LORD will keep you from all harm—
he will watch over your life; 8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore. --Psalm 121: 1-8.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good Lord take them and keep them close in his arms.
Posted by: Foxfier at July 23, 2007 08:53 PM (LeANJ)
Doubting Thomas: Simple Questions for the New Republic
As time wears on, it seems increasingly unlikely that the writings of the pseudonym-shielded soldier "Scott Thomas" in the New Republic are anything other than works of macabre creative fiction.
"Thomas" has written three "dispatches" for the New Republic thus far, but once the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb began questioning the veracity of claims made in Thomas' third story, experienced military veterans and observers in the blogosphere who read the account began to doubt that these claims took place. In his third dispatch, Thomas claimed that he and another soldier openly, verbally assaulted the appearance of a severely burned woman who had survived a prior attack by an improvised explosive device, or IED. The alleged attack took place at the dining facility of Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon. Presumably, this episode was meant to show the brutality and inhumanity of soldiers thoroughly desensitized to basic human decency and dignity because of the on-going violence of the Iraq War. It is perhaps a "larger truth" that war does horrible things to the psyche of those who experience it. That some do and say horrible things as a direct or indirect result of their experiences during such turbulent circumstances, and sometimes for years afterward, is beyond dispute. But though strong adverse reactions may indeed be true for some veterans who experience such brutality, it is by no means true for all. It is also equally true that there seems to be very little concrete support for this specific allegation, and significant anecdotal evidence against it. Major Kirk Luedeke, the Public Affairs Officer at FOB Falcon, categorically denies the presence of a woman with these unmistakable severe burns at the base. Another man who claims to be a soldier currently deployed to FOB Falcon states that:Another claims:
In the 11 months I've been here I've never once seen a female contractor with a burned face. In a compact place like this with only one mess hall I or one of my guys would certainly have noticed someone like that. There are a few female contractors, I think maybe a dozen, but none fit the horrific description given in that article. Further, I've personally seen guys threatened with severe physical harm for making jokes of any kind about IED victims given the number of casualties all the units on this FOB have sustained. It is not a subject we take lightly.
Another soldier (an officer whose ID I have positively identified but whose name I do not have permission to publish) who has been at FOB Falcon since March describes the claims of Thomas as "total nonsense." The New Republic must establish the following if they intend to continue claiming that this story of abuse by Thomas is true. They must produce the year, month, and week that this attack took place, and make this time public knowledge. If the New Republic cannot or will not release the time-frame during which the claimed assault took place, then there is no way for the military and agencies employing contractors at FOB Falcon to check their logs to prove or disprove the existence of a severely wounded soldier or contractor matching the description provided by Thomas. The only reason for the New Republic not to release this information is to cover up the distinct possibility that Thomas' claims is false. If the New Republic wants its readers to believe it is operating honestly and ethically, they cannot refuse to release the date of the alleged assault as precisely and as soon as possible. Tuesday, July 24, while an arbitrary date, is a reasonable release date for this information, as the New Republic claims to have been investigating the claims made by Thomas for nearly a week, and they should have already acquired this information prior to the story's publication. Another claim made by Thomas in his third dispatch to the New Republic is that his unit, while spending several weeks building a combat outpost southwest of Baghdad, uncovered a mass grave containing the remains of children, presumably from the time of Saddam Hussein's reign. Thomas then claims that an extended desecration of the bodies was perpetrated by a fellow soldier, without fellow soldiers, more senior enlisted men, of officers stepping in. Returning once again to the blog of combat correspondent Matt Sanchez, we encounter the claim from FOB Falcon PAO Major Luedeke there were no mass graves uncovered during the construction of any combat outposts in the Rashid District, at any time. This strong refutation is a definitive statement by a U.S. Army soldier, for the public record.
I was based at Falcon last year for six months with the 101st Airborne. I never saw a woman who fits Thomas's description. That's not conclusive since I haven't been there for almost eight months.
If the New Republic wishes to continue to stand behind this Thomas claim, they have no choice but to publicly publish the name and location of the combat outpost where the mass grave is supposed to exist. I am fairly certain that if the New Republic were to make this information available, that the United States military would be very interested in exhuming those who fell at Saddam's brutal hands so that they could be given a proper, dignified burial. Further, I'm reasonably confident that the military would allow the media to document the exhumation and reburial... if such a mass grave exists. Once again, the only plausible reason for the New Republic to not release the name of the combat outpost and the location of the mass grave in question, is to obfuscate whether or not Thomas is providing the New Republic with an accurate account, or a clever work of fiction. As the New Republic should probably have already obtained the name of the base and the location of the alleged mass grave prior to publication, and would certainly ask for this information during the course of their investigation into Thomas' claims, a Tuesday, July 24 deadline to publish this information seems quite reasonable. In my mind, Thomas' third claim, that a private took great joy in smashing a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) through curbs, concrete barriers, and market stalls, along with using the vehicle to deftly attack and kill dogs with the vehicle's tracks, is too absurd to even need further refutation. While apparently a claim that the New Republic was willing to publish based upon Thomas' credibility, it ignores the fact that Bradley drivers are not left unattended to use their vehicles as destructive playthings as they see fit. A driver follows the orders of his vehicle commander, who must protect the lives of his crew and the soldiers in the fire team the IFV carries. Further, Bradley IFVs rarely, if ever, operate alone. Bradleys typically operate in the support of larger American formations involving other Bradley IFVs, American Abrams tanks, Stryker armored vehicles, Humvees, other medium and heavy trucks, and squads, platoons, and companies of soldiers. For Thomas' claims to be true regarding this driver, it would probably require that dozens of soldiers and their commanders repeatedly allow their lives to be needlessly risked and their mission subverted, so that one sadistic, destructive driver could attempt canine homicide. Thomas' story would also require that the driver and vehicle perform at or beyond a Bradley IFV's upper limits of performance, stealth, vision, maneuverability, and structural strengths. There is no evidence that the New Republic can produce to substantiate this claimed series of atrocities short of unedited videotaped footage showing the vehicle and driver performing these incredible acts. And so we we are left asking the New Republic to answer two very basic, very simple questions that any journalism student should have been able to answer before publishing a similar story:
- When did the verbal assault take place on the badly-burned woman at FOB Falcon?
- What was the name and location of the combat outpost where a mass grave was discovered?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:50 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm one of the TNR subscribers who took Scott Thomas' essay at face value. After reading the back page of that issue, I thought, "How depressing!" It didn't occur to me that the story might be fabricated.
CY, thanks for boiling it down to two key questions. Editor Franklin Foer needs to answer them frankly and completely, or my subscription ends. If Scott Thomas' reports are faked, it means that TNR has learned nothing from the Steven Glass forgery episodes.
How depressing.
CY, thanks for boiling it down to two key questions. Editor Franklin Foer needs to answer them frankly and completely, or my subscription ends. If Scott Thomas' reports are faked, it means that TNR has learned nothing from the Steven Glass forgery episodes.
How depressing.
Posted by: AMac at July 23, 2007 11:12 AM (Djzc+)
2
At this writing, the most recent "The Plank" (TNR's in-house blog) post on 'Scott Thomas,' dated 7/20/07, is Note to Readers, penned by TNR Editor Franklin Foer. A repost of Confederate Yankee's questions and a link to this post are now there, as comment 142 (2007-07-23 12:22pm).
We will see what happens next.
We will see what happens next.
Posted by: AMac at July 23, 2007 11:30 AM (Djzc+)
3
I'm sure our left wing friends here will no doubt continue to provide cover for this, under their contention that "he's just mistaken".
Posted by: Conservative CBU at July 23, 2007 11:34 AM (La7YV)
4
More like fake but accurate
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 23, 2007 11:50 AM (Lgw9b)
5
Thomas, formerly an Iraqi policeman unnoficially reporting for the AP, has transferred to the US Army, and is now unnoficially reporting for TNR.
Posted by: davod at July 23, 2007 12:14 PM (llh3A)
6
Excellent questions, Bob. I linked.
Excellent questions, Bob. I linked.
Posted by: Bill Faith at July 23, 2007 01:18 PM (n7SaI)
7
Amac
Excellent response to the "nothing to see here folks" comments. I was surprised at the number of people who kept referring to errors/lies of conservatives as if that excused the startling lack of journalistic integrity on the part of TNR in this matter.
Excellent response to the "nothing to see here folks" comments. I was surprised at the number of people who kept referring to errors/lies of conservatives as if that excused the startling lack of journalistic integrity on the part of TNR in this matter.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 23, 2007 01:48 PM (i1CPC)
8
There are some interesting comments on the TNR board. Quite a few people claiming the Fake But Accurate / but Bush lied and he is the Debil defense, but many others just want to get to the bottom of the story. Although I do object to the comment that most of the blogs questioning the story are "conservative", rather I think most of the blogs are "pro-military".
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 23, 2007 03:41 PM (oC8nQ)
9
A female contractor is badly burned by an IED in Iraq...and she is still there? still working? Her face was "melted" but her eyes, ears, and mouth were not damaged enough so she could just keep on working? What a remarkable recovery. Makes reporter Bob Woodruff look like a wuss. Good thing he came home so those mean soldiers couldn't make fun of him. I could belive they could have made fun of her if she was just ugly, but this?, knowing the next IED could be going off in their face? Or perhaps the fist of the beefy seargent sitting at the next table. This stuff is only for the people pre-disposed to belive it in the first place.
Posted by: G. Scott at July 23, 2007 04:02 PM (oUtPC)
10
G Scott, you are entirely correct. The people who printed it wanted to believe it.
Posted by: Matt Sanchez at July 23, 2007 04:11 PM (DCZjr)
Posted by: Mikey NTH at July 23, 2007 05:15 PM (kAnhF)
12
Sounds like Eve Fairbanks is doing double duty at The New Republic. Google on "Fairbanksing" to see what I mean.
Posted by: Guy Montag at July 23, 2007 06:22 PM (otDb3)
13
I will personally vouch for the veracity of the Scott Thomas stories.
Posted by: Jesse MacBeth at July 23, 2007 07:34 PM (bV8PN)
14
At "The Plank," commenter GinaRenee linked to a brief story (reg. req'd) in the 7/24/07 NYT.
http://tinyurl.com/2udfzc
--begin excerpt--
[Mr. Foer] said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
--end excerpt--
Near certainty.
http://tinyurl.com/2udfzc
--begin excerpt--
[Mr. Foer] said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
--end excerpt--
Near certainty.
Posted by: AMac at July 23, 2007 09:37 PM (Djzc+)
15
Humorously, the commenting software's antispam filter wouldn't let me post a longer quote from Mr. Foer from that article.
FWIW.
FWIW.
Posted by: AMac at July 23, 2007 09:46 PM (Djzc+)
16
[BohicaTwentyTwo at July 23, 2007 03:41 PM]
There was a comment at The Plank early on that I thought very good, Bohica. It was this one (#9):
posted by Fithian on 2007-07-20 20:12:38
There was a comment at The Plank early on that I thought very good, Bohica. It was this one (#9):
posted by Fithian on 2007-07-20 20:12:38
Posted by: Dusty at July 23, 2007 09:51 PM (GJLeQ)
17
Here is another question for TNR: Do you plan to publish articles by Scott Thomas in the future? If not, why not?
Posted by: pete Brown at July 23, 2007 10:17 PM (5lo6Q)
18
[Posted by: AMac at July 23, 2007 09:37 PM]
Amac, it seems weird to me that, 1) Scott Thomas is an "active duty soldier in Iraq doing 20-hour active combat missions" and 2) He [Foer] said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.
(to be continued)
Amac, it seems weird to me that, 1) Scott Thomas is an "active duty soldier in Iraq doing 20-hour active combat missions" and 2) He [Foer] said that he had met the writer and that he knows with "near certainty" that he is, in fact, a soldier.
(to be continued)
Posted by: Dusty at July 23, 2007 10:22 PM (GJLeQ)
19
(rest after spam filter testing)
I'd say obviously that Foer does not know him as a friend or acquaintance because it's only a "near certainty". So he only knows of him but did meet him. Did he know of him before he met him? If so, how and by who? But more importantly, is when did he meet him. Before Thomas left for Iraq or did Foer go to Iraq to meet him? Maybe neither but so as to not leave any possibility unconsidered, did Foer meet Thomas by online video hookup?
Maybe the last is Foer's "near certainty". I hope so, because I doubt very much that Foer went to Iraq to meet Thomas and if I were Foer I wouldn't want to live through the effort of explaining that he met the guy sending TNR these dispatches before he left for Iraq.
I'd say obviously that Foer does not know him as a friend or acquaintance because it's only a "near certainty". So he only knows of him but did meet him. Did he know of him before he met him? If so, how and by who? But more importantly, is when did he meet him. Before Thomas left for Iraq or did Foer go to Iraq to meet him? Maybe neither but so as to not leave any possibility unconsidered, did Foer meet Thomas by online video hookup?
Maybe the last is Foer's "near certainty". I hope so, because I doubt very much that Foer went to Iraq to meet Thomas and if I were Foer I wouldn't want to live through the effort of explaining that he met the guy sending TNR these dispatches before he left for Iraq.
Posted by: Dusty at July 23, 2007 10:24 PM (GJLeQ)
20
Dusty,
The narrative isn't holding together so well at this point. Mr. Foer seems to be trying to avoid the First Rule of Holes, but the pressure to say something seems to make that more difficult for him.
Yeah, "Fithian's" comment #9 at The Plank lists many of the things that the Non-Pajama-Clad ought to have done in this case... prior to publication. Obviously they didn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Especially galling for a highbrow magazine that's been repeatedly pwned on this very subject. How many lives do you get... fewer than nine, I expect. Averting the credibility plunge must be what the publisher and editors are wracking their brains about tonight.
Well, TNR still has some great book reviews, and essays from the likes of Paul Berman. They don't require fact-checking, anyway. At least not as much.
The narrative isn't holding together so well at this point. Mr. Foer seems to be trying to avoid the First Rule of Holes, but the pressure to say something seems to make that more difficult for him.
Yeah, "Fithian's" comment #9 at The Plank lists many of the things that the Non-Pajama-Clad ought to have done in this case... prior to publication. Obviously they didn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Especially galling for a highbrow magazine that's been repeatedly pwned on this very subject. How many lives do you get... fewer than nine, I expect. Averting the credibility plunge must be what the publisher and editors are wracking their brains about tonight.
Well, TNR still has some great book reviews, and essays from the likes of Paul Berman. They don't require fact-checking, anyway. At least not as much.
Posted by: AMac at July 23, 2007 10:42 PM (Djzc+)
Posted by: John Ray at July 24, 2007 02:49 AM (voziC)
July 20, 2007
The Previous Libel of the New Republic's Scott Thomas
Michael Goldfarb, who been leading the charge against suspicious and apparently false reporting by the New Republic's "Scott Thomas," posts some interesting content from a previous Thomas story:
Many people have keyed in on the fact that no Glock pistol (or any modern mass-produced commercial or military firearm, for that matter) has ever fired a 9mm cartridge that had a square case rim as "Thomas" so poorlyand inaccurately wrote here. What Thomas was ineptly trying to describe is that the striker of Glock pistols can leaved a squared mark on the primer of a fired shell, as opposed to the more common rounded edges of marks of firing pins of most other pistols. But far more damning than Thomas' incompetence is the demonstrably false assertion he made that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police." Glock pistols have been on the commercial market for decades, and are quite common worldwide. Glocks are a common and favored handgun on the Iraqi black market:
Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.
There are literally dozens of stories of Glock pistols being recovered from insurgents, terrorists, and militiamen. They have been captured in cordon-and-search operations, in targeted raids, in weapons caches, and of course, from the dead and wounded in violent confrontations. American soldiers have them, as do civilian contractors from many nations in many lines of work. Ordinary Iraqi civilans (men and women) buy them to protect their families as well. Glock are quite likely the most ubiquious handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all. For "Scott Thomas" to claim that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police" is laughable, and coming from someone who claims to be a United State soldier in Iraq who would certainly know that to be a false statement, is perhaps as clear an audacious a display of willfully libeling the Iraqi police as has been written in the American media.
Glock pistols were also easy to find. One young Iraqi man, Rebwar Mustafa, showed a Glock 19 he had bought at the bazaar in Kirkuk last year for $900. Five of his friends have bought identical models, he said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:00 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hmmm. Surprisingly, the authors "skull" story is eerily similar to this incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412624&in_page_id=1770
Maybe he is just a plagiarizing moron?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412624&in_page_id=1770
Maybe he is just a plagiarizing moron?
Posted by: Enlightened at July 20, 2007 05:40 PM (CHJ2J)
2
Glocks are common. This Thomas fellow just flat out lied. Looks like he has some answering to do. And apologizing to do.
Posted by: brando at July 20, 2007 05:54 PM (rDQC9)
3
We found out Scott Thomas was supposed to be out of Camp Falcon, Baghdad. I was there earlier this month so I contacted to the PAO officer to verify the details. Namely the grave site etc... His response? Below. We'll try to get a comment from the New Republic.
Major Kirk Luedeke
Public Affairs Officer
4th IBCT, 1st ID
DRAGONS
Here are the facts as best I have established them, along with the actions I have taken here at Falcon.
1. I was notified of the New Republic blog entries yesterday (Friday) by documentarian JD Johannes, who had spent time with us as an embed in May. He was concerned about the reports, but also expressed doubt in their veracity. He provided the New Republic and Weekly Standard response to the blog entry links.
2. I was able to immediately refute the assertion that a mass graveyard of children's skeletons was found; an event such as this would have been reported during the construction of Coalition Outpost Ellis, the only such COP that exists in the area the blogger described (rural, south of BIAP).
3. The stories of the burned woman and hitting dogs with Bradleys can't be as decisively disputed, however, I have not encountered a woman matching that description at any time on Falcon since arriving here on 17 Feb. You would think that someone with such visible wounds would stand out in memorable fashion. This doesn't mean that she wasn't a visitor at some point, but I find the account of Soldiers mocking her dubious at best.
4. I immediately notified MAJ Lamb of MND-B PAO, who advised me to send him the link and pertinent information on the New Republic's blog posts, which I did. He informed me of his intent to engage the CENTCOM blog team to see if they could take action, and at the very least, make them aware of the situation.
5. I contacted the only unit in our brigade that has Bradleys, 1-18 IN, and advised their XO of the situation, recommending that they talk to their Soldiers about Army values and the Warrior ethos, reminding them of the rules for blogging in uniform and also reminding them of integrity and telling the truth. The bottom line: If you put something out there you should be willing to put your name next to it and stand by it. That he and New Rpublic are insisting on anonymity is very telling here.
Per COL Boylan's request, I have prepared the following:
1. There was no mass grave found during the construction of any of our coalition outposts in the Rashid District at any time. Such a discovery would have prompted an investigation and close attention paid at levels higher than ours to making sure that the victims were properly interred and attempts would have been made to determine their identities. It is difficult to fathom that a unit's leadership would condone Soldiers disrespecting the remains of anyone in the fashion described.
2. Due to the threat of IEDs, our combat vehicles are driven professionally and in control at all times. To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle's crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren't allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are *not* allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.
3. As for the alleged woman with severe burn scars, we have nobody matching that description here at FOB Falcon. As Soldiers, we practice the value of Respect: "Treat people as you want to be treated." If the blogger and his friends can't live the Army value of respect, I have little doubt that someone around them who does would have made an on-the-spot correction. The Falcon dining facility is not a spacious one. Anyone being rude, loud or raucous calls immediate attention to himself. It is hard to fathom that anyone would be able to get away with such callous behavior without somebody intervening and stopping it from happening.
Major Kirk Luedeke
Public Affairs Officer
4th IBCT, 1st ID
DRAGONS
Here are the facts as best I have established them, along with the actions I have taken here at Falcon.
1. I was notified of the New Republic blog entries yesterday (Friday) by documentarian JD Johannes, who had spent time with us as an embed in May. He was concerned about the reports, but also expressed doubt in their veracity. He provided the New Republic and Weekly Standard response to the blog entry links.
2. I was able to immediately refute the assertion that a mass graveyard of children's skeletons was found; an event such as this would have been reported during the construction of Coalition Outpost Ellis, the only such COP that exists in the area the blogger described (rural, south of BIAP).
3. The stories of the burned woman and hitting dogs with Bradleys can't be as decisively disputed, however, I have not encountered a woman matching that description at any time on Falcon since arriving here on 17 Feb. You would think that someone with such visible wounds would stand out in memorable fashion. This doesn't mean that she wasn't a visitor at some point, but I find the account of Soldiers mocking her dubious at best.
4. I immediately notified MAJ Lamb of MND-B PAO, who advised me to send him the link and pertinent information on the New Republic's blog posts, which I did. He informed me of his intent to engage the CENTCOM blog team to see if they could take action, and at the very least, make them aware of the situation.
5. I contacted the only unit in our brigade that has Bradleys, 1-18 IN, and advised their XO of the situation, recommending that they talk to their Soldiers about Army values and the Warrior ethos, reminding them of the rules for blogging in uniform and also reminding them of integrity and telling the truth. The bottom line: If you put something out there you should be willing to put your name next to it and stand by it. That he and New Rpublic are insisting on anonymity is very telling here.
Per COL Boylan's request, I have prepared the following:
1. There was no mass grave found during the construction of any of our coalition outposts in the Rashid District at any time. Such a discovery would have prompted an investigation and close attention paid at levels higher than ours to making sure that the victims were properly interred and attempts would have been made to determine their identities. It is difficult to fathom that a unit's leadership would condone Soldiers disrespecting the remains of anyone in the fashion described.
2. Due to the threat of IEDs, our combat vehicles are driven professionally and in control at all times. To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle's crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren't allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are *not* allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.
3. As for the alleged woman with severe burn scars, we have nobody matching that description here at FOB Falcon. As Soldiers, we practice the value of Respect: "Treat people as you want to be treated." If the blogger and his friends can't live the Army value of respect, I have little doubt that someone around them who does would have made an on-the-spot correction. The Falcon dining facility is not a spacious one. Anyone being rude, loud or raucous calls immediate attention to himself. It is hard to fathom that anyone would be able to get away with such callous behavior without somebody intervening and stopping it from happening.
Posted by: Matt Sanchez at July 21, 2007 12:50 PM (DCZjr)
4
Isn't it possible that he's just wrong, without the underlying conspiracy scenario?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 21, 2007 12:50 PM (DHM3K)
5
Hey Doc:
What Planet you on?
One isn't "Wrong" when they are telling lies. Especially when they are making verifiable wrong statements like Square Casings (sounds like he doesn't even know about hand guns at all).
No conspiracy needed when some one lies and someone else publishes it without checking facts.
A prime difference in "reporting":
Micheal Yon reported about AQ roasting children to terrorize and control vilagers...an has said several times that he does not know for sure, the story's truth, only that the teller was certain about it. He has never tried to pass it off as anything but an unverified story.
AP and Ruters regularly report horror stories about sectarian violence or AQ successes from unnamed and unverifiable sources without a single attempt to fact check. Yet when Yon allows them to have, for free, a story with GPS coordinates, names of U.S. military officers, ISF officers, Pictures, Dates, and much more, they refuse to run it because they didn't get a press release from MNF-I, so it is unverified in their eyes. They even had a reporter in the same area that could have verifies it for them.
"Scott Thomas" would not simply be wrong, he'd be knowingly lying.
What Planet you on?
One isn't "Wrong" when they are telling lies. Especially when they are making verifiable wrong statements like Square Casings (sounds like he doesn't even know about hand guns at all).
No conspiracy needed when some one lies and someone else publishes it without checking facts.
A prime difference in "reporting":
Micheal Yon reported about AQ roasting children to terrorize and control vilagers...an has said several times that he does not know for sure, the story's truth, only that the teller was certain about it. He has never tried to pass it off as anything but an unverified story.
AP and Ruters regularly report horror stories about sectarian violence or AQ successes from unnamed and unverifiable sources without a single attempt to fact check. Yet when Yon allows them to have, for free, a story with GPS coordinates, names of U.S. military officers, ISF officers, Pictures, Dates, and much more, they refuse to run it because they didn't get a press release from MNF-I, so it is unverified in their eyes. They even had a reporter in the same area that could have verifies it for them.
"Scott Thomas" would not simply be wrong, he'd be knowingly lying.
Posted by: JP at July 21, 2007 02:33 PM (VxiFL)
6
Also, there is no accusation of an "underlying conspiracy scenario". Just journalists and their editors doing what they have been caught doing before and in some cases, proudly admitting to; faking and slanting news to portray what they feel must be reality somewhere or to shape public opinion so that it matches their desire (see the left wing Israeli broadcasters proudly admitting that they slanted coverage to make Israel favor withdrawal from south Lebanon some years back. The guy writing this would not even need to talk to his editor to get this to work since the editor wants a good anti-troops story and the writer and his imaginary soldier don't need to be talkative.
No underlying conspiracy scenario, just journalism as we have come to know it.
No underlying conspiracy scenario, just journalism as we have come to know it.
Posted by: Saul Wall at July 21, 2007 04:14 PM (hgX7d)
7
Isn't it possible that he's just wrong
Sure - the rest of the world call that "propaganda" and "lies" rather than "just wrong" though.
Sure - the rest of the world call that "propaganda" and "lies" rather than "just wrong" though.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 21, 2007 04:28 PM (U3ts2)
8
Methinks someone has swallowed the bait from a Jihadist blogger:
http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogspot.com/2007/07/jihadi-trolls-and-bloggers.html
http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogspot.com/2007/07/jihadi-trolls-and-bloggers.html
Posted by: Snooper at July 21, 2007 09:39 PM (5XN2t)
9
Tell you what, Doc. You concede that the "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra your side chants is also a bunch of propaganda, and we'll think about it.
Posted by: SDN at July 22, 2007 12:22 AM (fXLhU)
10
Hmmmm.
Anybody who makes such claims under the shield of anonymity must be held to a much higher standard.
Anybody who makes such claims under the shield of anonymity must be held to a much higher standard.
Posted by: memomachine at July 22, 2007 01:21 AM (0aIoB)
A Matter of Lessening Credibility
I just sent the following to letters@tnr.com:
Update: Does anyone know Richard Peters? Stationed at Camp Falcon from "15 Nov 05 - 18 Nov 06," I'd be willing to bet that if Iraq Veterans Against the War Member Peters has heard or witnessed the stories told by Thomas, then he'd probably be more than willing to share or confirm them.
Dear The New Republic, I just finished re-reading the claims made in Shock Troops, an article by "Scott Thomas" in The New Republic containing very inflammatory, very hard to believe claims. TNR states that Thomas is a pseudonym for someone that claims to be a soldier operating in Iraq. An active duty officer currently serving at Camp Falcon considers the Thomas stories "absolute nonsense." Highly-respected Iraq War combat journalist Michael Yon, who has embedded with the 1-4 Cav stationed at Camp Falcon, emailed me a while ago to state that the story "sounds like complete garbage." But perhaps more problematic for TNR are the biological, medical, and forensic improbabilities--and what some experts consider absolute mechanical impossibilities--of the stories told by this author. I am forced to conclude that the claims made by "Scott Thomas" are either gross exaggerations or outright lies that TNR editors could have easily verified before publishing this inflammatory article if they were interested in publishing an account that meets assumed journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and editorial integrity. Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? If so, did they receive such documentation, and did New Republic editors make an attempt to verify the accuracy of that documentation? Considering not dissimilar and thoroughly debunked claims by fake Ranger and former member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) Jesse MacBeth, this would be the only prudent first reaction upon reading such dramatic claims as those made by Thomas, especially considering TNR's own Stephen Glass problem. Did it ever cross the minds of New Republic editors to determine the approximate date that the burned woman in the dining facility was verbally brutalized by Thomas? Did it ever occur to the New Republic to check with the military to see if such a person existed at that base, at that time, or ever? Did the New Republic ask for verification of the mass grave discovered at the site of a combat outpost south of Baghdad, to see if the story was even possible? Did it not seem unlikely to NR editors from even the fictional television forensic dramas such as CSI, that Saddam-era mass graves would contain extremely decomposed bodies, not those like the author claimed were still rotting? Did it ever occur to any New Republic editor to contact someone who is an expert on Bradley IFVs--say, the companies who build them, the soldiers that drive and them, etc--to see if Thomas claims of being able to attack dogs and structures in such a manner are even technically possible? Former Bradley drivers and other tracked vehicle personnel have all stated Thomas' claims verge from improbable to impossible. But beyond merely fact-checking Thomas' series of suspicious and unlikely claims, where was an opposing viewpoint? Where is even the appearance of journalistic objectivity in this article? To borrow a phrase from another periodical with apparently similar standards, "enquiring minds want to know."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:09 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
From The Editor's Desk Of The New Republic:
Dear Mr. Owens,
Please rest assured that the stories retold by Mr. "Scott Thomas" are 100% true. While we didn't have time to verify every single part of his story, we did speak to several dogs from Iraq who have actually witnessed some of their fellow dogs getting run over by US soldiers in Bradley Fighting Vehicles. If you wish, we can supply you with the names and telephone numbers of these dogs and you can speak to them yourself. We only request that you do not tell anyone the names of these dogs or their telephone numbers either. I sincerely hope that I've put all your doubts to rest. Please keep in mind that we at the 'New Republic' take pride in running a legitimate operation, and we certainly would not have published this story without first confirming it with an eye-witnees dog. We are not the AP!
Sincerely yours,
Doug Bradley
Editor In Chief
The New Republic
Dear Mr. Owens,
Please rest assured that the stories retold by Mr. "Scott Thomas" are 100% true. While we didn't have time to verify every single part of his story, we did speak to several dogs from Iraq who have actually witnessed some of their fellow dogs getting run over by US soldiers in Bradley Fighting Vehicles. If you wish, we can supply you with the names and telephone numbers of these dogs and you can speak to them yourself. We only request that you do not tell anyone the names of these dogs or their telephone numbers either. I sincerely hope that I've put all your doubts to rest. Please keep in mind that we at the 'New Republic' take pride in running a legitimate operation, and we certainly would not have published this story without first confirming it with an eye-witnees dog. We are not the AP!
Sincerely yours,
Doug Bradley
Editor In Chief
The New Republic
Posted by: Doug Bradley at July 20, 2007 04:48 AM (Vp1bn)
2
To borrow a phrase from another periodical with apparently similar standards, "enquiring minds want to know."
Ouch, that's gotta smart.
Ouch, that's gotta smart.
Posted by: brainy435 at July 20, 2007 08:53 AM (ozLpz)
3
We need to figure out which Combat Outpost near FOB Falcon is also a mass grave site. If only for hygiene reasons, as having a bunch of troops living, eating and sleeping with bits rotten flesh laying around can't be very safe.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 20, 2007 09:03 AM (oC8nQ)
4
Bob,
In the flurry of emails which I was copied on, someone, perhaps you, made the point that any one of these stories is highly improbable -- unless TNR WANTED to believe them.
Furthermore, if the author really were an actual soldier/veteran, he/she wouldn't have made such obvious blunders.
"I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq. She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor."
What utter nonsense. That's a contradiction in terms. The very purpose of uniforms is to IDENTIFY. After the chow hall bombing it is highly unlikely that anyone would be allowed to enter in an "unrecognizable" uniform, nor would a real soldier write such a stupid thing.
In the flurry of emails which I was copied on, someone, perhaps you, made the point that any one of these stories is highly improbable -- unless TNR WANTED to believe them.
Furthermore, if the author really were an actual soldier/veteran, he/she wouldn't have made such obvious blunders.
"I saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq. She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor."
What utter nonsense. That's a contradiction in terms. The very purpose of uniforms is to IDENTIFY. After the chow hall bombing it is highly unlikely that anyone would be allowed to enter in an "unrecognizable" uniform, nor would a real soldier write such a stupid thing.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 20, 2007 09:13 AM (d1qfW)
5
Tehran - Mr. Owens;
As you know I am a very, very busy man, but I manage to cover a lot of territory in Iraq. I can assure you that the incidents reported in TNR are, absolutely, categorically, 100% the truth. How, you may ask, do I know this. I was an eyewitness for each of the incidents described. Surely my word is good enough to vouch for the accuracy of the statements.
If you need any more information, please contact me through the Associated Press. They are the only ones who know how to get in touch with me.
As you know I am a very, very busy man, but I manage to cover a lot of territory in Iraq. I can assure you that the incidents reported in TNR are, absolutely, categorically, 100% the truth. How, you may ask, do I know this. I was an eyewitness for each of the incidents described. Surely my word is good enough to vouch for the accuracy of the statements.
If you need any more information, please contact me through the Associated Press. They are the only ones who know how to get in touch with me.
Posted by: Jamil Hussein at July 20, 2007 10:46 AM (0pZel)
6
You know, screw Scott Thomas or whatever his real name is. If there is one fact that I want to verify out of his entire story, it is to find out who this woman is? Odds are, she doesn't exist, but if she does, I am in awe of her courage and fortitude. To suffer such terrible injuries and then to come back, man. We need to find this woman and throw her a parade or something.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 20, 2007 02:26 PM (oC8nQ)
7
We all know that liberals have a seething rage of our military. It can't really come as much of a surprise that after 4 years they would be smearing our troops. How long did it take Kerry to smear our soldiers in 1971? Liberals can only fake their "support the troops" for so long.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 20, 2007 03:59 PM (Lgw9b)
8
CY - I just posted this to the new thread -
The authors story about the "skull" is eerily similar to this incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412624&in_page_id=1770
Maybe NR has a plagiarizing idiot on board?
The authors story about the "skull" is eerily similar to this incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412624&in_page_id=1770
Maybe NR has a plagiarizing idiot on board?
Posted by: Enlightened at July 20, 2007 05:43 PM (CHJ2J)
9
Well, sadly there is evidence that US soldiers have killed dogs in Iraq by shooting them, or have taunted a crippled dog by throwing rocks at it. Videos are out there. And there were orders to kill stray dogs on US bases - so it is entirely possible that some dog killing is going on. The tank incident is not that far of a stretch, but perhaps the author embellished stories already out there.
Posted by: Enlightened at July 20, 2007 06:23 PM (CHJ2J)
10
To borrow a phrase from another periodical with apparently similar standards, "enquiring minds want to know."
Now that's going too far!! The National Enquirer would never run a story this thinly sourced!
Now that's going too far!! The National Enquirer would never run a story this thinly sourced!
Posted by: Random Numbers at July 20, 2007 09:50 PM (ckQml)
11
I can recall him recounting in the chow hall incident that his freind says "i cant eat like this" and he replies "like what? chow hall food getting you down?" I dont believe that a real solder on base in iraq would even ask a question like that. My brother who was recently stationed there calls it kbr heaven, absolutly the best chow he has had anywhere bar none.
Posted by: kevin at July 21, 2007 02:26 PM (VG7jk)
12
It does make you wonder doesn't it? How much of what the MSM reports have been lies over the years? Before there was the internet there was no real fact checking. I suspect these folks have been lying for a very long time in support of their political agenda.
What's it called? "Troothiness"? "Fake but Accurate"? If it helps the agenda, which is of course why we write what we write, it must be, in some sense "true".
What's it called? "Troothiness"? "Fake but Accurate"? If it helps the agenda, which is of course why we write what we write, it must be, in some sense "true".
Posted by: Increase Mather at July 21, 2007 04:40 PM (b4EcB)
13
We all know that liberals have a seething rage of our military.
Just at a guess, Capitalist Infidel, I'd say that you aren't a reliable source on anything a liberal actually thinks.
We all know that liberals have a seething rage of our military.
Just at a guess, Capitalist Infidel, I'd say that you aren't a reliable source on anything a liberal actually thinks.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 21, 2007 10:38 PM (3tx9R)
14
Aren't these the same people who keep insisting they support the troops? Aren't these the same people who keep insisting Bush is lying about Iraq?
The hypocrisy is how loud they yell at what they perceive as others messing up the facts and then so nonchalantly keep doing this stuff (TIME and NEWSWEEK have as well).
Tanji had a great comment that if TNR can corroborate their story he'd get a subscription. I don't they will though.
The hypocrisy is how loud they yell at what they perceive as others messing up the facts and then so nonchalantly keep doing this stuff (TIME and NEWSWEEK have as well).
Tanji had a great comment that if TNR can corroborate their story he'd get a subscription. I don't they will though.
Posted by: Mark E. at July 22, 2007 11:24 AM (W4zkU)
15
This is so disgusting! My son is at FOB Falcon right now. He's been there a year and has been extended and will be there at least until the Fall.
He has told me there are NO women at FOB Falcon. It's in a very violent, rough area and it's not the kind of FOB the press and politicians go to when they go over to Iraq. He's told me they only occasionally even see Iraqi women.
He's also mentioned to me that the food in the FOB is not bad (they call it D-FAC, not chow hall). I can't imagine them complaining about the food when they have so many other things to complain about there.
It really angers me when I have a little bit of a clue of what those guys are dealing with - although I'm certain my son doesn't tell me everything.
I do know they have to account for every time they fire their weapons. They don't just go around randomly shooting up dogs or anything else.
They CERTAINLY don't think there's a thing funny about IEDs. That particular group has suffered heavy casualties and I've never heard one hint of humor when they are talking about IEDs. There's nothing funny about them to me - I'm absolutely sure the guys that live there don't think there's anything funny about them.
When I think of what my son and others are sacrificing to be there it just infuriates me for these idiots to slander them. They'd piss themselves spending one night there, much less a year or more.
He has told me there are NO women at FOB Falcon. It's in a very violent, rough area and it's not the kind of FOB the press and politicians go to when they go over to Iraq. He's told me they only occasionally even see Iraqi women.
He's also mentioned to me that the food in the FOB is not bad (they call it D-FAC, not chow hall). I can't imagine them complaining about the food when they have so many other things to complain about there.
It really angers me when I have a little bit of a clue of what those guys are dealing with - although I'm certain my son doesn't tell me everything.
I do know they have to account for every time they fire their weapons. They don't just go around randomly shooting up dogs or anything else.
They CERTAINLY don't think there's a thing funny about IEDs. That particular group has suffered heavy casualties and I've never heard one hint of humor when they are talking about IEDs. There's nothing funny about them to me - I'm absolutely sure the guys that live there don't think there's anything funny about them.
When I think of what my son and others are sacrificing to be there it just infuriates me for these idiots to slander them. They'd piss themselves spending one night there, much less a year or more.
Posted by: beth at July 22, 2007 05:45 PM (u79qt)
July 18, 2007
A Series of Highly Incredible Events
Has the greed of the New Republic for stories depicting our nation's soldiers as depraved barbarians led to a downfall of what little credibility the rag still maintained?
Writing today at the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb thinks he smells a rat in the writing of a man who claims to be a soldier currently serving in Iraq, discussing a series of brutal allegations concerning the alleged verbal abuse of a burn victim, the wearing of child's skull, and a dog-murdering Bradley IFV driver. Let's look at few problems with each of the claims of "Scott Thomas," the pseudonym of man who authored the New Republic article. The burn victim story.First, it is all but impossible for a U.S. soldier not to be able to determine the uniform differences between an active-duty soldier's unifrom and a civilian contractor's apparel. Second, it is highly unlikely that a person as horribly burned as the one described would be medically fit for active duty. Third, if two soldiers began taunting a wounded IED survivor, I think it quite likely that other soldiers would quickly and violently end their display. The child's skull story.
First, it is biologically improbable that a piece of a child's skull would fit on an adult human's head. Second, it biologically improbable that a Saddam-era mass grave in a hot desert country like Iraq would contain flesh that was still rotting. Third, it is highly unlikely that any military unit would stand for such behavior. The dog-murdering Bradley IFV driver.
The most preposterous story of all. IFV drivers don't run willy-nilly around and over everything in their path, and have to answer to his own vehicle commander, the rest of the crew, and any infantrymen carried by the vehicle if they make erratic, dangerous, and perhaps life-threatening decisions such as those claimed here. There is also the fact that Bradley's cannot slip up on a dog and run him over as claimed, and I find it highly unlikely that this Bradley is so nimble that the driver could repeatedly hit, wound and kill dogs, or that he would be allowed to repeatedly hit stationary objects, without being removed from his position by his immediate commander, his platoon commander, his company commander, or others. I think it is highly probable that each of these stories is false, and will be very interested to see if the New Republic can in anyway support these outlandish claims.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:35 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY:
The Left needs for these stories to be true because it upholds their sense that Iraq is an immoral cause and they are on a moral plane above all others. As to say: "See how good men are forced to do evil things when put into an immoral war. We are creating brutes who reflect the immorality of what they are doing by these evil acts."
Page 1 of the Leftist Vietnam playbook: Soldiers are mindless automatons who are: (1) babykillers who are innately immoral (caveat: except if you kill babies in the name of fighting a "brutal occupation", then, you are a liberator fighting oppression); or, (2) hapless dupes of evil leaders who exploit naive patriots and lead the good to their downfall for selfish and evil ends.
Only those of raised consciousness can, by opposing the enterprise, redeem the sins of the Republic (poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, individualism,mass consumerism and overall vulgarity). Example of fearless truthteller and holder of moral authority: St. Sheehan. Her son falls into category 2, hapless dupe of evil leaders.
In no way can a soldier be a free thinker EXCEPT when he opposes the effort. All others who support the effort are either
a) evil; (b)brainwashed; (c) stupid; or, (d) all of the above.
The Left needs for these stories to be true because it upholds their sense that Iraq is an immoral cause and they are on a moral plane above all others. As to say: "See how good men are forced to do evil things when put into an immoral war. We are creating brutes who reflect the immorality of what they are doing by these evil acts."
Page 1 of the Leftist Vietnam playbook: Soldiers are mindless automatons who are: (1) babykillers who are innately immoral (caveat: except if you kill babies in the name of fighting a "brutal occupation", then, you are a liberator fighting oppression); or, (2) hapless dupes of evil leaders who exploit naive patriots and lead the good to their downfall for selfish and evil ends.
Only those of raised consciousness can, by opposing the enterprise, redeem the sins of the Republic (poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, individualism,mass consumerism and overall vulgarity). Example of fearless truthteller and holder of moral authority: St. Sheehan. Her son falls into category 2, hapless dupe of evil leaders.
In no way can a soldier be a free thinker EXCEPT when he opposes the effort. All others who support the effort are either
a) evil; (b)brainwashed; (c) stupid; or, (d) all of the above.Posted by: wjo at July 19, 2007 12:26 AM (4Ax+G)
2
The last time New Republic was caught publishing fabricated stories, they insisted that Stephen Glass was such a genius that nobody could tell his articles were false.
Actually, his stories were often preposterous. They were a forest of red flags for any fully conscious editor. But they demonized conservatives, Christians, and Republicans, so they perfectly suited the prejudices of the New Republic staff. As WJO points out, the same defective machinery seems to be cranking away in this case.
If the editorial staff of a news magazine cannot tell whether they are publishing fact or fantasy, they should do something else. The Weekly World News is always looking for Ivy Leaguers with a low gullibility threshold.
Actually, his stories were often preposterous. They were a forest of red flags for any fully conscious editor. But they demonized conservatives, Christians, and Republicans, so they perfectly suited the prejudices of the New Republic staff. As WJO points out, the same defective machinery seems to be cranking away in this case.
If the editorial staff of a news magazine cannot tell whether they are publishing fact or fantasy, they should do something else. The Weekly World News is always looking for Ivy Leaguers with a low gullibility threshold.
Posted by: lyle at July 19, 2007 03:03 AM (XIU+w)
3
Oh, I suppose then that the photos of the GIs in the Vietnam War holding up the severed heads of Viet Cong were faked? some of you guys have such an idealized view of what the US Army is and what it does, you can't accept reality when it flies in the face of your expectations. War brutalizes. Everybody.
Posted by: Max at July 19, 2007 04:51 AM (VRb5p)
4
Max,
Where does your expertise come from? Let me guess: from political fiction exactly like the stuff published in the New Republic. Or from the succession of make-believe veterans embraced by the Left, like Jesse MacBeth.
It isn't brutality that makes these stories smell bad. It's the lack of real world context. In fiction, a recklessly sadistic Bradley driver answers only to the author. In real life, there's a whole military bureaucracy waiting back at the camp.
And that bit with the skull, besides being gross, is crap that only an adolescent idiot raised on Texas Chaisaw Massacre III would believe.
Where does your expertise come from? Let me guess: from political fiction exactly like the stuff published in the New Republic. Or from the succession of make-believe veterans embraced by the Left, like Jesse MacBeth.
It isn't brutality that makes these stories smell bad. It's the lack of real world context. In fiction, a recklessly sadistic Bradley driver answers only to the author. In real life, there's a whole military bureaucracy waiting back at the camp.
And that bit with the skull, besides being gross, is crap that only an adolescent idiot raised on Texas Chaisaw Massacre III would believe.
Posted by: lyle at July 19, 2007 05:42 AM (eb0k4)
5
Soldiers are coming back from Iraq and telling stories that are wildly different form the New Republic "Defeat and Demoralization" narrative, so they must be smeared and discredited as quickly and as thouroughly as possible.
Standard leftist tactics- when you can't refute the witnesses, call them nasty names.
Standard leftist tactics- when you can't refute the witnesses, call them nasty names.
Posted by: DaveP. at July 19, 2007 07:19 AM (u7vcv)
6
Maybe they've rehired David Glass.
TNR has a history of passing off fiction as fact. This may be another time. If my driver was trying to kill dogs, I'd shoot him myself.
TNR has a history of passing off fiction as fact. This may be another time. If my driver was trying to kill dogs, I'd shoot him myself.
Posted by: Tom at July 19, 2007 07:39 AM (QF4r0)
7
Here are my thought's on the article. The dog story seems odd. I think its possible that soldiers might be mentally capable of such creulty to animals, but I am not sure how physically possible it is with a tracked vehicle to do what he says. There are two ways to turn a tracked vehicle, you do a pivot turn or a skid turn. A pivot turn means you have one track in reverse and one in forward drive and you can do 360s in place. A skid turn is when you have one track moving fast and the other track moving slow or stopped. I can’t see how either method could be used to lure dogs in and try to run them over the way the writer describes. Another note I saw on another website is that the driver compartment on the Bradley is on the left side and visability of the right side of the vehicle is limited.
As a note, I am not an expert Bradley driver by trade, but I have driven them on occasion. Also, I have done extensive ground guiding of them to know what they can and cannot do. I’m not saying its impossible, just unlikely. I have a feeling these are stories that the author heard of, and not actually witnessed.
As a note, I am not an expert Bradley driver by trade, but I have driven them on occasion. Also, I have done extensive ground guiding of them to know what they can and cannot do. I’m not saying its impossible, just unlikely. I have a feeling these are stories that the author heard of, and not actually witnessed.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 19, 2007 08:06 AM (oC8nQ)
8
Hey Confederate Yankee, good for calling the AP out on their shoddy reporting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070706/cm_rcp/ap_takes_terrorists_over_solde
Matt Sanchez
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070706/cm_rcp/ap_takes_terrorists_over_solde
Matt Sanchez
Posted by: Matt Sanchez at July 19, 2007 08:19 AM (DCZjr)
9
A further point about the Glass fabrications. TNR does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have shown that they can be had, repeatedly, by an unscrupulous writer who caters to their menu of liberal bigotries.
Character is fate. If a known serial liar appears to be lying, he should not be treated with the same open mind as anybody else. The New Republic did not regain their virginity after Stephen Glass left the building.
Character is fate. If a known serial liar appears to be lying, he should not be treated with the same open mind as anybody else. The New Republic did not regain their virginity after Stephen Glass left the building.
Posted by: lyle at July 19, 2007 08:21 AM (i99vv)
10
There is also the fact that Bradley's cannot slip up on a dog and run him over as claimed, and I find it highly unlikely that this Bradley is so nimble that the driver could repeatedly hit, wound and kill dogs, or that he would be allowed to repeatedly hit stationary objects
Unless, of course, dhimmi LIEberals are actually going over to Iraq and chaining dogs down in the street specifically to make them tempting targets for Bradley drivers, which I wouldn't doubt for a second, because I once saw a LIEberal with a dog on a leash, which is the same skillset they'd have to use in their anti-Bradley dog-chaining conspiracy.
There is also the fact that Bradley's cannot slip up on a dog and run him over as claimed, and I find it highly unlikely that this Bradley is so nimble that the driver could repeatedly hit, wound and kill dogs, or that he would be allowed to repeatedly hit stationary objects
Unless, of course, dhimmi LIEberals are actually going over to Iraq and chaining dogs down in the street specifically to make them tempting targets for Bradley drivers, which I wouldn't doubt for a second, because I once saw a LIEberal with a dog on a leash, which is the same skillset they'd have to use in their anti-Bradley dog-chaining conspiracy.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 08:34 AM (4rFBV)
11
Nice group of assessments, CY. The info that has poured in as a result of the Weekly Standard request has put a lot of dents in veracity of Scott Thomas' *memories* and TNR's reputation is again diminished.
--------
[Posted by Matt Sanchez at July 19, 2007 08:19 AM]
Thanks to you, Matt, for that follow up post yesterday, confirming the '25 killed in Fallujah bombing' that wasn't. I didn't remember that one.
--------
[Posted by Matt Sanchez at July 19, 2007 08:19 AM]
Thanks to you, Matt, for that follow up post yesterday, confirming the '25 killed in Fallujah bombing' that wasn't. I didn't remember that one.
Posted by: Dusty at July 19, 2007 09:51 AM (GJLeQ)
12
Doc:
Has killing stray dogs now been elevated to a war crime? This story just reeks of the "any stick will do" when it comes to beating up on the USA so a little skeptisism is in order.
Has killing stray dogs now been elevated to a war crime? This story just reeks of the "any stick will do" when it comes to beating up on the USA so a little skeptisism is in order.
Posted by: wjo at July 19, 2007 10:20 AM (r6omM)
13
Let it be known I'm officially offering a $1,000 cash reward for any soldier who will step forward, authenticate these stories, and testify under oath at a court martial of the offenders.
I'm also pretty sure I'm going to be keeping my cash.
I'm also pretty sure I'm going to be keeping my cash.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 19, 2007 06:06 PM (KoyO/)
14
Has killing stray dogs now been elevated to a war crime?
I never suggested that it had been or should be.
Has killing stray dogs now been elevated to a war crime?
I never suggested that it had been or should be.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 07:15 PM (fB5mN)
Posted by: iconoclast at July 20, 2007 11:41 AM (TzLpv)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 20, 2007 01:28 PM (MlRhu)
17
Hello Doc and Max,
This is an Iraq Vet currently serving in Afghanistan. I told my wife I came here to be an Engineer for USACE but really, I just couldn't get used to the lack of opportunities to do evil back in Iowa. After I ran over one neighbor's dog, the rest just locked theirs up better. And the damn Humane Society, bunch o' nosy busy bodies! The Burn Unit was nice enough to believe I was writing an article for school but they kicked me out right in the middle of my rendition of "Melty, melty, mo-melty!"
You know, I fisked this story bit by bit. The story is not plausible for many reasons ranging from Article 93 of the UCMJ, to the fit of PASG helmet, to the property laws the military abides by in Iraq. But when I got to the fisking of Max at the end. I decided that was enough and deleted the rest. Read on.
"Oh, I suppose then that the photos of the GIs in the Vietnam War holding up the severed heads of Viet Cong were faked?" -Indicting current soldiers for the crimes of past ones? Seems reasonable...
"some of you guys have such an idealized view of what the US Army is and what it does, you can't accept reality when it flies in the face of your expectations."
And you believe this story because it meets your expectations; "War brutalizes. Everybody."
So rather than acknowledge the implausible and shocking nature of the events, you accept them wholly with no further proof than, what was the proof again?
I am getting tired of hearing what an immoral, stupid bastard I am for serving in the military from idiot liberals like you two. F*** both of you.
This is an Iraq Vet currently serving in Afghanistan. I told my wife I came here to be an Engineer for USACE but really, I just couldn't get used to the lack of opportunities to do evil back in Iowa. After I ran over one neighbor's dog, the rest just locked theirs up better. And the damn Humane Society, bunch o' nosy busy bodies! The Burn Unit was nice enough to believe I was writing an article for school but they kicked me out right in the middle of my rendition of "Melty, melty, mo-melty!"
You know, I fisked this story bit by bit. The story is not plausible for many reasons ranging from Article 93 of the UCMJ, to the fit of PASG helmet, to the property laws the military abides by in Iraq. But when I got to the fisking of Max at the end. I decided that was enough and deleted the rest. Read on.
"Oh, I suppose then that the photos of the GIs in the Vietnam War holding up the severed heads of Viet Cong were faked?" -Indicting current soldiers for the crimes of past ones? Seems reasonable...
"some of you guys have such an idealized view of what the US Army is and what it does, you can't accept reality when it flies in the face of your expectations."
And you believe this story because it meets your expectations; "War brutalizes. Everybody."
So rather than acknowledge the implausible and shocking nature of the events, you accept them wholly with no further proof than, what was the proof again?
I am getting tired of hearing what an immoral, stupid bastard I am for serving in the military from idiot liberals like you two. F*** both of you.
Posted by: y7 at July 21, 2007 05:18 AM (Cixed)
18
y7:
Actually, I was mocking the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy. However, if you choose to see my post as an indictment of your driving ability, I can't stop you.
Actually, I was mocking the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy. However, if you choose to see my post as an indictment of your driving ability, I can't stop you.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 21, 2007 08:35 AM (DHM3K)
19
In China, where I live, families will sometimes take the recently dead body of grandpa out at night and throw it under the wheels of a passing truck to try hush money from the driver for not calling the police to investigate him running over an old man.
How do we know that the Iraqi people were not doing the same with their dogs?
How do we know that the Iraqi people were not doing the same with their dogs?
Posted by: Fai Mao at July 21, 2007 10:19 AM (EWEBd)
20
Fai Mao;
Behold the ignorance of the Leftie!
Dogs are unclean in Islam. No Muslim has a dog. That's why they are all strays, feral. IP don't use "police dogs", there are no tracker dogs, no bomb-sniffing dogs. No domesticated dogs. Period. Got any clues yet, clueless?
Behold the ignorance of the Leftie!
Dogs are unclean in Islam. No Muslim has a dog. That's why they are all strays, feral. IP don't use "police dogs", there are no tracker dogs, no bomb-sniffing dogs. No domesticated dogs. Period. Got any clues yet, clueless?
Posted by: Brian H at July 21, 2007 08:30 PM (ahcA3)
21
Dik Waker;
Not faked, just selected. The filtering and fact-free jibing was continuous. E.g.: remember all the ridiculous "body count" numbers the V-era media mocked? After the "peace" had settled in for a while, the North confirmed them. They were all in the ballpark, often low. Especially in the Tet Offensive, which left the NVA in tatters.
Gorsh! So who could doubt a Mighty Selective Media maroon? Anyone with a functioning neuron. I suggest acquiring one.
Not faked, just selected. The filtering and fact-free jibing was continuous. E.g.: remember all the ridiculous "body count" numbers the V-era media mocked? After the "peace" had settled in for a while, the North confirmed them. They were all in the ballpark, often low. Especially in the Tet Offensive, which left the NVA in tatters.
Gorsh! So who could doubt a Mighty Selective Media maroon? Anyone with a functioning neuron. I suggest acquiring one.
Posted by: Brian H at July 21, 2007 08:49 PM (ahcA3)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 21, 2007 10:21 PM (3tx9R)
23
Doc,
I was mocking the need of the left to frame every incredulous and improbable story attributing misbehavior and atrocities to US soldiers as reasonable and the need to immediately discount any questions regarding the story's veracity is "the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy."
Do you dispute that lefties frame every news story that THEY LIKE, and you like this one, as proof positive of the moral vacuity of the United States and her military with no further proof than an anonymous anybody saying it is so? Do you disagree that you are more likely to believe stories that indict soldiers as monsters than you are to question them?
This is a highly inflammatory article with such an array of misbehavior over such a period of time that reasonable people should be immediately view it with skepticism. And yet, you choose to believe it. Do you believe because, given your opinion of the military, these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?
If it reasonable for you to think that I, as part of the collective Army being smeared here, am capable of these behaviors or at the least complicit enough to stand by and let them happen, then I believe the "idiot liberal" insult and F-bomb are comparatively mild responses to the charges you so readily level at me and my fellows.
It is not that you insult my driving, sir, it is that you insult my morality and character.
I'll double down on that F-Bomb, Doc, thanks.
I was mocking the need of the left to frame every incredulous and improbable story attributing misbehavior and atrocities to US soldiers as reasonable and the need to immediately discount any questions regarding the story's veracity is "the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy."
Do you dispute that lefties frame every news story that THEY LIKE, and you like this one, as proof positive of the moral vacuity of the United States and her military with no further proof than an anonymous anybody saying it is so? Do you disagree that you are more likely to believe stories that indict soldiers as monsters than you are to question them?
This is a highly inflammatory article with such an array of misbehavior over such a period of time that reasonable people should be immediately view it with skepticism. And yet, you choose to believe it. Do you believe because, given your opinion of the military, these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?
If it reasonable for you to think that I, as part of the collective Army being smeared here, am capable of these behaviors or at the least complicit enough to stand by and let them happen, then I believe the "idiot liberal" insult and F-bomb are comparatively mild responses to the charges you so readily level at me and my fellows.
It is not that you insult my driving, sir, it is that you insult my morality and character.
I'll double down on that F-Bomb, Doc, thanks.
Posted by: y7 at July 22, 2007 12:18 AM (Cixed)
24
Brian,
An Afghan I am working with explained dog ownership to me. Certainly, Muslims think that dogs are unclean but more importantly they believe that a dog in the house will keep Angels away.
Muslims, mainly wealthy ones, keep dogs for protection and work but will not keep them in the house.
An Afghan I am working with explained dog ownership to me. Certainly, Muslims think that dogs are unclean but more importantly they believe that a dog in the house will keep Angels away.
Muslims, mainly wealthy ones, keep dogs for protection and work but will not keep them in the house.
Posted by: y7 at July 22, 2007 12:23 AM (Cixed)
25
y7;
That may be in "moderate" old-time (pre-AQ/fundamentalist) Afghanistan and ME, but they toe the line much more carefully now. Family pets, where they occur, are rare and kept out of sight. Playing with or walking or feeding a dog in public would be an invitation for some nasty re-education. And Spot would be the first to go.
Jews and Christians, if you recall, are the offspring of pigs, apes, and dogs.
Ask your Afghan friend if he, personally, would pet a dog.
That may be in "moderate" old-time (pre-AQ/fundamentalist) Afghanistan and ME, but they toe the line much more carefully now. Family pets, where they occur, are rare and kept out of sight. Playing with or walking or feeding a dog in public would be an invitation for some nasty re-education. And Spot would be the first to go.
Jews and Christians, if you recall, are the offspring of pigs, apes, and dogs.
Ask your Afghan friend if he, personally, would pet a dog.
Posted by: Brian H at July 22, 2007 04:02 AM (ahcA3)
26
I am in Afghanistan now. The Afghan I refer to is sitting in his home country telling me this. I saw a bull mastiff the other day, very well fed. That is not a dog someone will buy just to let go feral.
Your argument seems to be that the dog story can't be right because dogs are unclean and feral and therefore a rare occurance. But there are many dogs, here and in Iraq, that I could walk up to and pet. But I THINK they are unclean here and wouldn't touch one. They are like farm cats; a pet not allowed in the house.
And like Yai Mao says, if we hit one, we have to stop and see if we need to drop a voucher on someone.
Your argument seems to be that the dog story can't be right because dogs are unclean and feral and therefore a rare occurance. But there are many dogs, here and in Iraq, that I could walk up to and pet. But I THINK they are unclean here and wouldn't touch one. They are like farm cats; a pet not allowed in the house.
And like Yai Mao says, if we hit one, we have to stop and see if we need to drop a voucher on someone.
Posted by: y7 at July 22, 2007 06:34 AM (Cixed)
27
gven your opinion of the military
You have absolutely no idea what my opinion of the military is.
gven your opinion of the military
You have absolutely no idea what my opinion of the military is.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 22, 2007 07:27 AM (uV9yp)
28
Only someone who has nerver served in the military could believe this story. There is a chain of command in all units that would never allow these events to happen. The E5 (SGT) has absolute authority over the privates, he reports to the E8's (Sargent Majors) who reports to the Officers. The idea that someone could parade around with human remains is prepostorous. Aint gonna happen.
Posted by: dan in michigan at July 22, 2007 03:33 PM (uSI6F)
29
Doc, don't BS me.
"the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy." Your quote indicates that you think this is a true story that doesn't need further investigation. It sounds plausible to you so it must be us wingers simply don't like it and wish to discredit it.
You are defending this story. Your opinion is clear.
"the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy." Your quote indicates that you think this is a true story that doesn't need further investigation. It sounds plausible to you so it must be us wingers simply don't like it and wish to discredit it.
You are defending this story. Your opinion is clear.
Posted by: y7 at July 23, 2007 07:26 AM (Cixed)
30
And plus, don't just pull a quote out of context. The entire question is:
"Do you believe because, given your opinion of the military, these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?"
The question doesn't presume to know your opinion, the question is asking for your opinion. It is a 'yes' or 'no' question. Does your opinion of the military support a belief that these allegations are reasonable?
"Do you believe because, given your opinion of the military, these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?"
The question doesn't presume to know your opinion, the question is asking for your opinion. It is a 'yes' or 'no' question. Does your opinion of the military support a belief that these allegations are reasonable?
Posted by: y7 at July 23, 2007 09:35 AM (Cixed)
Posted by: wjo at July 23, 2007 09:51 AM (r6omM)
32
"Do you believe because, given your opinion of the military, these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?"
Listen, Steve, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not attacking the military here. I'm attacking the "A-ha! It's clearly PhotoShopped!" approach to life indulged in by many on the Right.
Let's look at your question, though, as you posed it up above. I think I know what you're asking here: I think you want to know whether I believe that we have a rogue military. The answer to that would be "no."
Let's look at what you wrote, however: "Do you believe...these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?" Well, yes. If we had a rogue military, then yeah, I guess these are some of the things we could expect to see; not much would surprise me. Similarly, if we had a rogue law enforcement establishment or a rogue teacher's union or a rogue gundealer's network, there are a lot of weird and horrible things that would go on. We don't have such groups in our society, yet your question seems to presuppose that I think we do.
There are certainly evil assholes in every line of work, including teaching, the ministry, the military, animal enforcement, and fashion design, but I think that they are the exception rather than the norm.
Further, the "given your opinion of the military" formulation clearly suggests that you have already plumbed the depths of my opinions about the military.
The way you put your question has a "have you stopped beating your wife" feel to it that I'm guessing is a product of haste in composition, rather than deliberate intent, so I've tried to answer the question I think you're asking.
I'm definitely glad the military is there to protect me when I need it, and I'm overjoyed that there are people who are willing to do that job, because, frankly, I sure as hell don't want to do it. I just don't always agree with the decision to employ those guys and gals at certain times or in certain ways.
Finally, I know that when I write, "I'm definitely glad the military is there to protect me when I need it," I have opened the floodgates to a bunch of rabid Righties who will say that I'm lying or that I really want nothing more than to spit on maimed soldiers returning from Iraq or whatever--it has happened to me that way before when I've tried to be honest in this regard--but whatever.
I hope that this answers your question.
"Do you believe because, given your opinion of the military, these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?"
Listen, Steve, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not attacking the military here. I'm attacking the "A-ha! It's clearly PhotoShopped!" approach to life indulged in by many on the Right.
Let's look at your question, though, as you posed it up above. I think I know what you're asking here: I think you want to know whether I believe that we have a rogue military. The answer to that would be "no."
Let's look at what you wrote, however: "Do you believe...these are the reasonable outcomes of a rogue military?" Well, yes. If we had a rogue military, then yeah, I guess these are some of the things we could expect to see; not much would surprise me. Similarly, if we had a rogue law enforcement establishment or a rogue teacher's union or a rogue gundealer's network, there are a lot of weird and horrible things that would go on. We don't have such groups in our society, yet your question seems to presuppose that I think we do.
There are certainly evil assholes in every line of work, including teaching, the ministry, the military, animal enforcement, and fashion design, but I think that they are the exception rather than the norm.
Further, the "given your opinion of the military" formulation clearly suggests that you have already plumbed the depths of my opinions about the military.
The way you put your question has a "have you stopped beating your wife" feel to it that I'm guessing is a product of haste in composition, rather than deliberate intent, so I've tried to answer the question I think you're asking.
I'm definitely glad the military is there to protect me when I need it, and I'm overjoyed that there are people who are willing to do that job, because, frankly, I sure as hell don't want to do it. I just don't always agree with the decision to employ those guys and gals at certain times or in certain ways.
Finally, I know that when I write, "I'm definitely glad the military is there to protect me when I need it," I have opened the floodgates to a bunch of rabid Righties who will say that I'm lying or that I really want nothing more than to spit on maimed soldiers returning from Iraq or whatever--it has happened to me that way before when I've tried to be honest in this regard--but whatever.
I hope that this answers your question.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 23, 2007 11:31 AM (tDsDA)
33
Doc, I didn't want to get into a symantec war with you. As I said in my first response, defending this article and remarking sarcastically about rightie outrage certainly makes me cast your opinion in an anti-military form. I don't think that is unreasonable.
I did phrase the question in a "when did you stop beating your wife" way. That wasn't fair. In my own defense, the stereotype being applied to me and many of my friends in this article far outweighs any rhetorical swipe I might have taken at you.
I do apologize for making blatant assumptions about your belief system.
I have heard this article referred to the "new Winter Soldier." I might agree. There are at least two violations of the law of war here. If the New Republic wants justice, they should allow the military to pursue this man and his fellow soldiers. If the New Republic wants something else, (perhaps a political motivation?) they should do exactly what they are currently doing; protecting a criminal.
To be clear, I apologize for presuming to know your character. I think I know your character better now and I certainly believe you. Thank you for your candid answer.
Steve
I did phrase the question in a "when did you stop beating your wife" way. That wasn't fair. In my own defense, the stereotype being applied to me and many of my friends in this article far outweighs any rhetorical swipe I might have taken at you.
I do apologize for making blatant assumptions about your belief system.
I have heard this article referred to the "new Winter Soldier." I might agree. There are at least two violations of the law of war here. If the New Republic wants justice, they should allow the military to pursue this man and his fellow soldiers. If the New Republic wants something else, (perhaps a political motivation?) they should do exactly what they are currently doing; protecting a criminal.
To be clear, I apologize for presuming to know your character. I think I know your character better now and I certainly believe you. Thank you for your candid answer.
Steve
Posted by: y7 at July 23, 2007 11:59 PM (Cixed)
Errata
Wait a minute... This can't be right, can it?
Last I checked, there are right around 100 Senators, total. If the Politico is accurate in their overwhelming vote count of 94-3, then this strongly suggests that a supermajority of Democrat Senators are admitting that the withdraw plan they clamor for will result in creating "a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies," and they still favor it. Please tell me why these Democrat Senators will admit that they support a plan that they believe will encourage terrorism? This telling vote was pulled from an article about how Republicans are rallying around the President and are attempting to surge in support of the surge, even as grandstanding Democrats plan to hold a sleepover in protest, no doubt telling themselves for the hundredth time that the war is lost in an effort to make that sentiment a reality. Interestingly enough, as Senate Democrats "rough it" for the cameras on hotel-quality rolling beds, men who would consider such "hardships" a luxury are telling quite a different story. Max Boot notes the dramatic turnaround in al Anbar Province, and posts a letter from a U.S. Army Colonel in Ramadi stating precisely how much things have changed. General Peter Pace, the out-going chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more-or-less dumped by an un-supportive Bush Administration, has few political reasons to help Bush, and yet, he says things like this:
...Senate Republicans pushed through a nonbinding resolution stating that "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq would "create a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies." The vote was 94-3.
Interestingly enough, the military's consideration for increasing troop numbers because of the success of the surge thus far, comes just one day after Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said that if the success of the surge continues in his area of responsibility, then the number of troops he requires may be halved. Some folks seem to think this is a contradiction, but that simply shows that they don't understand how counterinsurgency operations are being run. As some areas see a significant long-term turn-around, the communities they are in stabilize, begin to normalize, and have less need of a large number of combat forces. This is what Mixon was relating. Because the new counterinsurgency strategy is showing significant signs of progress in many areas where it is being implemented--Pace called it a "sea change," remember?--the Democrat Congress and Senate are increasingly desperate to lose the war while they still can (see the overnight loserpalooza engineered by Senate Democrats tonight as a prime example of this). Should they fail to lose and Iraq emerge as some sort of even moderately successful representative government, they'll lose their foreign policy credibility for decades to come. Knowing the sharp knives aimed at their backs and feeling a successful strategy is well within their grasp, it is quite logical that some military general officers may desire to expand the counterinsurgency operations to many other areas of Iraq perhaps faster than they otherwise might in order to satisfy a politically-craven call for an arbitrary withdrawal date. Because of these realities, these seemingly (but not really) contradictory things could happen at the same time. While troop strength could lessen and perhaps even halve in areas where the counterinsurgency has matured, there could be a significant push to expand the "surge," requiring an influx of troops overall.
After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday. He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to secure Baghdad and Anbar province. "It will because what I'm hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here," he replied. "It's no longer a matter of pushing Al Qaeda out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems." Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the U.S. military is continuing various options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:18 AM | Comments (61) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
From Senate website:
On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2100 ) to H. R. 1585
Voted on July 17, 2007, 02:48 PM
To express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
94 Yeas
3 Nays - Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI,) Harkin (D-IA)
Not Voting - Biden (D-DE), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD)
Expected leftist Sen. Feingold to be a "nay". Confirmed.
On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2100 ) to H. R. 1585
Voted on July 17, 2007, 02:48 PM
To express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
94 Yeas
3 Nays - Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI,) Harkin (D-IA)
Not Voting - Biden (D-DE), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD)
Expected leftist Sen. Feingold to be a "nay". Confirmed.
Posted by: Wendy at July 18, 2007 07:35 AM (OOZNs)
2
Please tell me why these Democrat Senators will admit that they support a plan that they believe will encourage terrorism?
The party of treason.
The party of treason.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 18, 2007 08:49 AM (KoyO/)
3
Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state, fertilized by the manure of republicanism. This Congress has become a mud puddle hasn't it. LOL
Why do conservatives always have to take the morons interpretation of news they can't stomach. Even a moron knows that PRECIPITOUS withdrawal would result in chaos. For your beaddled enlightenment, the Democrats are calling for an ORDERED and PROGRAMMED withdrawal. Allowing the Iraqi Government to establish their own system of order. It's the Republicans that are constantly demanding OUR WAY OR NO WAY.
Why do conservatives always have to take the morons interpretation of news they can't stomach. Even a moron knows that PRECIPITOUS withdrawal would result in chaos. For your beaddled enlightenment, the Democrats are calling for an ORDERED and PROGRAMMED withdrawal. Allowing the Iraqi Government to establish their own system of order. It's the Republicans that are constantly demanding OUR WAY OR NO WAY.
Posted by: Goldie at July 18, 2007 11:35 AM (lwEkg)
4
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/18/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
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 July 18, 2007 11:43 AM (4Xncc)
5
Goldie and J:
Why aren't the terms of surrender to put in this bill? That way we can have an ORDERED and PROGRAMMED defeat, too.
Why aren't the terms of surrender to put in this bill? That way we can have an ORDERED and PROGRAMMED defeat, too.
Posted by: wjo at July 18, 2007 12:52 PM (r6omM)
6
we've already got that, wjo. but don't take my word for it, stop hatin' on the troops that don't agree with you and hear them out once in a while:
"Troops say we've lost Iraq war
Chicago Sun-Times, Jan 15, 2007
by Bill Corcoran
If the media only knew what soldiers stationed in Iraq were privately saying about President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops into Iraq, they would be shocked. Every soldier or Marine is told to say only glowing things if they encounter a member of the media or a politician visiting Iraq.
The same M.O. was in effect when I was in the Army Combat Engineers during the Korean War. We were told to give the press only a thumbs-up on the mission, and not volunteer any personal opinions.
....
Morale in Iraq with soldiers and Marines is horrible. More and more units are finding out they will not be coming home, and because of Bush's obsession with winning the war (whatever that means), their tour in Iraq has been extended. All the conservatives and neocons say we can't pull out because it would leave the country in chaos. What do they think is happening in Iraq now?
If Bush only knew what the soldiers are saying about the Iraq War and about his leadership, he would crawl under a rock. There is not a single GI home from the Iraq War I've talked to who doesn't say the war has been lost.
.... "
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070115/ai_n17128918
needless-to-say, you'll say this is bunk. very well, then--riddle me this: if this war has the support of the troops, as you'll insist it does, then why the attrition rates? why are troops voting on this war with their feet?
"Troops say we've lost Iraq war
Chicago Sun-Times, Jan 15, 2007
by Bill Corcoran
If the media only knew what soldiers stationed in Iraq were privately saying about President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops into Iraq, they would be shocked. Every soldier or Marine is told to say only glowing things if they encounter a member of the media or a politician visiting Iraq.
The same M.O. was in effect when I was in the Army Combat Engineers during the Korean War. We were told to give the press only a thumbs-up on the mission, and not volunteer any personal opinions.
....
Morale in Iraq with soldiers and Marines is horrible. More and more units are finding out they will not be coming home, and because of Bush's obsession with winning the war (whatever that means), their tour in Iraq has been extended. All the conservatives and neocons say we can't pull out because it would leave the country in chaos. What do they think is happening in Iraq now?
If Bush only knew what the soldiers are saying about the Iraq War and about his leadership, he would crawl under a rock. There is not a single GI home from the Iraq War I've talked to who doesn't say the war has been lost.
.... "
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20070115/ai_n17128918
needless-to-say, you'll say this is bunk. very well, then--riddle me this: if this war has the support of the troops, as you'll insist it does, then why the attrition rates? why are troops voting on this war with their feet?
Posted by: j at July 18, 2007 01:15 PM (Qj9lw)
7
j:
Do you actually know any veterans from Iraq? Ongoing wars are fluid things. Why not give me someone's opinions of stock prices from January 15, 2007 as being representitive of broad market trends and see how that holds up?
As for "attrition rates", please clarify your terms. Do you mean enlistment or reenlistment rates?
As a more current example of direct sourcing on the subject might I suggest:http://michaelyon-online.com/
Do you actually know any veterans from Iraq? Ongoing wars are fluid things. Why not give me someone's opinions of stock prices from January 15, 2007 as being representitive of broad market trends and see how that holds up?
As for "attrition rates", please clarify your terms. Do you mean enlistment or reenlistment rates?
As a more current example of direct sourcing on the subject might I suggest:http://michaelyon-online.com/
Posted by: wjo at July 18, 2007 01:43 PM (r6omM)
8
as a quickie reply, before i check out your link, yes--i not only know veterans of iraq/afghanistan, i'm related to three of them: my brother, husband and father of three sons, an army ranger and 1st LT (after 15+ years in the service, mind you--he went through the enlisted route all the way to the top before OCS) veteran of two tours in iraq and two tours in afghanistan; and two cousins--both marines, both brothers, never got out of enlisted, both served single tours in iraq, one wounded. between the three, there are two bronze stars, a silver star, and a purple heart (besides several unit commendations and other awards, etc). you've no reason to believe me on any of this, of course, but i know you're dead wrong to suppose i don't even *know* any veterans of this conflict; my brother was running white ops in africa and the middle east while bush was running a baseball team. doesn't make me an expert on anything, i'm man enough to admit. but it *does* make me attentive to veterans and those currently serving....
Posted by: j at July 18, 2007 02:10 PM (Qj9lw)
Posted by: wjo at July 18, 2007 02:16 PM (r6omM)
10
j:
Another source, not of the "happy talk" variety: dirhttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/657ect
Another source, not of the "happy talk" variety: dirhttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/657ect
Posted by: wjo at July 18, 2007 02:39 PM (r6omM)
11
back them up with evidence.
The "ignore my voting record" line will be a big hit on the campaign trail with voters.
The "ignore my voting record" line will be a big hit on the campaign trail with voters.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 18, 2007 04:42 PM (KoyO/)
12
Since when did genocide ever mean anything to vicious America haters like R. Stanton Scott ? Hell, leftists were trying to tell us life was better under Pol Pot, well, for all those except the 2,000,000 who were slaughtered.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2007 05:24 PM (Lgw9b)
13
"then--riddle me this: if this war has the support of the troops, as you'll insist it does, then why the attrition rates? why are troops voting on this war with their feet?"
I more than willing to clear up the confusion. It's not a complicated riddle. I know what the enemy is, what they are capable of, and how vital the mission is for the long term safety of Americans. And with that firmly in my mind, I left anyway. Liberals just aren't fit to protect, and I would no longer lift a finger to defend them. My sheepdogin' days are over. Every time I hear liberals whine that there aren't enough volunteers to protect then, I grin a little bit.
I more than willing to clear up the confusion. It's not a complicated riddle. I know what the enemy is, what they are capable of, and how vital the mission is for the long term safety of Americans. And with that firmly in my mind, I left anyway. Liberals just aren't fit to protect, and I would no longer lift a finger to defend them. My sheepdogin' days are over. Every time I hear liberals whine that there aren't enough volunteers to protect then, I grin a little bit.
Posted by: brando at July 18, 2007 06:40 PM (rDQC9)
14
Stanton - A bill reportedly via which withdrawal begins in 120 days and is completed by the end of April 2008, neither of which date based on current reporting is affected by conditions on the ground, sounds arbitrary and capricious at a minimum, some might even say precipitous.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 18, 2007 06:47 PM (0pZel)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 18, 2007 07:33 PM (KoyO/)
16
Every time I hear liberals whine that there aren't enough volunteers to protect then, I grin a little bit.
Then you're not doing much grinning, buddy, because no liberals are saying that.
Every time I hear liberals whine that there aren't enough volunteers to protect then, I grin a little bit.
Then you're not doing much grinning, buddy, because no liberals are saying that.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 18, 2007 09:23 PM (Oabcv)
17
Liberals were screeching it during Katrina, while simultaneously doing counter-recruiting. I know you remember that. Let's not be silly. Or rewrite history.
Posted by: brando at July 18, 2007 09:51 PM (rDQC9)
18
The Katrina complaints were aimed at the Feds in general.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 18, 2007 10:04 PM (Oabcv)
19
I've also had a liberal say it to my face. You promised that it was "nobody". I'm not going to quite use the "L" word just yet, but what you said was objectively false.
I was just helping J out with his request for information.
I was just helping J out with his request for information.
Posted by: brando at July 18, 2007 10:51 PM (rDQC9)
20
Doc - Charlie Rangel keeps trying to reinstitute the draft. Surely that must be because there are too few volunteers to protect the liberals. It can't just be naked cynical political posturing from such a fine civil servant and veteran who can understand the merits of a volunteer military relative to a conscription service, can it?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 12:23 AM (0pZel)
21
Actually, its because Rangel is a crank who's been off his lithium for quite a while now.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 19, 2007 08:13 AM (KoyO/)
22
I think we both know why Rangel makes a call for a draft.
Yes, there's political posturing on both sides of the aisle on a daily basis, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise, but Rangel's call for a draft is no more naked or cynical than, say, "Mission Accomplished" or "The insurgency is in its last throes" or "Heckuva job, Brownie." Our elected officials--Democrat, Republican and None of the Above, are fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture.
Yes, there's political posturing on both sides of the aisle on a daily basis, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise, but Rangel's call for a draft is no more naked or cynical than, say, "Mission Accomplished" or "The insurgency is in its last throes" or "Heckuva job, Brownie." Our elected officials--Democrat, Republican and None of the Above, are fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 08:22 AM (4rFBV)
23
Brando:
Because you once had a person tell you in a personal conversation that the army isn't doing enough to protect him or her, this a) is something that liberals do all the time and b) makes me a liar?
I think that this word "liar" does not mean what you think it means, señor.
Because you once had a person tell you in a personal conversation that the army isn't doing enough to protect him or her, this a) is something that liberals do all the time and b) makes me a liar?
I think that this word "liar" does not mean what you think it means, señor.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 08:28 AM (4rFBV)
24
Doc - Why don't you explain why you think Tangel keeps calling for a draft because I don't understand it. He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces to demagogue his positions, which to me are frankly insulting to the troops that serve. Why do YOU think he does it?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 09:12 AM (0pZel)
25
He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll try to answer the rest. If I miss something, clarify and I'll try to address it.
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
I seem to remember similar calls for including Iraq funding in the actual budget Bush submits to Congress, rather than including it in a supplemental: if he's going to spend gazillions on the war--and he knows that he's going to do so--then he needs to set things up so that he can't say something on the order of, "Look, America: the war isn't costing all that much. Look here at the budget I sent to Congress."
He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll try to answer the rest. If I miss something, clarify and I'll try to address it.
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
I seem to remember similar calls for including Iraq funding in the actual budget Bush submits to Congress, rather than including it in a supplemental: if he's going to spend gazillions on the war--and he knows that he's going to do so--then he needs to set things up so that he can't say something on the order of, "Look, America: the war isn't costing all that much. Look here at the budget I sent to Congress."
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 09:31 AM (4rFBV)
26
I see my comment has been deleted. Turns out that you can dish it out (or watch your commenters dish it out), but you can't take it.
Echo chamber, anyone?
Echo chamber, anyone?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 19, 2007 09:43 AM (r9Q9X)
27
Fallacy of excluded middle, anyone?
Posted by: brando at July 19, 2007 10:11 AM (qzOby)
28
Doc - That's circular logic. Why are you afraid to describe how venal your leaders actually are. If we are getting enough volunteers who actually want to be in the military we do not need a draft. You have already said that liberals are not saying we don't have enough soldiers to protect us. Why then does Rangel need to propose a draft?
If we need to increase the size of the military, doesn't Bush get Congressional approval, something that just recently happened? Why can't you just call a spade a spade and say Rangels moves are blatantly anti-war, with no serious intent except to damage the President and the war effort, insulting to the troops, and that he has no intent of actually passing and having signed into law.
If you have a different spin, I'd like to hear it.
If we need to increase the size of the military, doesn't Bush get Congressional approval, something that just recently happened? Why can't you just call a spade a spade and say Rangels moves are blatantly anti-war, with no serious intent except to damage the President and the war effort, insulting to the troops, and that he has no intent of actually passing and having signed into law.
If you have a different spin, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 10:18 AM (0pZel)
29
daleyrocks writes,
Why are you afraid to describe how venal your leaders actually are.
I think I already did that, in the strongest terms:
Our elected officials--Democrat, Republican and None of the Above, are fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture.
Why are you afraid to describe how venal your leaders actually are.
I think I already did that, in the strongest terms:
Our elected officials--Democrat, Republican and None of the Above, are fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 10:27 AM (4rFBV)
30
Doc - You are continuing to dodge a specific situation with generalities. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do this. Have you been taking lessons.
Rangel has introduced legislation related to a draft I believe three or four times. Is he just wasting our money to score partisan political points and insult the troops or is there something behind what he is doing?
You can't address the actions of your leaders yet have the effrontery to claim conservatives can't face the truth? You are a waste of bandwidth.
Rangel has introduced legislation related to a draft I believe three or four times. Is he just wasting our money to score partisan political points and insult the troops or is there something behind what he is doing?
You can't address the actions of your leaders yet have the effrontery to claim conservatives can't face the truth? You are a waste of bandwidth.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 10:59 AM (0pZel)
31
I'm not sure what you think I'm not addressing. I've explained my understanding of why Rangel is making his proposal:
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
I don't think I can get much more specific than that.
Also: refresh my memory of where I wrote that conservatives "can't face the truth." The specific instance escapes me.
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
I don't think I can get much more specific than that.
Also: refresh my memory of where I wrote that conservatives "can't face the truth." The specific instance escapes me.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 19, 2007 11:44 AM (4rFBV)
32
I had always taken Rangel's claims at face value. He just literally loves conscription. It doesn't matter if you call it the draft, or conscription or something fancy like selective service. It's just slavery, plain and simple.
I think, as good citizens, we should be against slavery. It's bad, m'kay.
I think, as good citizens, we should be against slavery. It's bad, m'kay.
Posted by: brando at July 19, 2007 07:40 PM (rDQC9)
33
Doc - All you are doing with Rangel is repeating what he or an aide said about the bill. For someone who dodges the point by claiming politicians from both sides include all sorts of scoundrels, implying Rangel is one of them, is it wise to take him at his publicly stated purpose for his actions? Believing a liar doesn't do you much credit. Don't you have any actual opinions of your own on the matter. His avowed purpose makes no sense.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 11:16 PM (0pZel)
34
Well, then why is he doing it?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 20, 2007 08:26 AM (MlRhu)
35
Doc - To use your words, if Rangel is one of the
fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture,
I am more interested in your view of why he is doing it, or do you usually act as a stenographer for fools and poltroons?
Liberal politicians are afraid to say what they really think because then no one would vote for them. That disease stretches to their supporters as well. The dodging continues.
I guess Rangel must think the military is too small to protect us if he thinks we need a draft, which is why he keeps bringing it up. You deny that but offer no good explanation for his actions.
fools, poltroons and megalomaniacs in various degrees of admixture,
I am more interested in your view of why he is doing it, or do you usually act as a stenographer for fools and poltroons?
Liberal politicians are afraid to say what they really think because then no one would vote for them. That disease stretches to their supporters as well. The dodging continues.
I guess Rangel must think the military is too small to protect us if he thinks we need a draft, which is why he keeps bringing it up. You deny that but offer no good explanation for his actions.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 20, 2007 10:57 AM (0pZel)
36
Daleyrocks, I've told you why I really, really, really, really think that he's doing it. I've told you twice. My answer is not, apparently, the answer you want me to give. I have no control over that.
The contention that Rangel is a dyed-in-the-wool liar whose every word must be distrusted is yours, remember, not mine, so I'm under no obligation to doubt the reason he gives for this.
All I can do with the fools and poltroons is to see whether the things they say are internally consistent with the perspective said fools and poltroons seem to have on life, the universe and everything. The reason I shared with you bears up under that scrutiny, for me at least.
This interaction with you points up a key distinction that I've noticed between the way Righties and Lefties see each other. In my experience of several years' surfing of various web pages in Left and Right Blogistan, I've noticed that Righties tend to assume that Lefties are crafty but lying about everything they say. Lefties tend to assume that Righties are sincere but unutterably stupid.
There would seem to be no resolution to this.
The contention that Rangel is a dyed-in-the-wool liar whose every word must be distrusted is yours, remember, not mine, so I'm under no obligation to doubt the reason he gives for this.
All I can do with the fools and poltroons is to see whether the things they say are internally consistent with the perspective said fools and poltroons seem to have on life, the universe and everything. The reason I shared with you bears up under that scrutiny, for me at least.
This interaction with you points up a key distinction that I've noticed between the way Righties and Lefties see each other. In my experience of several years' surfing of various web pages in Left and Right Blogistan, I've noticed that Righties tend to assume that Lefties are crafty but lying about everything they say. Lefties tend to assume that Righties are sincere but unutterably stupid.
There would seem to be no resolution to this.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 20, 2007 01:26 PM (MlRhu)
37
Doc - Does the fact that Rangel has subsequently withdrawn his proposals for a draft each time he has submitted them bother you? Do you think that indicates a lack of sincerity or seriousness on his part?
Do you personally think instituting a draft in the current envitronment has a snowball's chance in hell of passing? I don't. I think it's a waste of time and pure demagoguery of Rangel to keep bringing it up.
Do you think it is right of Rangel to blantantly misrepresent the demographics of our armed forces in support of his non serious proposals?
Do you think his proposals are insulting to our troops? I do.
See, there are a whole host of questions you manage to dodge by your non answers. Liberals don't like questions like these and try to dodge them. Rangel is not as bad a race pimp as Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton, but he oftentimes gets close.
Do you personally think instituting a draft in the current envitronment has a snowball's chance in hell of passing? I don't. I think it's a waste of time and pure demagoguery of Rangel to keep bringing it up.
Do you think it is right of Rangel to blantantly misrepresent the demographics of our armed forces in support of his non serious proposals?
Do you think his proposals are insulting to our troops? I do.
See, there are a whole host of questions you manage to dodge by your non answers. Liberals don't like questions like these and try to dodge them. Rangel is not as bad a race pimp as Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton, but he oftentimes gets close.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 20, 2007 02:30 PM (0pZel)
38
I don't think that Rangel's proposals are an insult to the troops. Why would that be the case?
I don't know what you mean by "blatantly misrepresent the demographics of our armed forces," so I can't answer that one right now.
No, I don't think that a draft has a chance of passing.
Rangel's proposals are not frivolous if you accept the reason I've suggested for why he's making them. If he's making a point or sending a message, then he probably thinks that he has made his point each time the President declines to take up the call for a draft.
I don't know what you mean by "blatantly misrepresent the demographics of our armed forces," so I can't answer that one right now.
No, I don't think that a draft has a chance of passing.
Rangel's proposals are not frivolous if you accept the reason I've suggested for why he's making them. If he's making a point or sending a message, then he probably thinks that he has made his point each time the President declines to take up the call for a draft.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 20, 2007 02:45 PM (MlRhu)
39
Doc - Earlier in the thread you restated either Rangel or an aide's position as follows:
"I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences."
Now you accept that as his real reason for promoting a draft. I cannot accept that because a "put up or shut up" dare is doomed to failure when the one proposing it is fundamentally unserious about his dare, which Rangel has repeatedly demonstrated. The argument doesn't hold water.
I find his constant harping on the draft insulting to the troops because it implies the military needs fixing. Why tinker with something unless it is broken or not getting the job done. Using your position, Rangel is saying the volunteer military cannot get the job done. I find that insulting.
Rangel claims the enlistees to the military are overweighted to minorities and poor. The most recent demographic statistics clearly show him in error and he has been confronted with the truth on numerous occasions. He blythely ignores the data to continue his demagoguery.
By the way, the original reason I brought up Rangel, was to point out a liberal who was saying we didn't have enough troops to keep us safe. Your explanation of his position, that to win the war and for our national survival, Bush needed to institute a draft. You didn't acknowledge my point then and I don't expect you will now, but thanks for playing anyway.
Y'all come back now.
"I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences."
Now you accept that as his real reason for promoting a draft. I cannot accept that because a "put up or shut up" dare is doomed to failure when the one proposing it is fundamentally unserious about his dare, which Rangel has repeatedly demonstrated. The argument doesn't hold water.
I find his constant harping on the draft insulting to the troops because it implies the military needs fixing. Why tinker with something unless it is broken or not getting the job done. Using your position, Rangel is saying the volunteer military cannot get the job done. I find that insulting.
Rangel claims the enlistees to the military are overweighted to minorities and poor. The most recent demographic statistics clearly show him in error and he has been confronted with the truth on numerous occasions. He blythely ignores the data to continue his demagoguery.
By the way, the original reason I brought up Rangel, was to point out a liberal who was saying we didn't have enough troops to keep us safe. Your explanation of his position, that to win the war and for our national survival, Bush needed to institute a draft. You didn't acknowledge my point then and I don't expect you will now, but thanks for playing anyway.
Y'all come back now.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 20, 2007 09:32 PM (0pZel)
40
You didn't acknowledge my point then and I don't expect you will now, but thanks for playing anyway.
What you mean by saying that I didn't "acknowledge your point" is a mystery to me. I answered your question more than once. Do you mean that I continued to disagree with you? That I didn't say, "Good point!" when you were done?
Your explanation of his position, that to win the war and for our national survival, Bush needed to institute a draft.
Actually, I think that that is your interpretation of Rangel's call for a draft, not mine. It's a little frustrating that you still see that as my point, even after going through my interpretation for you twice.
About the insult thing: I've lost count of the things that people on the Right count as "insults" to the troops when they're said by people on the Left. Everything is taken as an insult. There's a lot of outrage out there.
Let's accept for the sake of discussion your spin on Rangel's calls for a draft: specifically, that it signifies that Rangel feels that more troops are needed in Iraq. (Remember, that's all a draft is: getting more troops. A draft doesn't have anything at all to do with saying that the military is broken or "changing direction" or getting new generals or anything else; it's simply getting your hands on more troops. That's all it is.) Your take on this whole thing is that saying "we need more troops" is an insult to the military. By your logic, then, the surge itself was an insult. Somebody--some general or bureaucratic functionary--decided we needed more troops over in Iraq, so more troops were moved to Iraq. Did that person, too, insult the troops?
You see the problem.
The fact of the matter is that neither one of us knows what Rangel is really thinking. We can only go with our interpretations, and your interpretation is that he's lying. This goes back to my whole "Righties think that Lefties always lie, no matter what" theory of political discourse on the Internet.
You didn't acknowledge my point then and I don't expect you will now, but thanks for playing anyway.
What you mean by saying that I didn't "acknowledge your point" is a mystery to me. I answered your question more than once. Do you mean that I continued to disagree with you? That I didn't say, "Good point!" when you were done?
Your explanation of his position, that to win the war and for our national survival, Bush needed to institute a draft.
Actually, I think that that is your interpretation of Rangel's call for a draft, not mine. It's a little frustrating that you still see that as my point, even after going through my interpretation for you twice.
About the insult thing: I've lost count of the things that people on the Right count as "insults" to the troops when they're said by people on the Left. Everything is taken as an insult. There's a lot of outrage out there.
Let's accept for the sake of discussion your spin on Rangel's calls for a draft: specifically, that it signifies that Rangel feels that more troops are needed in Iraq. (Remember, that's all a draft is: getting more troops. A draft doesn't have anything at all to do with saying that the military is broken or "changing direction" or getting new generals or anything else; it's simply getting your hands on more troops. That's all it is.) Your take on this whole thing is that saying "we need more troops" is an insult to the military. By your logic, then, the surge itself was an insult. Somebody--some general or bureaucratic functionary--decided we needed more troops over in Iraq, so more troops were moved to Iraq. Did that person, too, insult the troops?
You see the problem.
The fact of the matter is that neither one of us knows what Rangel is really thinking. We can only go with our interpretations, and your interpretation is that he's lying. This goes back to my whole "Righties think that Lefties always lie, no matter what" theory of political discourse on the Internet.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 20, 2007 11:48 PM (8+me0)
41
Doc - I don't agree with your spin Doc. The only reason a draft would be required, apart from Rangel's phony demographic claims, would be to expand the overall size of the military and to include a bunch of people essentially through slavery. The surge was done with existing forces not a conscription. Your analogy is not valid on its face.
The implication of Rangel's proposal, again ignoring the demographic smears he makes, is that the all volunteer military can't get the job done or is not the right way to run the show. But maybe that's me.
I would be rich if I had a dollar for each smear by lefties against the troops I read or heard who claimed they were not actually insulting the troops. The lack of patriotism, honor and duty, make large segments of the completely tone deaf on such matters.
The implication of Rangel's proposal, again ignoring the demographic smears he makes, is that the all volunteer military can't get the job done or is not the right way to run the show. But maybe that's me.
I would be rich if I had a dollar for each smear by lefties against the troops I read or heard who claimed they were not actually insulting the troops. The lack of patriotism, honor and duty, make large segments of the completely tone deaf on such matters.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 21, 2007 02:39 AM (0pZel)
42
The implication of Rangel's proposal, again ignoring the demographic smears he makes, is that the all volunteer military can't get the job done or is not the right way to run the show.
Okay. I'm ignoring Rangel for a second and just going with my ideas here.
I don't want a draft, and I don't want this war, but I will note that somebody somewhere has decided that four things are necessary to fight in Iraq: first, intensive use of reservists; second, multiple tours of duty at the front lines; third, lowered requirements aimed at getting more recruits; finally, extended 15-month rotations for the army.
These are relatively new developments for our forces, aren't they?
In your mind, are these all signs of a military that has all the tools in its toolbox that it would like to have?
The implication of Rangel's proposal, again ignoring the demographic smears he makes, is that the all volunteer military can't get the job done or is not the right way to run the show.
Okay. I'm ignoring Rangel for a second and just going with my ideas here.
I don't want a draft, and I don't want this war, but I will note that somebody somewhere has decided that four things are necessary to fight in Iraq: first, intensive use of reservists; second, multiple tours of duty at the front lines; third, lowered requirements aimed at getting more recruits; finally, extended 15-month rotations for the army.
These are relatively new developments for our forces, aren't they?
In your mind, are these all signs of a military that has all the tools in its toolbox that it would like to have?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 21, 2007 08:54 AM (DHM3K)
43
Doc - I'm sorry that you claim you've explained your position some many times. I think it's more like you've explained so many positions. It would be nice to have you settle down on one.
First you repeated what Rangel or an aide said without necessarily agreeing with it. Then you agreed with it. You also implied he was a poltroon and other not nice stuff in there. Then you agreed that a draft had no chance of passing, although you did not acknowledge it is tough to make a put up or shut up threat when all your threats are empty. Then you attempted a weaselly move by saying it's too bad you don't know what Rangel really thinks. Doh! Way to take a stand and voice an opinion.
There was an interesting story out today about a study Jack Murthatard requested the CBO perform related to the draft. It was called Restoring the Draft:No Panacea. I've excerpted a few paragraphs below and provided a link.
"The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.
Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.
The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.
If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070721/us_time/restoringthedraftnopanacea
First you repeated what Rangel or an aide said without necessarily agreeing with it. Then you agreed with it. You also implied he was a poltroon and other not nice stuff in there. Then you agreed that a draft had no chance of passing, although you did not acknowledge it is tough to make a put up or shut up threat when all your threats are empty. Then you attempted a weaselly move by saying it's too bad you don't know what Rangel really thinks. Doh! Way to take a stand and voice an opinion.
There was an interesting story out today about a study Jack Murthatard requested the CBO perform related to the draft. It was called Restoring the Draft:No Panacea. I've excerpted a few paragraphs below and provided a link.
"The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.
Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.
The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.
If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070721/us_time/restoringthedraftnopanacea
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 22, 2007 12:11 AM (0pZel)
44
First you repeated what Rangel or an aide said without necessarily agreeing with it.
That's because you asked me what Rangel's reason was, not what my thinking was on the subject.
Then you agreed with it.
No, I didn't. I was explaining why I thought Rangel meant what he said. That has nothing to do with my opinion on the draft issue.
Then you attempted a weaselly move by saying it's too bad you don't know what Rangel really thinks.
"Weaselly move?" What the hell do you think I am, psychic? Are you psychic? If you are, then leave me the hell out of your Rangel obsession and read his mind your own darned self. I said again and again that I can only go by what the guy says on any given topic. What I mean by that, essentially, is that I can only go by what he says.
Only you could suggest that being unable to read someone's mind is a "weaselly move."
Also: thanks for the minilesson on the evils of the draft, which I needed like I need a hole in the head. Remember this (emphasis added)?
I'm ignoring Rangel for a second and just going with my ideas here.
I don't want a draft.
Or was that too "weaselly?"
First you repeated what Rangel or an aide said without necessarily agreeing with it.
That's because you asked me what Rangel's reason was, not what my thinking was on the subject.
Then you agreed with it.
No, I didn't. I was explaining why I thought Rangel meant what he said. That has nothing to do with my opinion on the draft issue.
Then you attempted a weaselly move by saying it's too bad you don't know what Rangel really thinks.
"Weaselly move?" What the hell do you think I am, psychic? Are you psychic? If you are, then leave me the hell out of your Rangel obsession and read his mind your own darned self. I said again and again that I can only go by what the guy says on any given topic. What I mean by that, essentially, is that I can only go by what he says.
Only you could suggest that being unable to read someone's mind is a "weaselly move."
Also: thanks for the minilesson on the evils of the draft, which I needed like I need a hole in the head. Remember this (emphasis added)?
I'm ignoring Rangel for a second and just going with my ideas here.
I don't want a draft.
Or was that too "weaselly?"
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 22, 2007 08:00 AM (uV9yp)
45
Doc - There you go Weaselling again. Virtually my first question was to explain why YOU thought Rangel did what he did:
Doc - Why don't you explain why you think Tangel keeps calling for a draft because I don't understand it. He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces to demagogue his positions, which to me are frankly insulting to the troops that serve. Why do YOU think he does it?
posted by daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 09:12 AM
Just a reminder. Try to keep your stories straight.
Doc - Why don't you explain why you think Tangel keeps calling for a draft because I don't understand it. He willfully ignores date on the composition of the armed forces to demagogue his positions, which to me are frankly insulting to the troops that serve. Why do YOU think he does it?
posted by daleyrocks at July 19, 2007 09:12 AM
Just a reminder. Try to keep your stories straight.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 22, 2007 08:13 AM (0pZel)
46
Why do YOU think he does it?
Just a reminder. Try to keep your stories straight.
HOLY FRICKIN' CHRIST!!!!!!!!
I've explained more than once, and I've answered it the same way each time.
First:
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
Then:
I'm not sure what you think I'm not addressing. I've explained my understanding of why Rangel is making his proposal:
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
I don't think I can get much more specific than that.
So I've answered the question twice using exactly the same words each time.
Are you even reading my posts?
Why do YOU think he does it?
Just a reminder. Try to keep your stories straight.
HOLY FRICKIN' CHRIST!!!!!!!!
I've explained more than once, and I've answered it the same way each time.
First:
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
Then:
I'm not sure what you think I'm not addressing. I've explained my understanding of why Rangel is making his proposal:
I can't remember whether it was Rangel himself or an aide who said that the call for a draft was a "put up or shut up" dare to Bush: if the war in Iraq is as important to our national survival as you say it is, be a man, institute a draft, and live with the consequences. If not, then let's do this thing some other way.
I don't think I can get much more specific than that.
So I've answered the question twice using exactly the same words each time.
Are you even reading my posts?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 22, 2007 09:01 AM (uV9yp)
July 16, 2007
Definitive Surge Progress Could Lead to Troop Reductions
The Coalition counterinsurgency strategy dubbed the "surge" has been so successful that U.S. soldiers in one part of Iraq could be halved by January, 2008:
But, doesn't the General know that the new Pelosi-led Congress and Reid-led Senate--deliberative bodies with roughly as many major legislative accomplishments as the Iraqi Parliament they criticize--are far better judges of success or failure in Iraq than the officers and soldiers actually waging the war?
Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing "definitive progress" and the number of forces serving in Iraq’s Multi-National Division-North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said. A reduction of U.S. forces under the general's command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference. Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division-North and the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern Iraq, including the city of Baqubah -- site of the ongoing Operation Arrowhead Ripper. He said he has given U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a plan indicating a possible reduction of force in Multi-National Division-North during 2008. Mixon said the current debate over troop withdrawal should revolve around reaching a strategic "end state." "It seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world, and then determine how we can reach that end state, and how much time that will take," he said. "To me, that seems to be the most important thing, because there will be consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq." "It cannot be a strategy based on, 'Well, we need to leave,'" he added. "That's not a strategy, that’s a withdrawal."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:26 AM | Comments (56) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Really, the military says forces could be reduced soon? When have I heard that before? Oh yes, every single year without fail since the start of the war. Most of us have quit falling for it.
Maliki says the Iraqi forces can take care of it themselves and we can leave any time we want. Why don't you believe him? He is the rightful leader of a democratically elected government, no?
Maliki says the Iraqi forces can take care of it themselves and we can leave any time we want. Why don't you believe him? He is the rightful leader of a democratically elected government, no?
Posted by: Shochu John at July 16, 2007 01:32 AM (AVhuI)
2
Actually, he says that how that was translated wasn't what he meant.
This is a good thing, of course, as only the enemies of America and Iraq, and friends of despots, tyrants and terrorists, have anything to gain through a short-term withdrawal.
This is a good thing, of course, as only the enemies of America and Iraq, and friends of despots, tyrants and terrorists, have anything to gain through a short-term withdrawal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 16, 2007 05:54 AM (HcgFD)
3
Cautiously optimistic. Let's hope for more like this.
Posted by: Chris at July 16, 2007 07:51 AM (Jyeuw)
4
Most of us have quit falling for it.
That's cuz you're too stupid to be able to plot a curve of the IA/IP units coming online.
That's cuz you're too stupid to be able to plot a curve of the IA/IP units coming online.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 16, 2007 10:16 AM (8uYIc)
5
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
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 July 16, 2007 11:25 AM (4Xncc)
6
This is as likely to be true as the Bush Administration's claims about reducing the deficit by 2009.
Utterly preposterous!
Utterly preposterous!
Posted by: Lurking Observer at July 16, 2007 01:07 PM (/ZD7V)
7
"That's cuz you're too stupid to be able to plot a curve of the IA/IP units coming online."
Does the curve include what IA/IP units are actually partisan militiamen with uniforms? How about which ones will take their guns and run off?
I'm just looking into the past and projecting it into the future here.
It could be stupidity, but so far my prognostication record on Iraq has been pretty good. If I'm wrong, of course, I'll be right here so you can come rub my nose in it.
Does the curve include what IA/IP units are actually partisan militiamen with uniforms? How about which ones will take their guns and run off?
I'm just looking into the past and projecting it into the future here.
It could be stupidity, but so far my prognostication record on Iraq has been pretty good. If I'm wrong, of course, I'll be right here so you can come rub my nose in it.
Posted by: Shochu John at July 16, 2007 01:21 PM (EnW+8)
8
When this mess started I was all for it. Now I have to ask, what is the point? If we were fighting for oil, fine. If we are trying to kill as many Muslims as possible, ok. If we are trying to destablize the area and change the leadership picture in this twisted part of the world, great. But what is our current goal? I don't think Bush and gang really know.
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at July 16, 2007 05:24 PM (VbUU0)
9
meanwhile, back in the REAL world:
"Pace: US troops in Iraq could rise
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
16 July 2007
BAGHDAD (AP) -- The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.
The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.
... "
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=606404&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=7/16/2007
"Pace: US troops in Iraq could rise
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
16 July 2007
BAGHDAD (AP) -- The U.S. military is weighing new directions for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, to be presented to Bush in September. That will be separate from the highly anticipated report to Congress that month by Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for Iraq.
The Joint Chiefs are considering a range of actions, including another troop buildup, Pace said without making any predictions. He called it prudent planning to enable the services to be ready for Bush's decision.
... "
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=606404&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=7/16/2007
Posted by: j at July 16, 2007 05:44 PM (Qj9lw)
10
The only victory that the Left wants is a humiliation for the United States. Don't you know our irredeemable arrogance (otherwise known as fighting back) causes the editors of European journals to not love us?
We need unity in the face of a hard and cruel---and lunatic--- foe, not division. Our division is a weakness that the enemy wishes to exploit and Reid and Pelosi follow his playbook.
We need unity in the face of a hard and cruel---and lunatic--- foe, not division. Our division is a weakness that the enemy wishes to exploit and Reid and Pelosi follow his playbook.
Posted by: wjo at July 16, 2007 06:23 PM (1a6Hq)
11
"Don't you know our irredeemable arrogance (otherwise known as fighting back) causes the editors of European journals to not love us?"
You didn't invade Iraq because you were "fighting back". Some sections of the Iraq population are "Figthing back" against your occupation of their country.
I just thought that we ought to get that straight.
You didn't invade Iraq because you were "fighting back". Some sections of the Iraq population are "Figthing back" against your occupation of their country.
I just thought that we ought to get that straight.
Posted by: Rafar at July 16, 2007 07:07 PM (MHGae)
12
But what is our current goal?
Avoiding genocide? If you're OK with genocides, then maybe that doesn't matter so much...
Avoiding genocide? If you're OK with genocides, then maybe that doesn't matter so much...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 16, 2007 07:41 PM (8uYIc)
13
I'm just looking into the past and projecting it into the future here.
Better click that knob on your time machine about 18 months recent than its set. Its giving a skewed view of the present day.
Better click that knob on your time machine about 18 months recent than its set. Its giving a skewed view of the present day.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 16, 2007 07:43 PM (8uYIc)
14
I didn't bother putting a knob in the time machine. What's the point? It's not like anything ever really changes in Iraq. It's just the same story over and over again:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p07s02-woiq.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p07s02-woiq.html
Posted by: Shochu John at July 16, 2007 10:11 PM (AVhuI)
15
You didn't invade Iraq because you were "fighting back". Some sections of the Iraq population are "Figthing back" against your occupation of their country.
It is to laugh. Rafar, when do I get my planet destroying cheap Iragi oil?
These would be those who bravely drive trucks laden with bombs into public markets, shoot girls becuase they have the temerity to go to school, destroy religious sites of their co-religionists, behead helpless victims on camera while shouting "God is great" and generally violate every norm of civilization and decency.
These are not those fighting an "occupation" but those bent on imposing a sinister and dark ideology. These are also the lunatic SOB's I want destroyed. Pray tell me what justice you see being meted out to these brutes and thugs? A nasty letter threatening a war crimes trial in the Hague?
In any event, what do I know, I actually believe America and her military wear the white hats so that automatically puts me [proudly] in the "redneck boob" category.
It is to laugh. Rafar, when do I get my planet destroying cheap Iragi oil?
These would be those who bravely drive trucks laden with bombs into public markets, shoot girls becuase they have the temerity to go to school, destroy religious sites of their co-religionists, behead helpless victims on camera while shouting "God is great" and generally violate every norm of civilization and decency.
These are not those fighting an "occupation" but those bent on imposing a sinister and dark ideology. These are also the lunatic SOB's I want destroyed. Pray tell me what justice you see being meted out to these brutes and thugs? A nasty letter threatening a war crimes trial in the Hague?
In any event, what do I know, I actually believe America and her military wear the white hats so that automatically puts me [proudly] in the "redneck boob" category.
Posted by: wjo at July 16, 2007 10:46 PM (G/yMh)
16
"It is to laugh. Rafar, when do I get my planet destroying cheap Iragi oil?"
You don't, any more than Texan oil makes you rich.
"These would be those who bravely drive trucks laden with bombs into public markets, shoot girls becuase they have the temerity to go to school, destroy religious sites of their co-religionists, behead helpless victims on camera while shouting "God is great" and generally violate every norm of civilization and decency."
Where did I say that they were good guys? I just pointed out that they (and it is worth remembering that the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are against coalition forces and government forces) are the ones fighting back against something. The US wasn't "fighting back" against anything when it invaded Iraq.
"Pray tell me what justice you see being meted out to these brutes and thugs?"
I see no justice in Iraq at all I am afraid.
"In any event, what do I know, I actually believe America and her military wear the white hats so that automatically puts me [proudly] in the "redneck boob" category."
Believe what you like, I'm just pointing out that the US wasn't fighting back against anyone when they invaded Iraq as nobody from Iraq was fighting against them in the first place.
You don't, any more than Texan oil makes you rich.
"These would be those who bravely drive trucks laden with bombs into public markets, shoot girls becuase they have the temerity to go to school, destroy religious sites of their co-religionists, behead helpless victims on camera while shouting "God is great" and generally violate every norm of civilization and decency."
Where did I say that they were good guys? I just pointed out that they (and it is worth remembering that the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are against coalition forces and government forces) are the ones fighting back against something. The US wasn't "fighting back" against anything when it invaded Iraq.
"Pray tell me what justice you see being meted out to these brutes and thugs?"
I see no justice in Iraq at all I am afraid.
"In any event, what do I know, I actually believe America and her military wear the white hats so that automatically puts me [proudly] in the "redneck boob" category."
Believe what you like, I'm just pointing out that the US wasn't fighting back against anyone when they invaded Iraq as nobody from Iraq was fighting against them in the first place.
Posted by: Rafar at July 17, 2007 04:07 AM (kkgmI)
17
Rafar,
Saddam Hussein signed an armistice in 1991 with terms he broke for 10 years, including attempts to shoot down the US forces air flights maintaining the air restrictions which were a part of the armistice terms. He was still deemed not in compliance when we invaded.
I think that fits into the category of resumption of war or, as is being argued here, fighting back by Iraq which we countered by then fighting back against his fighting back.
Saddam Hussein signed an armistice in 1991 with terms he broke for 10 years, including attempts to shoot down the US forces air flights maintaining the air restrictions which were a part of the armistice terms. He was still deemed not in compliance when we invaded.
I think that fits into the category of resumption of war or, as is being argued here, fighting back by Iraq which we countered by then fighting back against his fighting back.
Posted by: Dusty at July 17, 2007 05:25 AM (GJLeQ)
18
"Saddam Hussein signed an armistice in 1991 with terms he broke for 10 years, including attempts to shoot down the US forces air flights maintaining the air restrictions which were a part of the armistice terms. He was still deemed not in compliance when we invaded."
Yeah, OK, you're right. Saddam Hussein was a real danger to the US, and was actively trying to militarily engage you in a way that required you to strike him back.
You carry on with that if it makes you feel better.
Yeah, OK, you're right. Saddam Hussein was a real danger to the US, and was actively trying to militarily engage you in a way that required you to strike him back.
You carry on with that if it makes you feel better.
Posted by: Rafar at July 17, 2007 06:54 AM (kkgmI)
19
Rafar:
In Iraq we are "fighting back" against a sick Totalitarian ideology. Iraq is a theater in a global war; and, presently the main one. The reason for invasion, among others, was to destroy an enabler regime. That went off remarkably well. It has been what has followed which has been so difficult. However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have. The playbook calls for incipent terrorist violence in urban areas, atomization of the populance into ethnic enclaves and overall insecurity. The playbook calls for this to be done until America is pulled down by war weariness and defeatism.
The best part for the thugs in Tehren and Damascus is that they have dupes on the Left ever willing to concede that "insurgents" are always justified in what they do because the USA (despoiler of humanity) is evil, and really, what does one expect from Arabs except grisly violence.
In Iraq we are "fighting back" against a sick Totalitarian ideology. Iraq is a theater in a global war; and, presently the main one. The reason for invasion, among others, was to destroy an enabler regime. That went off remarkably well. It has been what has followed which has been so difficult. However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have. The playbook calls for incipent terrorist violence in urban areas, atomization of the populance into ethnic enclaves and overall insecurity. The playbook calls for this to be done until America is pulled down by war weariness and defeatism.
The best part for the thugs in Tehren and Damascus is that they have dupes on the Left ever willing to concede that "insurgents" are always justified in what they do because the USA (despoiler of humanity) is evil, and really, what does one expect from Arabs except grisly violence.
Posted by: wjo at July 17, 2007 07:46 AM (r6omM)
20
"In Iraq we are "fighting back" against a sick Totalitarian ideology."
Which never attacked you, I would note. Sure, say that you're fighting groups that you think are worth fighting, but neither Saddam Hussein, nor the Iraqis ever attacked you.
"The reason for invasion, among others, was to destroy an enabler regime."
The reason was to destroy a regime that was not cooperative with US goals. If you were out to fight totalitarian enabler regimes (by which I assume you mean enabling terrorism) then surely Saudi Arabia would be the better target.
"It has been what has followed which has been so difficult."
What inevitably followed has indeed been difficult but it was an obvious and predictable follow on from the initial invasion. To pretend otherwise is simply wishful thinking of which there was plenty before the invasion.
"However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have."
Did they? I would like to see them announcing that, if you have any links.
"The playbook calls for incipent terrorist violence in urban areas, atomization of the populance into ethnic enclaves and overall insecurity."
I'm sure that it does, but Iran is supporting the groups in Iraq who represent the government, not the ones who are against the government. They are certainly not supporting the Salafi Jihadists of Al-Q in Iraq. It would be very odd if they were supporting Sunni insurgents at all, given that they both oppose the Iranian friendly government in Iraq and represent the hated enemy that fought a long and brutal war against them.
By way of actual evidence, (1) Look into where the current Iraqi government parties resided during the Saddam years, (2) look at the numbers of foreigners captured in Iraq and compare the countries of origin of those foreigners.
"The best part for the thugs in Tehren and Damascus is that they have dupes on the Left ever willing to concede that "insurgents" are always justified in what they do because the USA (despoiler of humanity) is evil, and really, what does one expect from Arabs except grisly violence."
I'm not justifying anyone's actions, and thought that we had long ago dealt with these sorts of silly accusations.
I am just pointing out that Iraqi insurgents are fighting back against an ongoing brutal occupation of their country, whereas the US invasion was not fighting back against anything. Americans simply aren't the victims in this matter.
Which never attacked you, I would note. Sure, say that you're fighting groups that you think are worth fighting, but neither Saddam Hussein, nor the Iraqis ever attacked you.
"The reason for invasion, among others, was to destroy an enabler regime."
The reason was to destroy a regime that was not cooperative with US goals. If you were out to fight totalitarian enabler regimes (by which I assume you mean enabling terrorism) then surely Saudi Arabia would be the better target.
"It has been what has followed which has been so difficult."
What inevitably followed has indeed been difficult but it was an obvious and predictable follow on from the initial invasion. To pretend otherwise is simply wishful thinking of which there was plenty before the invasion.
"However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have."
Did they? I would like to see them announcing that, if you have any links.
"The playbook calls for incipent terrorist violence in urban areas, atomization of the populance into ethnic enclaves and overall insecurity."
I'm sure that it does, but Iran is supporting the groups in Iraq who represent the government, not the ones who are against the government. They are certainly not supporting the Salafi Jihadists of Al-Q in Iraq. It would be very odd if they were supporting Sunni insurgents at all, given that they both oppose the Iranian friendly government in Iraq and represent the hated enemy that fought a long and brutal war against them.
By way of actual evidence, (1) Look into where the current Iraqi government parties resided during the Saddam years, (2) look at the numbers of foreigners captured in Iraq and compare the countries of origin of those foreigners.
"The best part for the thugs in Tehren and Damascus is that they have dupes on the Left ever willing to concede that "insurgents" are always justified in what they do because the USA (despoiler of humanity) is evil, and really, what does one expect from Arabs except grisly violence."
I'm not justifying anyone's actions, and thought that we had long ago dealt with these sorts of silly accusations.
I am just pointing out that Iraqi insurgents are fighting back against an ongoing brutal occupation of their country, whereas the US invasion was not fighting back against anything. Americans simply aren't the victims in this matter.
Posted by: Rafar at July 17, 2007 08:20 AM (kkgmI)
21
Thank you for acknowledging that your fundamental point -- Iraq wasn't fighting us in the first place -- is wrong.
Posted by: Dusty at July 17, 2007 08:52 AM (GJLeQ)
22
Dear purple,
I don't think much of genocide. But then I don't think that the world's problems are all mine and my countries. Are we in Iraq to prevent two factions of Islam from killing each other? If so, that is a fairly stupid thing to do as there is no end to our involvement. These people have been trying to kill each other for about 1400 years. If that is what turns them on then who cares? I certainly do not want my son involved in such a rediculous endeavor. For that matter, I see no reason to be trying to establish "Democracy" in Iraq. This is particularly a sticking point as I don't think we have the best of freedom here since 1860. It is about that time that the lower social orders began to rise and enslave those of us who produce.
I don't think much of genocide. But then I don't think that the world's problems are all mine and my countries. Are we in Iraq to prevent two factions of Islam from killing each other? If so, that is a fairly stupid thing to do as there is no end to our involvement. These people have been trying to kill each other for about 1400 years. If that is what turns them on then who cares? I certainly do not want my son involved in such a rediculous endeavor. For that matter, I see no reason to be trying to establish "Democracy" in Iraq. This is particularly a sticking point as I don't think we have the best of freedom here since 1860. It is about that time that the lower social orders began to rise and enslave those of us who produce.
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at July 17, 2007 09:01 AM (G5i3t)
23
"Thank you for acknowledging that your fundamental point -- Iraq wasn't fighting us in the first place -- is wrong."
I didn't.
I didn't.
Posted by: Rafar at July 17, 2007 09:27 AM (kkgmI)
24
Are we in Iraq to prevent two factions of Islam from killing each other? If so, that is a fairly stupid thing to do as there is no end to our involvement.
This is a good argument for the US not getting involved in any UN peacekeeping deployments.
This is a good argument for the US not getting involved in any UN peacekeeping deployments.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 17, 2007 10:19 AM (KoyO/)
25
Rafar:
As to "Lebanon" strategy please see: http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/04/iraq_a_new_lebanon.html
There are other articles in 2004 discussing this and even quoting Assad about it, but I do not have time to review the entire Google cache. If you are an intrepid truthseeker, take a look. Might even find things from NYT or BBC.
As to an "ongoing brutal occupation" please clarify what brutal activity the United States and her allies have been engaging in.
As to "Lebanon" strategy please see: http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/04/iraq_a_new_lebanon.html
There are other articles in 2004 discussing this and even quoting Assad about it, but I do not have time to review the entire Google cache. If you are an intrepid truthseeker, take a look. Might even find things from NYT or BBC.
As to an "ongoing brutal occupation" please clarify what brutal activity the United States and her allies have been engaging in.
Posted by: wjo at July 17, 2007 10:33 AM (r6omM)
26
"As to an "ongoing brutal occupation" please clarify what brutal activity the United States and her allies have been engaging in."
Erm. The one which these soldiers were involved in;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges
If you notice, they aren't acting as monsters, they aren't acting as anything other that human beings in very stressful situations.
But the result is a brutal occupation.
I have to nip off now, but I note one interesting fact from the piece you quoted;
"One of the most remarkable aspects of this similarity is the omnipresence of the Lebanese Shia terrorist group Hizbullah in Iraq —— Hizbullah opened two offices there last April. "
Hizbullah in Iraq is a completely different organisation to the one in Leb, it just shares the "Party of God" moniker. This has been a common mistake.
Obviously this is only a cursory look, but that article looked long on claims and short on sources. I was looking for Syria actually saying something rather than claims that they may be doing something.
You said;
"However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have."
I was looking for the boasts, not for more claims.
Erm. The one which these soldiers were involved in;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges
If you notice, they aren't acting as monsters, they aren't acting as anything other that human beings in very stressful situations.
But the result is a brutal occupation.
I have to nip off now, but I note one interesting fact from the piece you quoted;
"One of the most remarkable aspects of this similarity is the omnipresence of the Lebanese Shia terrorist group Hizbullah in Iraq —— Hizbullah opened two offices there last April. "
Hizbullah in Iraq is a completely different organisation to the one in Leb, it just shares the "Party of God" moniker. This has been a common mistake.
Obviously this is only a cursory look, but that article looked long on claims and short on sources. I was looking for Syria actually saying something rather than claims that they may be doing something.
You said;
"However, the Iranians and Syrians boasted at the time of invasion that they would fight us using the Lebanon playbook, which they have."
I was looking for the boasts, not for more claims.
Posted by: Rafar at July 17, 2007 10:47 AM (kkgmI)
27
"Yeah, OK, you're right. Saddam Hussein was a real danger to the US, and was actively trying to militarily engage you in a way that required you to strike him back."
So, you quote my first paragraph acknowledging Saddam's breaking of the armistice, respond that I am right in the point, and add a confirming conclusion that he was actively engaging us militarily and now you say you didn't acknowledge it.
I understand the snarkiness of your response but all that implies is that the argument is about whether the tipping point for the US going back to war should be based on your criteria or ours, and not whether he initiated it or not, which you did indeed acknowledge he did.
So, you quote my first paragraph acknowledging Saddam's breaking of the armistice, respond that I am right in the point, and add a confirming conclusion that he was actively engaging us militarily and now you say you didn't acknowledge it.
I understand the snarkiness of your response but all that implies is that the argument is about whether the tipping point for the US going back to war should be based on your criteria or ours, and not whether he initiated it or not, which you did indeed acknowledge he did.
Posted by: Dusty at July 17, 2007 11:32 AM (GJLeQ)
28
"Pelosi-led Congress and Reid-led Senate--deliberative bodies with roughly as many major legislative accomplishments as the Iraqi Parliament they criticize"
Of the many ways I could think to identify this Congress you have simply nailed it with your statement. This Democratic Congress is no more effective thus far than the Iraqi's, amazing and great verbiage on your part:-)
Of the many ways I could think to identify this Congress you have simply nailed it with your statement. This Democratic Congress is no more effective thus far than the Iraqi's, amazing and great verbiage on your part:-)
Posted by: Jaded at July 17, 2007 12:43 PM (0lpqx)
29
"By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 50 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Dozens of Shiite villagers in the north were massacred by Sunni extremists, two officials said Tuesday, while a car bomb exploded across the street from the Iranian Embassy in the heart of Baghdad and killed four civilians. "
The AP reports a massacre! There it is Neo-con. Are you happy now?
SUNNI EXTREMISTS. That's who did it. And why do Sunni extremists exist? Because of the idiotic American de-Baatification order which was, of course, perceived as anti-Sunni because it was, in effect, anti-Sunni since so many Sunnis, as members of the Baath party, were working peacefully for the Iraqi government before the Americans came and destroyed what was working, igniting the insurgency by outlawing Baathists.
I know, Neo-Cons want Sunnis to be called "al-Qaeda". As if that somehow makes the continuing occupation of Iraq 'justifiable' or 'necessary'. The war was originally supposed to be about WMD and how 'evil' Saddam Hussein was. The search for WMD was over a long time ago and Saddam is now dead. But Neo-Cons still want to occupy and fight. Why? Who knows? But in the benighted mind of the frustrated Neo-Con, a new REASON for occupation must be supplied.......al Qaeda! Aha! If al-Qaeda, goes the logic of the simpleton Neo-Con, then war=necessary/justifiable. Because......well, because al-Qaeda did 9/11.
The reality is that al-Qaeda only came to Iraq because the US invaded Iraq. If the US HAD NOT invaded, the Iraqi people would still be living in peace and not in terror. Its time to admit that the American war has failed and is harmful to all Iraqi people except the Kurds. The American military has produced death and destruction and turned Americans servicemen into ruthless dog-killers..
The Nation magazine
"So we get started on this day, this one in particular," recalled Spc. Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, who said he raided between twenty and thirty Iraqi homes during an eleven-month tour in Kirkuk and Hawija that ended in October 2005, serving with the Third Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade.
"And we were approaching this one house," he said. "In this farming area, they're, like, built up into little courtyards. So they have, like, the main house, common area. They have, like, a kitchen and then they have a storage shed-type deal. And we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, 'cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. And he didn't--motherfucker--he shot it and it went in the jaw and exited out. So I see this dog--I'm a huge animal lover; I love animals--and this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, What the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words. And so, I yell at him. I'm, like, What the fuck are you doing? And so the dog's yelping. It's crying out without a jaw. And I'm looking at the family, and they're just, you know, dead scared. And so I told them, I was like, Fucking shoot it, you know? At least kill it, because that can't be fixed.... "
1 hour, 50 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Dozens of Shiite villagers in the north were massacred by Sunni extremists, two officials said Tuesday, while a car bomb exploded across the street from the Iranian Embassy in the heart of Baghdad and killed four civilians. "
The AP reports a massacre! There it is Neo-con. Are you happy now?
SUNNI EXTREMISTS. That's who did it. And why do Sunni extremists exist? Because of the idiotic American de-Baatification order which was, of course, perceived as anti-Sunni because it was, in effect, anti-Sunni since so many Sunnis, as members of the Baath party, were working peacefully for the Iraqi government before the Americans came and destroyed what was working, igniting the insurgency by outlawing Baathists.
I know, Neo-Cons want Sunnis to be called "al-Qaeda". As if that somehow makes the continuing occupation of Iraq 'justifiable' or 'necessary'. The war was originally supposed to be about WMD and how 'evil' Saddam Hussein was. The search for WMD was over a long time ago and Saddam is now dead. But Neo-Cons still want to occupy and fight. Why? Who knows? But in the benighted mind of the frustrated Neo-Con, a new REASON for occupation must be supplied.......al Qaeda! Aha! If al-Qaeda, goes the logic of the simpleton Neo-Con, then war=necessary/justifiable. Because......well, because al-Qaeda did 9/11.
The reality is that al-Qaeda only came to Iraq because the US invaded Iraq. If the US HAD NOT invaded, the Iraqi people would still be living in peace and not in terror. Its time to admit that the American war has failed and is harmful to all Iraqi people except the Kurds. The American military has produced death and destruction and turned Americans servicemen into ruthless dog-killers..
The Nation magazine
"So we get started on this day, this one in particular," recalled Spc. Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, who said he raided between twenty and thirty Iraqi homes during an eleven-month tour in Kirkuk and Hawija that ended in October 2005, serving with the Third Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade.
"And we were approaching this one house," he said. "In this farming area, they're, like, built up into little courtyards. So they have, like, the main house, common area. They have, like, a kitchen and then they have a storage shed-type deal. And we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, 'cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. And he didn't--motherfucker--he shot it and it went in the jaw and exited out. So I see this dog--I'm a huge animal lover; I love animals--and this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, What the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words. And so, I yell at him. I'm, like, What the fuck are you doing? And so the dog's yelping. It's crying out without a jaw. And I'm looking at the family, and they're just, you know, dead scared. And so I told them, I was like, Fucking shoot it, you know? At least kill it, because that can't be fixed.... "
Posted by: BannedChatter at July 17, 2007 02:09 PM (E9Tyv)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 17, 2007 06:02 PM (KoyO/)
31
Banned - Your statement that "If the US HAD NOT invaded, the Iraqi people would still be living in peace and not in terror" makes me wonder if you just arrived here from a moronic convergence.
Saddam gassing his own people, his rape and torture rooms, the mass graves and such all did not exist in your world. It surely was all sweetness and light, for the Sunnis, under Saddam.
It's apparent you don't get outside your progressive bubble very much.
Saddam gassing his own people, his rape and torture rooms, the mass graves and such all did not exist in your world. It surely was all sweetness and light, for the Sunnis, under Saddam.
It's apparent you don't get outside your progressive bubble very much.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 17, 2007 07:03 PM (0pZel)
32
Rafar:
This commentary from your Nation link says it all:
"The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war in Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory."
The thing I detest about your garden variety Leftist is the dogma that he/she/it was born not with Original Sin but Original Virtue. The subtext being: if you were just on my moral plane, you could be sagacious like me.
News Flash: War is HELL. You cannot refine it. War of itself is a dark and depraved enterprise for it involves the abnegation of charity, love and understanding but is instead, violent, dirty, and unclean. In war, the victor imposes his will on the vanquished, for that is victory.
And for the Left, in its view of history, Vietnam equals just desserts for a "misguided" and corrupt republic. The heroes of that war are not the troops, but the protesters.
The Left needs for Iraq to be Vietnam so the boomers can relive their youthful rebellion, but also so the "Movement" can be reignited so that the benighted are enlightened and lead to nirvana by those of Original Virtue.
However, Vietnam to the America's enemies is a signal lesson that division can be exploited for gain. Assad and the Mullahs know this and are playing the Left like a fiddle.
This commentary from your Nation link says it all:
"The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war in Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory."
The thing I detest about your garden variety Leftist is the dogma that he/she/it was born not with Original Sin but Original Virtue. The subtext being: if you were just on my moral plane, you could be sagacious like me.
News Flash: War is HELL. You cannot refine it. War of itself is a dark and depraved enterprise for it involves the abnegation of charity, love and understanding but is instead, violent, dirty, and unclean. In war, the victor imposes his will on the vanquished, for that is victory.
And for the Left, in its view of history, Vietnam equals just desserts for a "misguided" and corrupt republic. The heroes of that war are not the troops, but the protesters.
The Left needs for Iraq to be Vietnam so the boomers can relive their youthful rebellion, but also so the "Movement" can be reignited so that the benighted are enlightened and lead to nirvana by those of Original Virtue.
However, Vietnam to the America's enemies is a signal lesson that division can be exploited for gain. Assad and the Mullahs know this and are playing the Left like a fiddle.
Posted by: wjo at July 18, 2007 12:42 PM (r6omM)
33
The one which these soldiers were involved in...
Ohhh, a small self selected sample greatly assisted by the IVAW. Very representative and convincing....not.
Ohhh, a small self selected sample greatly assisted by the IVAW. Very representative and convincing....not.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 18, 2007 07:38 PM (KoyO/)
34
Purple:
Of course, we are the devil because some dips**t shoots a dog showing off our lack of cultural finesse, while thugs and brutes murder little kids, shoot up and bomb markets and holy places and generally cause wanton destruction and mayhem in the name of a sick ideology. However, because they oppose our "brutal occupation" they get a pass as liberators combatting the colonizers bent on stealing resources.
If this was WWII or the Cold War Hitler and Stalin would have no need for a propaganda ministry because these twits would already have done the work for them.
Of course, if this was WWI President Wilson would already have these American citizens jailed and busting rocks on charges of sedition and treason, but we shouldn't mention authoritarianism on the Left because it disturbs the narrative that Bushitler McChimpyHalliburton has destroyed civil liberties in this country.
Of course, we are the devil because some dips**t shoots a dog showing off our lack of cultural finesse, while thugs and brutes murder little kids, shoot up and bomb markets and holy places and generally cause wanton destruction and mayhem in the name of a sick ideology. However, because they oppose our "brutal occupation" they get a pass as liberators combatting the colonizers bent on stealing resources.
If this was WWII or the Cold War Hitler and Stalin would have no need for a propaganda ministry because these twits would already have done the work for them.
Of course, if this was WWI President Wilson would already have these American citizens jailed and busting rocks on charges of sedition and treason, but we shouldn't mention authoritarianism on the Left because it disturbs the narrative that Bushitler McChimpyHalliburton has destroyed civil liberties in this country.
Posted by: wjo at July 18, 2007 11:59 PM (4Ax+G)
35
Great, whatever it takes to get the troops home. Bush is a hero, the war wasn't a ridiculously colossal mistake that will cost us in treasure, people and diplomatic capital. Can they come home now?
Posted by: Gus at July 19, 2007 12:02 AM (Tqfhc)
36
Gus:
By "bringing them home" now and leaving the field to our sworn enemy you make their sacrifice meaningless. You may be able to live with that, but I cannot.
The troops come home and then what? We either destroy this sick ideology and its adherents here and now or we deal with it ever more.
As for loss of diplomatic capital, to paraphrase FDR, I welcome their hate of me. We are who we are and the risble will always hate us for our political choices.
By "bringing them home" now and leaving the field to our sworn enemy you make their sacrifice meaningless. You may be able to live with that, but I cannot.
The troops come home and then what? We either destroy this sick ideology and its adherents here and now or we deal with it ever more.
As for loss of diplomatic capital, to paraphrase FDR, I welcome their hate of me. We are who we are and the risble will always hate us for our political choices.
Posted by: wjo at July 19, 2007 12:36 AM (4Ax+G)
37
"The thing I detest about your garden variety Leftist is the dogma that he/she/it was born not with Original Sin but Original Virtue. The subtext being: if you were just on my moral plane, you could be sagacious like me."
What on Earth are you talking about? I don't think of people with original sin or original virtue, whatever you mean by those phrases. I think of people as people, doing the things that people tend to do.
"War is HELL. You cannot refine it. War of itself is a dark and depraved enterprise for it involves the abnegation of charity, love and understanding but is instead, violent, dirty, and unclean. In war, the victor imposes his will on the vanquished, for that is victory."
Yes, that's my point. War is Hell for the soldiers involved, but doubly so for the civilian population involved as they have no real means to protect themselves from the Hell that surrounds them.
You did note that I didn't think that those stories described monsters, just people doing what people do.
"However, Vietnam to the America's enemies is a signal lesson that division can be exploited for gain. Assad and the Mullahs know this and are playing the Left like a fiddle."
Yes, it should have been such a lesson, for the US as well. It should have taught that, if you are going to have a war of choice, it needs to be run in the most ethical way possible, and it need to be as short as possible. 4GW theory is pretty clear on this point.
Put it this way. You know that your population will renounce the war withing a couple of years unless it is obvious to all that it is an existention war. Therefore you need to either fight only existential wars, or you need to fight short wars of limited scope to prevent the population drifting away from supporting it. In Iraq you have done neither, and so the populace has turned against the war and you have lost it. All the whining about "Lefties" in the world will not change that.
Doing what you are doing is like trying to organise airstrikes without an airforce.
What on Earth are you talking about? I don't think of people with original sin or original virtue, whatever you mean by those phrases. I think of people as people, doing the things that people tend to do.
"War is HELL. You cannot refine it. War of itself is a dark and depraved enterprise for it involves the abnegation of charity, love and understanding but is instead, violent, dirty, and unclean. In war, the victor imposes his will on the vanquished, for that is victory."
Yes, that's my point. War is Hell for the soldiers involved, but doubly so for the civilian population involved as they have no real means to protect themselves from the Hell that surrounds them.
You did note that I didn't think that those stories described monsters, just people doing what people do.
"However, Vietnam to the America's enemies is a signal lesson that division can be exploited for gain. Assad and the Mullahs know this and are playing the Left like a fiddle."
Yes, it should have been such a lesson, for the US as well. It should have taught that, if you are going to have a war of choice, it needs to be run in the most ethical way possible, and it need to be as short as possible. 4GW theory is pretty clear on this point.
Put it this way. You know that your population will renounce the war withing a couple of years unless it is obvious to all that it is an existention war. Therefore you need to either fight only existential wars, or you need to fight short wars of limited scope to prevent the population drifting away from supporting it. In Iraq you have done neither, and so the populace has turned against the war and you have lost it. All the whining about "Lefties" in the world will not change that.
Doing what you are doing is like trying to organise airstrikes without an airforce.
Posted by: Rafar at July 19, 2007 04:13 AM (kkgmI)
38
"Ohhh, a small self selected sample greatly assisted by the IVAW. Very representative and convincing....not."
Feel free to read accounts of raids by Iraqis. Feel free to read about the detention centers. Feel free to read (or even view the videos) of how US forces drive about in Iraq.
I'm not accusuing them of being monsters, just of being an occupying force in a hostile country. Being an occupation force in a hostile country involves brutality. It always has and it always will.
Feel free to read accounts of raids by Iraqis. Feel free to read about the detention centers. Feel free to read (or even view the videos) of how US forces drive about in Iraq.
I'm not accusuing them of being monsters, just of being an occupying force in a hostile country. Being an occupation force in a hostile country involves brutality. It always has and it always will.
Posted by: Rafar at July 19, 2007 04:15 AM (kkgmI)
39
"Of course, we are the devil because some dips**t shoots a dog showing off our lack of cultural finesse, while thugs and brutes murder little kids, shoot up and bomb markets and holy places and generally cause wanton destruction and mayhem in the name of a sick ideology. However, because they oppose our "brutal occupation" they get a pass as liberators combatting the colonizers bent on stealing resources."
Who's giving them a pass? Do I have to print a boiler plate at the top of every post saying that I believe the insurgents to be murdering scum, bent not on freedom but on power? Do I have to remind you that I despise AlQ and all they stand for? CanI just get a signature created to say this for me to save on this nonsense?
And you're not devils. You are an occupying force in a hostile land. The game is basically, can you get enough support for both yourselves and the government in place in order to minimise support for the insurgents and create stability, or can they succeed in destabalising the country and keeping it that way.
"if this was WWI President Wilson would already have these American citizens jailed and busting rocks on charges of sedition and treason"
Which citizens? Do you think that would be a good thing?
Who's giving them a pass? Do I have to print a boiler plate at the top of every post saying that I believe the insurgents to be murdering scum, bent not on freedom but on power? Do I have to remind you that I despise AlQ and all they stand for? CanI just get a signature created to say this for me to save on this nonsense?
And you're not devils. You are an occupying force in a hostile land. The game is basically, can you get enough support for both yourselves and the government in place in order to minimise support for the insurgents and create stability, or can they succeed in destabalising the country and keeping it that way.
"if this was WWI President Wilson would already have these American citizens jailed and busting rocks on charges of sedition and treason"
Which citizens? Do you think that would be a good thing?
Posted by: Rafar at July 19, 2007 04:19 AM (kkgmI)
40
Rafar:
The military forces of the United States are subject to the The Uniform Code of Military Justice which incorporates our treaty obligations under the laws of war. However, being men and not angels, there will be those who act contrary to that code and contrary to the values of the country. HOWEVER, there are consequences visited on those who violate the Code. What other way than the present way would present a means of running a military campaign the most "ethical way possible"?
Here is my thesis: there are two general political affiliations in this country. The first is the Secular Progressive Moral Relativist position. The second is the Traditional Moral Code position. A bright line divide that illuminates the difference of which camp you are in is the abortion issue. SPMR's favor or are indifferent to abortion; TMC folks oppose or have a dim view of abortion.
Generally, if you are SPMR your perception of the world is one where those not of your ideology do not understand that they live unnecessarily constrained lives which do not push the bounds of human liberty (TMC's). In fact, their constraints cause them to support policies that are perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic,etc. A SPMR will view the history of the world as a catalogue of oppression, misery, and class exploitation. The antidote to this are statist policies and transnational institutions. They also believe that judging others is generally wrong. They are also convinced that utopia is possible if just the right policies are adopted and the right persons are in charge. They are big on centralization of power. A Metrosexual would fall in with this crowd. To a SPMR a most important value is to "feel" for the oppressed.
TMC's on the other hand believe that adherence to religious faith and the traditional values of liberalism (set forth, somewhat, in the Bill of Rights), individuality and self reliance are what make for a happy life. They are Okies from Muskogee who like living right and being free. They are unabashedly and unashamedly patriotic, and believe in American exceptionalism. They distrust government of all kinds (particularly transnational organizations), want decentralization of power and usually own and know how to use a firearm. They believe that history shows the country's blemishes, but that overall, we ain't doing too bad. Making judgments is not frowned upon because they strive to live by a moral code and therefore character counts for something (including your own). They do not believe in utopia but do believe in heaven. Overall, they do not take kindly to being forced into anything: Give me liberty; or give me death. From what I can discern, CY falls in with this crowd.
Now, I've put all this forward to make this point. The country is roughly 50:50 in both camps of what makes up la dolce vita (judging by Presidential election results). What that means,then, today, is that because the TMC's are deemed to be in control of the war agenda SPMR's cannot abide by it. To support that agenda is to support that ideology which certain SPMR's ,in fact, believe is evil. Of course, because a TMC like Bush is president it reinforces their bias that the country is messed-up and that only their values can clean up the mess. Case in point, the "comedy" of Bill Maher who plays it up to this echo chamber crowd.
Consequently, there is a sizable proportion of the country who are disaffected by this war, but that was inevitable. The disaffection of these folks is a weakness exploitable by a cunning foe. The North Vietnamese discovered this. The Jihadis are depending on it. It is the only way they can win.
That is why, Rafar, talk of withdrawal and defeat burns my ears. War distilled is a contest of will. You may think the President a rube and boob, but I believe he understands that point and the talk of Reid and Pelosi of the struggle being "lost" is not helpful, even, if they honestly believe it (dubious). I also believe our military leaders understand that point, particularly those who served in Vietnam. Insurgencies rely on war weariness to succeed.
Most respectfully, we have not lost in Iraq. We can only lose by giving up.
The military forces of the United States are subject to the The Uniform Code of Military Justice which incorporates our treaty obligations under the laws of war. However, being men and not angels, there will be those who act contrary to that code and contrary to the values of the country. HOWEVER, there are consequences visited on those who violate the Code. What other way than the present way would present a means of running a military campaign the most "ethical way possible"?
Here is my thesis: there are two general political affiliations in this country. The first is the Secular Progressive Moral Relativist position. The second is the Traditional Moral Code position. A bright line divide that illuminates the difference of which camp you are in is the abortion issue. SPMR's favor or are indifferent to abortion; TMC folks oppose or have a dim view of abortion.
Generally, if you are SPMR your perception of the world is one where those not of your ideology do not understand that they live unnecessarily constrained lives which do not push the bounds of human liberty (TMC's). In fact, their constraints cause them to support policies that are perceived as racist, sexist, homophobic,etc. A SPMR will view the history of the world as a catalogue of oppression, misery, and class exploitation. The antidote to this are statist policies and transnational institutions. They also believe that judging others is generally wrong. They are also convinced that utopia is possible if just the right policies are adopted and the right persons are in charge. They are big on centralization of power. A Metrosexual would fall in with this crowd. To a SPMR a most important value is to "feel" for the oppressed.
TMC's on the other hand believe that adherence to religious faith and the traditional values of liberalism (set forth, somewhat, in the Bill of Rights), individuality and self reliance are what make for a happy life. They are Okies from Muskogee who like living right and being free. They are unabashedly and unashamedly patriotic, and believe in American exceptionalism. They distrust government of all kinds (particularly transnational organizations), want decentralization of power and usually own and know how to use a firearm. They believe that history shows the country's blemishes, but that overall, we ain't doing too bad. Making judgments is not frowned upon because they strive to live by a moral code and therefore character counts for something (including your own). They do not believe in utopia but do believe in heaven. Overall, they do not take kindly to being forced into anything: Give me liberty; or give me death. From what I can discern, CY falls in with this crowd.
Now, I've put all this forward to make this point. The country is roughly 50:50 in both camps of what makes up la dolce vita (judging by Presidential election results). What that means,then, today, is that because the TMC's are deemed to be in control of the war agenda SPMR's cannot abide by it. To support that agenda is to support that ideology which certain SPMR's ,in fact, believe is evil. Of course, because a TMC like Bush is president it reinforces their bias that the country is messed-up and that only their values can clean up the mess. Case in point, the "comedy" of Bill Maher who plays it up to this echo chamber crowd.
Consequently, there is a sizable proportion of the country who are disaffected by this war, but that was inevitable. The disaffection of these folks is a weakness exploitable by a cunning foe. The North Vietnamese discovered this. The Jihadis are depending on it. It is the only way they can win.
That is why, Rafar, talk of withdrawal and defeat burns my ears. War distilled is a contest of will. You may think the President a rube and boob, but I believe he understands that point and the talk of Reid and Pelosi of the struggle being "lost" is not helpful, even, if they honestly believe it (dubious). I also believe our military leaders understand that point, particularly those who served in Vietnam. Insurgencies rely on war weariness to succeed.
Most respectfully, we have not lost in Iraq. We can only lose by giving up.
Posted by: wjo at July 19, 2007 10:07 AM (r6omM)
41
On the "What brutal occupation" question, take 4 minutes to watch this. You may say "But that's biased" but the raw footage is obviously accurate and it features an embed and lots of US troops talking, so it isn't just faked up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1knqJ5QS_g
Now, they aren't out there killing Iraqis for fun. I never said that they were. but I challenge you to say that if soldiers from another country who didn't speak your language were doing what they are doing in your town, you wouldn't consider it a brutal occupation.
"HOWEVER, there are consequences visited on those who violate the Code."
I'm not talking about violating the code. I am talking about the reality of the war the troops on the ground act in relation to the general population. They aren't breaking the code when they shoot a car speeding towards them, but they are being brutal. They aren't violating the code when they terrify a granny, but they are being brutal. It is normal that an occupaition be brutal, and the US occupation is certainly a lot less brutal than most.
"Most respectfully, we have not lost in Iraq. We can only lose by giving up."
But see, tht's the point. You have given up and so you have lost. A solid majority of Americans want this war over in pretty short order.
Obviously, even if everything turns around, the Iraqi government magically transforms into something that can actually governand the Shiite militias in the police and army, the Sunni tribesmen and the Kurdish nationalists all come together to build a stable society and the lunatics with the truck bombs all find their way to Paradise leaving the Iraqis with some hope of normality to try to pick up their shattered country and build it back into somewhere to live and raise then next sheelshocked generation in peace, even if all that comes to pass, it is going to take 5-10 years in the dream scenario.
There is no way that the American public are going to support this war that long. It is no good complaining about it and reminding people that wars are about will, it is already way too late.
As for the, frankly, extremely patronising division of the world into SPMRs and TMCs (I assume that you allow that that is only one axis of differentiation, and that it can, at best, only be a graded scale between the two. I mean, where's the room for libertarians in that scale for example?
And what's more, if that is true then the division of Pro and Anti War opinion would imply that the population is shifting from one to the other when that is patently a false impression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1knqJ5QS_g
Now, they aren't out there killing Iraqis for fun. I never said that they were. but I challenge you to say that if soldiers from another country who didn't speak your language were doing what they are doing in your town, you wouldn't consider it a brutal occupation.
"HOWEVER, there are consequences visited on those who violate the Code."
I'm not talking about violating the code. I am talking about the reality of the war the troops on the ground act in relation to the general population. They aren't breaking the code when they shoot a car speeding towards them, but they are being brutal. They aren't violating the code when they terrify a granny, but they are being brutal. It is normal that an occupaition be brutal, and the US occupation is certainly a lot less brutal than most.
"Most respectfully, we have not lost in Iraq. We can only lose by giving up."
But see, tht's the point. You have given up and so you have lost. A solid majority of Americans want this war over in pretty short order.
Obviously, even if everything turns around, the Iraqi government magically transforms into something that can actually governand the Shiite militias in the police and army, the Sunni tribesmen and the Kurdish nationalists all come together to build a stable society and the lunatics with the truck bombs all find their way to Paradise leaving the Iraqis with some hope of normality to try to pick up their shattered country and build it back into somewhere to live and raise then next sheelshocked generation in peace, even if all that comes to pass, it is going to take 5-10 years in the dream scenario.
There is no way that the American public are going to support this war that long. It is no good complaining about it and reminding people that wars are about will, it is already way too late.
As for the, frankly, extremely patronising division of the world into SPMRs and TMCs (I assume that you allow that that is only one axis of differentiation, and that it can, at best, only be a graded scale between the two. I mean, where's the room for libertarians in that scale for example?
And what's more, if that is true then the division of Pro and Anti War opinion would imply that the population is shifting from one to the other when that is patently a false impression.
Posted by: Rafar at July 19, 2007 04:30 PM (6Er5v)
42
Rafar:
Your response is just pathetic.
If your fictional war time clock exists, it should mean then that we should be dropping the "big one" because we don't have a stomach to fight.
You prove my very point in your reply with this logic: we are occupying Iraq; our occupation is met with "resistance"; the "resistance" is met with "brutality"; we cannot win because our "brutality" only creates more "resistance".
The flaw is the "resistance" part. Who are these "resisters"? Thugs, brutes, Baathist holdovers, Al-Quaida and assorted moron allies, or some combination of all the above.
How can this resistance win? Break our will. How? At home. How at home? Create havoc and then propagandize. Who will consume the propaganda? The gullible who will believe it. Why will they believe it? It fits and reinforces their narrative of America's character.And, these latter were the easy sell because America is the devil (except for them).
Ask yourself this: how much of the discomfort of the Iraq war is based our "brutal" occupation and how much is based on perception that we are not in it to win it. I'd expect that a sizable portion of your "bug out" coalition is predicated on us not being harder and more "brutal" with our enemies, not less.
Your response is just pathetic.
If your fictional war time clock exists, it should mean then that we should be dropping the "big one" because we don't have a stomach to fight.
You prove my very point in your reply with this logic: we are occupying Iraq; our occupation is met with "resistance"; the "resistance" is met with "brutality"; we cannot win because our "brutality" only creates more "resistance".
The flaw is the "resistance" part. Who are these "resisters"? Thugs, brutes, Baathist holdovers, Al-Quaida and assorted moron allies, or some combination of all the above.
How can this resistance win? Break our will. How? At home. How at home? Create havoc and then propagandize. Who will consume the propaganda? The gullible who will believe it. Why will they believe it? It fits and reinforces their narrative of America's character.And, these latter were the easy sell because America is the devil (except for them).
Ask yourself this: how much of the discomfort of the Iraq war is based our "brutal" occupation and how much is based on perception that we are not in it to win it. I'd expect that a sizable portion of your "bug out" coalition is predicated on us not being harder and more "brutal" with our enemies, not less.
Posted by: wjo at July 20, 2007 11:18 AM (r6omM)
July 15, 2007
Iranian Rockets Recovered In Iraq [with Photos]
Via MNF-I:
That press release went up yesterday. I got copies of the photographs documenting the scene from MNF-I PAO this morning.
After several rockets hit FOB Hammer on July 11, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team maneuvered to find the source of the attack.
Early on July 12, the 3rd HBCT’s unmanned aerial vehicle located 46 rocket launchers in the northern section of Besmaya Range Complex aimed at FOB Hammer. Thirty-four of the launchers were armed with Iranian 107mm rockets. The Besmaya Range Complex is adjacent to the Coalition Force base.
Soldiers of the 789th Explosive Ordnance Disposal team, currently attached to the 3rd HBCT, immediately responded to the site.
According to Capt. Justin Gerken, from Red Wing, Minn., commander of the 789th EOD team, 12 of the 46 rockets had already been used to attack FOB Hammer the day prior. EOD Soldiers were able to determine that the rockets originated from Iran after analyzing the unexploded ordnance.
The 789th EOD team was successful in neutralizing the remaining rockets.
Iranian 107mm rocket captured while aimed at U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq. (click photo for full size).
U.S. Army EOD securing Iranian 107mm rockets and launchers captured in Iraq. (click photo for full size).
Unfired Iranian 107mm rockets recovered after attack on U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq. (click photo for full size).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:33 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
hate to sound like a skeptic, but what would be the purpose of lining these rockets up and leaving them there? It doesn't look like they'd be that hard to set up, so why wouldn't their owner wait until just before firing before doing so?
Posted by: stevesturm at July 15, 2007 09:28 AM (XBWtm)
2
what would be the purpose of lining these rockets up and leaving them there?
So you can deposit and aim them a few at a time while ambling by innocuously in preparation for a large scale volley later on?
They look rather heavy. Making a hasty escape while winded after hauling heavy stuff isn't terribly smart is it?
So you can deposit and aim them a few at a time while ambling by innocuously in preparation for a large scale volley later on?
They look rather heavy. Making a hasty escape while winded after hauling heavy stuff isn't terribly smart is it?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 09:38 AM (EI+1K)
3
"hate to sound like a skeptic, but what would be the purpose of lining these rockets up and leaving them there? It doesn't look like they'd be that hard to set up, so why wouldn't their owner wait until just before firing before doing so?"
Rockets are, by definition, unguided munitions. The best the crew can do to aim these things is point them in the right direction and hope the rockets run out of fuel over their intended targets. This makes them only effective when fired at very large, area targets, like FOB Hammer. Because of the inherent inaccuracy of rockets, they are fired in large volleys. Accuracy by volume, if you will. That's the purpose of lining them up in large numbers. We saw these same tactics used by Hezbollah against Israel only with larger rockets.
Rockets are, by definition, unguided munitions. The best the crew can do to aim these things is point them in the right direction and hope the rockets run out of fuel over their intended targets. This makes them only effective when fired at very large, area targets, like FOB Hammer. Because of the inherent inaccuracy of rockets, they are fired in large volleys. Accuracy by volume, if you will. That's the purpose of lining them up in large numbers. We saw these same tactics used by Hezbollah against Israel only with larger rockets.
Posted by: Vegetius at July 15, 2007 11:05 AM (nBZoI)
4
CY, I'm not up on how this stuff works. How did the Iranians get their hands on rockets that are labeled in English?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 11:24 AM (CrydK)
5
"How did the Iranians get their hands on rockets that are labeled in English?"
And while you are at it, How did all those fine 'Made in China' products at WalMart get labeled in English?
And while you are at it, How did all those fine 'Made in China' products at WalMart get labeled in English?
Posted by: PETN Sandwich at July 15, 2007 01:37 PM (OY20b)
6
Doc, why is Iran's weapons export site in English as well?
The answer is quite simple: just like English is the worldwide standard language for air travel and some other applications, so it is for munitions that may be sold on the export market.
The answer is quite simple: just like English is the worldwide standard language for air travel and some other applications, so it is for munitions that may be sold on the export market.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 15, 2007 01:53 PM (HcgFD)
7
Been that way for a long time, too.
I have a really old Brazilian single-shot shotgun from the 1940s, and the stampings are in English - it even says "Miami, FL," but that was the importer.
I have a really old Brazilian single-shot shotgun from the 1940s, and the stampings are in English - it even says "Miami, FL," but that was the importer.
Posted by: cirby at July 15, 2007 02:56 PM (AbkSG)
8
it's ridiculous to suppose iranian munitions should be marked in something other than english. why, the american public found out 20 years ago that they are likely to signed, "To Iran; Love, Ronald Reagan, Ollie North, G.H.W. Bush, et al."
Posted by: j at July 15, 2007 02:56 PM (Qj9lw)
9
OR, they could just as easily be marked, "Love, G.W. Bush, Cheney, the Joint Chiefs, et al."
from the Washington Post:
"AP: Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon Sale
By SHARON THEIMER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 16, 2007; 9:56 PM
WASHINGTON -- Fighter jet parts and other sensitive U.S. military gear seized from front companies for Iran and brokers for China have been traced in criminal cases to a surprising source: the Pentagon.
In one case, federal investigators said, contraband purchased in Defense Department surplus auctions was delivered to Iran, a country President Bush has branded part of an 'axis of evil.'
In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents say those parts did make it to Iran.
....
In one case, convicted middlemen for Iran bought Tomcat parts from the Defense Department's surplus division. Customs agents confiscated them and returned them to the Pentagon, which sold them again _customs evidence tags still attached_ to another buyer, a suspected broker for Iran.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found it alarmingly easy to acquire sensitive surplus. Last year, its agents bought $1.1 million worth including rocket launchers [you don't say!], body armor and surveillance antennas by driving onto a base and posing as defense contractors.
....
Investigators have found the Pentagon's inventory and sales controls rife with errors. They say sales are closely watched by friends and foes of the United States.
Among cases in which U.S. military technology made its way from surplus auctions to brokers for Iran, China and others....
.... "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011600134.html
from the Washington Post:
"AP: Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon Sale
By SHARON THEIMER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 16, 2007; 9:56 PM
WASHINGTON -- Fighter jet parts and other sensitive U.S. military gear seized from front companies for Iran and brokers for China have been traced in criminal cases to a surprising source: the Pentagon.
In one case, federal investigators said, contraband purchased in Defense Department surplus auctions was delivered to Iran, a country President Bush has branded part of an 'axis of evil.'
In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents say those parts did make it to Iran.
....
In one case, convicted middlemen for Iran bought Tomcat parts from the Defense Department's surplus division. Customs agents confiscated them and returned them to the Pentagon, which sold them again _customs evidence tags still attached_ to another buyer, a suspected broker for Iran.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found it alarmingly easy to acquire sensitive surplus. Last year, its agents bought $1.1 million worth including rocket launchers [you don't say!], body armor and surveillance antennas by driving onto a base and posing as defense contractors.
....
Investigators have found the Pentagon's inventory and sales controls rife with errors. They say sales are closely watched by friends and foes of the United States.
Among cases in which U.S. military technology made its way from surplus auctions to brokers for Iran, China and others....
.... "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011600134.html
Posted by: j at July 15, 2007 03:20 PM (Qj9lw)
10
You guys read me wrong. I wasn't saying, "So neener neener, why are they in English?" I honestly didn't know that English was the language of munitions makers, and I was looking for information.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 03:31 PM (CrydK)
11
Munition are marked either in English, Russian, or, I think, Chinese.
Posted by: DoesNotMatter at July 15, 2007 05:04 PM (FMRoh)
12
Video Here http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a41_1184333068
http://www.philstar.com/index.php?News%20Flash&p=54&type=2&sec=91&aid=200707151
(AFP) July 14- US soldiers discovered a field of rocket launchers near a US army base south of Baghdad armed with 34 Iranian-made missiles, the military said Saturday.
“After several rockets hit FOB (Forward Operating Base) Hammer on July 11, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team manoeuvred to find the source of the attack,” a statement said.
The next morning an “unmanned aerial vehicle located 46 rocket launchers in the northern section of Besmaya Range Complex aimed at FOB Hammer. Thirty-four of the launchers were armed with Iranian 107mm rockets,” it added.
The US army believes the other twelve rockets were launched at the base the day before, killing one US soldier. The military announced the death on June 12 but provided no details at the time.
US commanders frequently accuse Iran of providing weapons, training and support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including many of the rockets launched at Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone.
Earlier this month, US commanders stepped up the charges, claiming that senior leaders of Iran’s special forces and of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah militia have trained Iraqi fighters and provided other support.
Iran has always denied that it is fomenting unrest in its war-torn neighbour, insisting that the US occupation is the cause of Iraq’s woes.
http://www.philstar.com/index.php?News%20Flash&p=54&type=2&sec=91&aid=200707151
(AFP) July 14- US soldiers discovered a field of rocket launchers near a US army base south of Baghdad armed with 34 Iranian-made missiles, the military said Saturday.
“After several rockets hit FOB (Forward Operating Base) Hammer on July 11, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team manoeuvred to find the source of the attack,” a statement said.
The next morning an “unmanned aerial vehicle located 46 rocket launchers in the northern section of Besmaya Range Complex aimed at FOB Hammer. Thirty-four of the launchers were armed with Iranian 107mm rockets,” it added.
The US army believes the other twelve rockets were launched at the base the day before, killing one US soldier. The military announced the death on June 12 but provided no details at the time.
US commanders frequently accuse Iran of providing weapons, training and support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including many of the rockets launched at Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone.
Earlier this month, US commanders stepped up the charges, claiming that senior leaders of Iran’s special forces and of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah militia have trained Iraqi fighters and provided other support.
Iran has always denied that it is fomenting unrest in its war-torn neighbour, insisting that the US occupation is the cause of Iraq’s woes.
Posted by: Karl B at July 15, 2007 05:56 PM (/HAYJ)
13
still the skeptic.
why fire 12 one day and then leave the others for the US to find? presuming they set them up without being detected, why not go ahead and light them all off? Wouldn't it be on the dumb side to only fire 12? Wouldn't they be afraid of being ambushed when they came back to fire the other 34?
why fire 12 one day and then leave the others for the US to find? presuming they set them up without being detected, why not go ahead and light them all off? Wouldn't it be on the dumb side to only fire 12? Wouldn't they be afraid of being ambushed when they came back to fire the other 34?
Posted by: steve sturm at July 15, 2007 07:45 PM (XBWtm)
14
why not go ahead and light them all off?
For the same reason that the vast majority of successful bank robbers spend 60 seconds or less in the bank? Go beyond 60 seconds and your chances of getting caught start to grow exponentially.
You aren't really this dense are you?
For the same reason that the vast majority of successful bank robbers spend 60 seconds or less in the bank? Go beyond 60 seconds and your chances of getting caught start to grow exponentially.
You aren't really this dense are you?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 08:08 PM (8uYIc)
15
Iranian weapons are marked in Farsi for internal use and in English if intended for export. In other words, these weapons could have been exported by Iran to any of a couple of dozen countries that have bought such rockets then appropriated and redirected by the black market.
After all, that's what the US wants everyone to believe when US weapons turn up in PKK terrorist's hands in Turkey...
Regards, C
After all, that's what the US wants everyone to believe when US weapons turn up in PKK terrorist's hands in Turkey...
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig at July 15, 2007 08:20 PM (/D9x0)
16
In an act of clear cut revenge for accusations of Irans involvement in supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents Iran has tracked down and arrested 14 squirrels on charges of spying for the West.
http://tinyurl.com/2p53my
http://tinyurl.com/2p53my
Posted by: Mike at July 15, 2007 08:45 PM (ag9hj)
17
Did the squirrels have little boxes of matches to light the rockets?
Posted by: Big Hugh at July 15, 2007 08:52 PM (BeX4g)
18
any of a couple of dozen countries that have bought such rockets
And four or five examples of those "couple dozen" would be precisely who?
And four or five examples of those "couple dozen" would be precisely who?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 09:06 PM (8uYIc)
19
I'll give you a hint -- Sudan is one of them.
Are you sure you want to make the case that Iran is propping up the Darfur genocide by supplying weapons to the Islamist government?
Are you sure you want to make the case that Iran is propping up the Darfur genocide by supplying weapons to the Islamist government?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 09:16 PM (8uYIc)
20
They should be taken to the Iranian border and returned to them...by airmail.
Posted by: torabora at July 15, 2007 09:38 PM (yskqy)
21
OH HECK
its not just iran!!!
the saudis have there hand in the cookie jar too
"the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, SAU
DI ARABIA"
"45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from SAUDI ARABIA"
"Fighters from SAUDI ARABIA are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality"
they there hash settled too
BEFORE or AFTER iran??? choices choices!!!
times a wastin!!! get er DONE
its not just iran!!!
the saudis have there hand in the cookie jar too
"the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, SAU
DI ARABIA"
"45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from SAUDI ARABIA"
"Fighters from SAUDI ARABIA are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality"
they there hash settled too
BEFORE or AFTER iran??? choices choices!!!
times a wastin!!! get er DONE
Posted by: Karl at July 15, 2007 11:11 PM (58uP5)
22
folks, these are amazing pics that only reinforce my conviction that we are fighting evil and we have to vanquish it there otherwise we will face it here on our soil in face to face combat.
i would like to plug one party here. first off, i don't trust the iraqi army or police or whatever they call themselves. to me they're a compromised force from start to finish, top to bottom, you get my meaning.it occurs to me that the u.s. armed forces are the only forces fighting al-qaeda in actual combat around the world. but their is another army foghting al qaeda also face to face in the middle east and that's the lebanese army who since may 20 has been battling hundreds of terrorist fath-al islam who are al qaeda affiliated and whose fighters had left iraq via syria to lebanon after their tours of terror throughout iraq.i think the u.s. government should strongly continue to support lebanon against the tyranny of terrorists like hizballah, al qaeda, iran and syria.
i would like to plug one party here. first off, i don't trust the iraqi army or police or whatever they call themselves. to me they're a compromised force from start to finish, top to bottom, you get my meaning.it occurs to me that the u.s. armed forces are the only forces fighting al-qaeda in actual combat around the world. but their is another army foghting al qaeda also face to face in the middle east and that's the lebanese army who since may 20 has been battling hundreds of terrorist fath-al islam who are al qaeda affiliated and whose fighters had left iraq via syria to lebanon after their tours of terror throughout iraq.i think the u.s. government should strongly continue to support lebanon against the tyranny of terrorists like hizballah, al qaeda, iran and syria.
Posted by: jonathan at July 15, 2007 11:28 PM (2LyPB)
23
the saudis have there hand in the cookie jar too
Sure, but unlike the Iranins, the Saudis are trying to do something about it. You don't think they actually desire a face off with Iran should we fail do you? Because that's what will happen.
Sure, but unlike the Iranins, the Saudis are trying to do something about it. You don't think they actually desire a face off with Iran should we fail do you? Because that's what will happen.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 16, 2007 12:13 AM (8uYIc)
24
Doc,
By international convention, since the early 1990's, the international arms market requires English labeling on all weapons & munitions. Other languages are permitted in addition, but for obvious reasons, the Iranians didn't put Farsi on these rockets. The origin of the rockets is determined by design, materials & manufacturing processes. There are tell-tale features of these rockets which reveal that they were made in Iran (ie. they are identical to similar rockets Hezbollah has).
By international convention, since the early 1990's, the international arms market requires English labeling on all weapons & munitions. Other languages are permitted in addition, but for obvious reasons, the Iranians didn't put Farsi on these rockets. The origin of the rockets is determined by design, materials & manufacturing processes. There are tell-tale features of these rockets which reveal that they were made in Iran (ie. they are identical to similar rockets Hezbollah has).
Posted by: Kenneth at July 16, 2007 05:12 AM (5x2CN)
25
"How did the Iranians get their hands on rockets that are labeled in English?"
I dimly remember seeing a vid with an EOD tech explaining that english was "the" language of the international arms trade and it was the normal practice for nations exporting arms to label them in english.
I dimly remember seeing a vid with an EOD tech explaining that english was "the" language of the international arms trade and it was the normal practice for nations exporting arms to label them in english.
Posted by: avidbuff at July 16, 2007 07:30 AM (C4uCu)
26
I've made the comment before that the markings on these weapons are too simplistic for American manufactured weapons. PETN Sandwich, that's a good comment about crap made in China. I saw a toy fireman set at a supermarket over the weekend. It contained a toy fire extinguisher that was marked "DONT SMOKING". I turned over the box and, sure enough, it was made in China. I'm sure to the Chinese or to a 6 year old, "Dont Smoking" looks like something that would be on a fire extinguisher, but you handed one to a real firefighter, he would laugh. Same with these weapons. A professional could tell the difference.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 16, 2007 08:08 AM (oC8nQ)
27
Another clue Lowe's is the good one::::Katrina cottage plans.
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productList&Ntt=plans&Ntk=i_products&category=Katrina%20Cottage%20Plans&N=0+5002245
In this era of preditory developers building massive new homes (ie SUVs) it is quite refreshing to see Lowe's promote modest single family structures.
Looking in Denver these are the kinds of homes I am looking at. To move into a brand new structure would be key, especially in Denver:::::Full insulation, no dreaded leakage leading to high heating bills. No ghosts and no history.
As with all things::::Redwhite&blue IS BAD FOR YOU!!!! Much like some Walmarts, some Lowe's stores are redwhite&blue color scheme:::Assume its a clue that these towns are disfavored and it would be wise to GET THE FUCK OUT!!!
Bet that Oldsmobile was the only good American auto manufacturer left and now they're gone.
The 80s era of M&A and integration with/controlling interest by evil entities has eliminated good from the marketplace.
In this era of Manifest Destiny positioning the gods have the preditory disfavored steal from the good disfavored::::
1. Microsoft stole Windows from Apple Computer/SteveJobs/Wozniac
2. Alexander Graham Bell stole the telephone from Elisha Grey
3. Waffle House's business model was stolen by many entities who copied the style and stole market share. HOLDING BACK THE COFFEE IS A TACTIC THE GODS USE TO SEND THE DISFAVORED ELSEWHERE and a clue they are good::::Coffee is bad for you.
4.
5.
…
499.
500.
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productList&Ntt=plans&Ntk=i_products&category=Katrina%20Cottage%20Plans&N=0+5002245
In this era of preditory developers building massive new homes (ie SUVs) it is quite refreshing to see Lowe's promote modest single family structures.
Looking in Denver these are the kinds of homes I am looking at. To move into a brand new structure would be key, especially in Denver:::::Full insulation, no dreaded leakage leading to high heating bills. No ghosts and no history.
As with all things::::Redwhite&blue IS BAD FOR YOU!!!! Much like some Walmarts, some Lowe's stores are redwhite&blue color scheme:::Assume its a clue that these towns are disfavored and it would be wise to GET THE FUCK OUT!!!
Bet that Oldsmobile was the only good American auto manufacturer left and now they're gone.
The 80s era of M&A and integration with/controlling interest by evil entities has eliminated good from the marketplace.
In this era of Manifest Destiny positioning the gods have the preditory disfavored steal from the good disfavored::::
1. Microsoft stole Windows from Apple Computer/SteveJobs/Wozniac
2. Alexander Graham Bell stole the telephone from Elisha Grey
3. Waffle House's business model was stolen by many entities who copied the style and stole market share. HOLDING BACK THE COFFEE IS A TACTIC THE GODS USE TO SEND THE DISFAVORED ELSEWHERE and a clue they are good::::Coffee is bad for you.
4.
5.
…
499.
500.
Posted by: Another clue Lowe's is the good one::::Katrina cottage plans. at July 16, 2007 02:08 PM (yRBkh)
28
purple avenger: I understand the 'don't stick around'. What I don't understand is why they lined them all up, only to fire a fraction and leave the rest for the US to discover and confiscate. Did they not think the US would be looking at where the first attack came from? Were they not worried that the US would ambush them when they came back to fire the rest? Why not only line up what they have time to stick around and fire, keeping the others safely in storage (where, obviously, we have no idea) and roll them out 12 at a time.
Posted by: steve sturm at July 16, 2007 09:44 PM (XBWtm)
29
I normally don't comment, but here, since I have some knowledge on the subject--I'll post.
The rockets in question are like the "HASSEBs", used in a 12 tube artillery rocket system that is mounted on a 6x6 truck. They have a range of less than 12 miles and are loud enough to give a trackable signature to anyone who is looking for the launch. The rockets are more often fired without the tubes by land grunts who lean them against rocks or place them on homemade launch platforms (like the ones shown).
Even so, it's not a makeshift launch system that can be set up easily if you want to be even remotely effective. It takes time set the rockets to the (approximate) correct trajectory required to hit a large target area (like a base or staging area). So, they would set up as many as they could to fire at the base in order to ensure they hit the target. Once they began to fire the rockets, it would take anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds per person--per rocket, for each launch (based upon how the rockets were set up in the pictures). So how many they could launch would be determined by how many people were "popping off" the ignition fuses.
I would hazard a guess and say that they didn't have a lot of people launching the rockets--or if they did, they didn't have a lot of "ignitors" for the rockets. Once the firing started, they could have lost courage (which happens more than a few times) due to the noise or fear of discovery, or based upon firebase SOP, they may have seen (or feared) the return fire from the base (fired back in a general way) and simply fled the scene. That would explain why the attach was not completed. Remember, they are paranoid about our capability to strike back without warning from UAVs and circling fighter bombers (remember those great videos the military shows of hard-working, but unaware terrorists being vaporized by our remote weapon systems).
The another possibility is that they set up rockets for an extended attack over several days (like was done by Hez. during Israel's last invasion of Lebanon), and were discovered before they could launch their second, heavier attack.
In truth, there are a number of reasonable explanations for why the rockets were set up, but left behind. Weapons are plentiful there, and the lose of these rockets would not be mourned as heavily as one would think.
The rockets in question are like the "HASSEBs", used in a 12 tube artillery rocket system that is mounted on a 6x6 truck. They have a range of less than 12 miles and are loud enough to give a trackable signature to anyone who is looking for the launch. The rockets are more often fired without the tubes by land grunts who lean them against rocks or place them on homemade launch platforms (like the ones shown).
Even so, it's not a makeshift launch system that can be set up easily if you want to be even remotely effective. It takes time set the rockets to the (approximate) correct trajectory required to hit a large target area (like a base or staging area). So, they would set up as many as they could to fire at the base in order to ensure they hit the target. Once they began to fire the rockets, it would take anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds per person--per rocket, for each launch (based upon how the rockets were set up in the pictures). So how many they could launch would be determined by how many people were "popping off" the ignition fuses.
I would hazard a guess and say that they didn't have a lot of people launching the rockets--or if they did, they didn't have a lot of "ignitors" for the rockets. Once the firing started, they could have lost courage (which happens more than a few times) due to the noise or fear of discovery, or based upon firebase SOP, they may have seen (or feared) the return fire from the base (fired back in a general way) and simply fled the scene. That would explain why the attach was not completed. Remember, they are paranoid about our capability to strike back without warning from UAVs and circling fighter bombers (remember those great videos the military shows of hard-working, but unaware terrorists being vaporized by our remote weapon systems).
The another possibility is that they set up rockets for an extended attack over several days (like was done by Hez. during Israel's last invasion of Lebanon), and were discovered before they could launch their second, heavier attack.
In truth, there are a number of reasonable explanations for why the rockets were set up, but left behind. Weapons are plentiful there, and the lose of these rockets would not be mourned as heavily as one would think.
Posted by: WB at July 16, 2007 11:27 PM (NPZuC)
30
Skeptics are allways folks who have no first hand knowledge of what the hell is going on in a certain situation. I for one have had these exact rockets exploding all around me for the past six months. I don't mean near me either. Right freakin where I live. After about the first 250 I became a little less fearfull, but non the less still shaken. All that happened was they where spotted or they heard something like a UAV or fastair, and jetted the hell out of there before having an opportunity to detonate these bad boys. It is not a simulated scenario. They intended and are fully capable of launching every rocket you see in this picture. Beleive me I have been on the receiving end of barages like this one for six months. It's like what we call at Basrah( BAD GU GU). I'm not surprised one bit at a set up like this. And for all you skeptics, well you know what you can do!
Posted by: Chuck Kendrick at July 17, 2007 07:17 PM (plAMd)
31
CK:
Much agreed with your comment. It appears that the most likely scenario is that they got spooked and pulled a "bug-out" right after they started firing. You'll never convince any of the skeptics, though.
But after all, there are still fools who think we're faking the Iranian connection to weapons being used against us.
*sigh*
Much agreed with your comment. It appears that the most likely scenario is that they got spooked and pulled a "bug-out" right after they started firing. You'll never convince any of the skeptics, though.
But after all, there are still fools who think we're faking the Iranian connection to weapons being used against us.
*sigh*
Posted by: WB at July 17, 2007 11:13 PM (prTLu)
32
This is fake. The military is now firmly behind the Bush/Cheney cabal because they know that next year most troops will leave. They are creating these "Iranian arms everywhere" thing. Its as old as war itself these tricks. The goal is to stay and start fighting with Iran.
My dad work for 30 yaers for the DIA. This stuff was planted by either US or Israeli special ops.
My dad work for 30 yaers for the DIA. This stuff was planted by either US or Israeli special ops.
Posted by: Paul Hausser at July 20, 2007 09:28 AM (1A5oH)
July 14, 2007
Anti-Bush Terrorist Convicted
It's pathetic how far BDS will lead some people.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That's funny, I thought if you were a left-wing loony who hated Bush, you would plot against the Edwards campaign.
Posted by: Random Guy at July 14, 2007 12:17 PM (X1Llr)
2
a President makes a STAND aginst terrorism
he is on the verge of historic victory and marching democracy and FREEDOM,,, how do we thank him? 3/4 of the population has "BDS"!!!
these are SAD TIMES
he is on the verge of historic victory and marching democracy and FREEDOM,,, how do we thank him? 3/4 of the population has "BDS"!!!
these are SAD TIMES
Posted by: Karl at July 14, 2007 12:59 PM (58uP5)
3
This points out the fallacy of trying to prevent people from dangerous countries from coming here. Instead we need to look for dangerous people like the Israel's (sp) do. This loony was home grown.
Posted by: OBP at July 14, 2007 01:59 PM (6hjNL)
4
he is on the verge of historic victory
What victory are you writing about here? The "al Qaeda is stronger than ever" victory, the "Taliban is retaking control of sections of Afghanistan" victory, or the "you can't expect anything to have improved yet, give it more time" victory?
Seriously, Karl: except for you, the best I hear even the most war-minded of Administration flaks say is, "I'm sure we'll win some day; be patient." How are you seeing that we are on the "verge of historic victory?"
Question for the rest of you: was there such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or are derangement and syndromes purely the province of Liberals?
he is on the verge of historic victory
What victory are you writing about here? The "al Qaeda is stronger than ever" victory, the "Taliban is retaking control of sections of Afghanistan" victory, or the "you can't expect anything to have improved yet, give it more time" victory?
Seriously, Karl: except for you, the best I hear even the most war-minded of Administration flaks say is, "I'm sure we'll win some day; be patient." How are you seeing that we are on the "verge of historic victory?"
Question for the rest of you: was there such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or are derangement and syndromes purely the province of Liberals?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 14, 2007 02:34 PM (YBdFW)
5
from Fox News:
"Feds: Al Qaeda Suspect May Not Be Threat at All
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — Two months ago, a federal prosecutor accused Michael Reynolds, a 47-year-old transient who lived with his elderly mother in Wilkes-Barre, of trying to work with Al Qaeda to blow up fuel facilities in at least three states.
Now officials say that Reynolds, who was snared in an FBI sting, may not have been as much of a terrorist as the prosecutor made him out to be.
An FBI official in Washington said that the agency has since concluded that Reynolds might be mentally ill and not as serious a threat as originally believed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because much of the information in the case has been sealed by a federal judge."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185041,00.html
thanks, CY!! you're doing a damn good job of keeping tabs on all these special needs folks...errr...."homegrown TERRORISTS" for us in order to remind us just how important taking the war truly is! keep up the good work, y'all!!
"Feds: Al Qaeda Suspect May Not Be Threat at All
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. — Two months ago, a federal prosecutor accused Michael Reynolds, a 47-year-old transient who lived with his elderly mother in Wilkes-Barre, of trying to work with Al Qaeda to blow up fuel facilities in at least three states.
Now officials say that Reynolds, who was snared in an FBI sting, may not have been as much of a terrorist as the prosecutor made him out to be.
An FBI official in Washington said that the agency has since concluded that Reynolds might be mentally ill and not as serious a threat as originally believed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because much of the information in the case has been sealed by a federal judge."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185041,00.html
thanks, CY!! you're doing a damn good job of keeping tabs on all these special needs folks...errr...."homegrown TERRORISTS" for us in order to remind us just how important taking the war truly is! keep up the good work, y'all!!
Posted by: j at July 14, 2007 04:53 PM (Qj9lw)
6
Feds: Al Qaeda Suspect May Not Be Threat at All
Anyone who is in possession of a real hand grenade and doesn't have all the ATF paperwork for it a "threat". They're classified as a "destructive device" and considerable legal hoops need to be jumped through, and strict ATF storage requirements met to own one legally.
That you would excuse this clear felon isn't surprising though.
Anyone who is in possession of a real hand grenade and doesn't have all the ATF paperwork for it a "threat". They're classified as a "destructive device" and considerable legal hoops need to be jumped through, and strict ATF storage requirements met to own one legally.
That you would excuse this clear felon isn't surprising though.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2007 09:55 PM (EI+1K)
7
"Doc Washedup":::
LIEbrals say they dont like to SURGE
truth is they CANT,,,they are IMPOTENT
MY SIDE is ROCK HARD in the face of the JIHADIS,,, LIEbrals have lost there manhood
I can forgive you for your shortcoming,,, but I CANT forgive when WE want to SURGE and you HOLD IT DOWN
stand back son and watch us SURGE DEMOCRICY into iraq
LIEbrals say they dont like to SURGE
truth is they CANT,,,they are IMPOTENT
MY SIDE is ROCK HARD in the face of the JIHADIS,,, LIEbrals have lost there manhood
I can forgive you for your shortcoming,,, but I CANT forgive when WE want to SURGE and you HOLD IT DOWN
stand back son and watch us SURGE DEMOCRICY into iraq
Posted by: Karl at July 15, 2007 01:10 AM (58uP5)
8
Karl:
You managed to reel off five paragraphs of spittle-flecked bile without saying anything of note, indulging in namecalling and nonsense instead of answering the question.
Pray tell: how on earth has the Left held the surge down? The President has received the troops and money he asked for. Are you just laying the groundwork so you have someone to blame in case the whole surge thing goes south?
Next time, please try to make some sense.
You managed to reel off five paragraphs of spittle-flecked bile without saying anything of note, indulging in namecalling and nonsense instead of answering the question.
Pray tell: how on earth has the Left held the surge down? The President has received the troops and money he asked for. Are you just laying the groundwork so you have someone to blame in case the whole surge thing goes south?
Next time, please try to make some sense.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 09:24 AM (CrydK)
9
how on earth has the Left held the surge down?
You mean other than declaring it a failure before it even started? That of course was intended strictly as a troop "morale booster".
You mean other than declaring it a failure before it even started? That of course was intended strictly as a troop "morale booster".
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 09:31 AM (EI+1K)
10
You mean other than declaring it a failure before it even started? That of course was intended strictly as a troop "morale booster".
Are you suggesting that Lefty protests against the surge kept the military from getting the money? Or that the troops weren't sent? Or that there were mass desertions stemming from demoralization? Or that our troops, faced with insurgents in a firefight, dropped their guns and refused to shoot? Or that soldiers are refusing to go out on patrol?
Has, in fact, any single thing happened to the surge because of protests by the Left?
Please deal with reality and facts, rather than tripe and talking points.
You mean other than declaring it a failure before it even started? That of course was intended strictly as a troop "morale booster".
Are you suggesting that Lefty protests against the surge kept the military from getting the money? Or that the troops weren't sent? Or that there were mass desertions stemming from demoralization? Or that our troops, faced with insurgents in a firefight, dropped their guns and refused to shoot? Or that soldiers are refusing to go out on patrol?
Has, in fact, any single thing happened to the surge because of protests by the Left?
Please deal with reality and facts, rather than tripe and talking points.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 11:31 AM (CrydK)
11
"Question for the rest of you: was there such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or are derangement and syndromes purely the province of Liberals?"
The latter
The latter
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 15, 2007 01:18 PM (Lgw9b)
12
Doc
I can understand your seething hatred for our military. You need to demoralize them for they are everything you (and liberals in general) are not. Brave, strong, committed, fearless. You must knock them down to make yourself look better. It won't work, spineless cowards never win.
I can understand your seething hatred for our military. You need to demoralize them for they are everything you (and liberals in general) are not. Brave, strong, committed, fearless. You must knock them down to make yourself look better. It won't work, spineless cowards never win.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 15, 2007 01:22 PM (Lgw9b)
13
nice try, purple--but i'm just quoting the feds. *you're* the one calling our gov't officials liars when they say this semi-retarded man wasn't ever on par with the Great Boogeyman called al-qaeda....
Posted by: j at July 15, 2007 02:38 PM (Qj9lw)
14
Capitalist Infidel:
Contribute materially to the conversation, or stop taking up bandwidth.
Your approach is more suited for, say, Sister Toldjah.
If you want to discuss the issue using facts and actual ideas, then let's do this thing.
Let's start with a reiteration of my question. How has Lefty disapproval of the surge done anything at all to, as Karl put it, "hold the surge back?"
Contribute materially to the conversation, or stop taking up bandwidth.
Your approach is more suited for, say, Sister Toldjah.
If you want to discuss the issue using facts and actual ideas, then let's do this thing.
Let's start with a reiteration of my question. How has Lefty disapproval of the surge done anything at all to, as Karl put it, "hold the surge back?"
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 03:36 PM (CrydK)
15
Has, in fact, any single thing happened to the surge because of protests by the Left?
As I said -- they do it out of "patriotism" as a morale booster for the troops.
As I said -- they do it out of "patriotism" as a morale booster for the troops.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 04:41 PM (EI+1K)
16
As I said -- they do it out of "patriotism" as a morale booster for the troops.
And as I said: Give me solid examples of how Lefty disapproval of the surge has done anything at all to, as Karl put it, "hold the surge back."
As Rainier Wolfcastle might say, "The talking points--they do nothing!"
As I said -- they do it out of "patriotism" as a morale booster for the troops.
And as I said: Give me solid examples of how Lefty disapproval of the surge has done anything at all to, as Karl put it, "hold the surge back."
As Rainier Wolfcastle might say, "The talking points--they do nothing!"
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 05:04 PM (CrydK)
17
I'm sure the troops are heartened by your solid "support".
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 07:06 PM (8uYIc)
18
Avenger, I'm guessing that some poor shmoe of a reservist who's on his third rotation in Iraq is not going to shed any tears over the idea that I want him to come home. He likely wants it even more than I do.
Why aren't you worried about the demoralizing effects that these longer and longer rotations are having on the Army? Fifteen months? And the Air Force takes four-month rotations. Aren't the Marines something like six?
Yeah, I reckon that those guys have other things on their minds than any anti-war comments I might post on a blog.
Avenger, you keep falling back on the quipsterism because you have no facts, and I mean no facts at all, to back up your assertion. What I wonder is why you keep taking it on the chin and coming back for more. Are you some kind of masochist?
Why aren't you worried about the demoralizing effects that these longer and longer rotations are having on the Army? Fifteen months? And the Air Force takes four-month rotations. Aren't the Marines something like six?
Yeah, I reckon that those guys have other things on their minds than any anti-war comments I might post on a blog.
Avenger, you keep falling back on the quipsterism because you have no facts, and I mean no facts at all, to back up your assertion. What I wonder is why you keep taking it on the chin and coming back for more. Are you some kind of masochist?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 09:28 PM (CrydK)
19
Purple Avenger - Don't steal Doc's tripe and talking points, he get's angry when you do that. He just wants to vent defeatism and BDS. He understands that the cumulative effect of people like him and the puppet liberal media is to distort the impression of what is really going on in Iraq. Rewriting the history of our involvement in Iraq based on liberal lies is one thing, making decisions about the current course of events based on a propaganda campaign is another kettle of fish.
Doc, you and David Terrenoire ought to check out the latest Rasmussen survey on media bias. It's just another confirmation of what at least David refuses to accept.
Doc, you and David Terrenoire ought to check out the latest Rasmussen survey on media bias. It's just another confirmation of what at least David refuses to accept.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 15, 2007 09:52 PM (0pZel)
20
Holy toledo, it's just all the same with some of you guys.
Let's deal with some facts, daleyrocks, rather than random lip flappage. Karl says that Lefty anti-surge "propaganda" (to use your term) is "keeping the surge down."
Okay. Interesting thesis. It's yours, too, apparently. Now prove it.
To reiterate what I posted above:
Are you suggesting that Lefty protests against the surge kept the military from getting the money? Or that the troops weren't sent? Or that there were mass desertions stemming from demoralization? Or that our troops, faced with insurgents in a firefight, dropped their guns and refused to shoot? Or that soldiers are refusing to go out on patrol?
If you can give me some actual proof that I and my ilk are "keeping the surge down"--and by "actual proof" I mean something other than the random noise you've made up until now--then my faith in humanity may be restored.
When you don't come up with anything, I will be neither surprised nor disappointed, for the simple reason that it is not happening. "Keeping the surge down?" You better get back on the reservation, my friend; the official word is that the surge is working just fine, thank you very much.
I understand that you guys need to develop some plausible deniability for when the surge winds up doing nothing at all to improve things in Iraq, and that strategy might even work, in the long run--I've run out of dismay at what certain unscrupulous Righties are able to get away with--but not on my watch.
Now: proof. Ante up, buddy, or find another table.
Let's deal with some facts, daleyrocks, rather than random lip flappage. Karl says that Lefty anti-surge "propaganda" (to use your term) is "keeping the surge down."
Okay. Interesting thesis. It's yours, too, apparently. Now prove it.
To reiterate what I posted above:
Are you suggesting that Lefty protests against the surge kept the military from getting the money? Or that the troops weren't sent? Or that there were mass desertions stemming from demoralization? Or that our troops, faced with insurgents in a firefight, dropped their guns and refused to shoot? Or that soldiers are refusing to go out on patrol?
If you can give me some actual proof that I and my ilk are "keeping the surge down"--and by "actual proof" I mean something other than the random noise you've made up until now--then my faith in humanity may be restored.
When you don't come up with anything, I will be neither surprised nor disappointed, for the simple reason that it is not happening. "Keeping the surge down?" You better get back on the reservation, my friend; the official word is that the surge is working just fine, thank you very much.
I understand that you guys need to develop some plausible deniability for when the surge winds up doing nothing at all to improve things in Iraq, and that strategy might even work, in the long run--I've run out of dismay at what certain unscrupulous Righties are able to get away with--but not on my watch.
Now: proof. Ante up, buddy, or find another table.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 10:28 PM (CrydK)
21
Doc -Are you suggesting that your endless streams of questions and demands are a form of debate? To paraphrase George C. Scott in the movie Patton, "Rommel, I've read your book." Your type is a dime a dozen.
CY has shown more than adequate proof that the surge is enjoying success. Meanwhile you've got losers like Harry Reid already proclaiming that the war is lost and preannouncing that he won't believe anything Petraeus says that is positive. You got major thinkers on the left, an oxymoron if there ever was one, engaging in mass delusion that Al Qaeda is not actively involved in Iraq, that it's all a Bush propaganda plot. CY's readily debunked that one. The same mass delusion exists with respect to Iranian involvement in Iraq.
What have you got Doc, except the rewriting of history?
CY has shown more than adequate proof that the surge is enjoying success. Meanwhile you've got losers like Harry Reid already proclaiming that the war is lost and preannouncing that he won't believe anything Petraeus says that is positive. You got major thinkers on the left, an oxymoron if there ever was one, engaging in mass delusion that Al Qaeda is not actively involved in Iraq, that it's all a Bush propaganda plot. CY's readily debunked that one. The same mass delusion exists with respect to Iranian involvement in Iraq.
What have you got Doc, except the rewriting of history?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 16, 2007 08:55 AM (0pZel)
22
Your post is a laundry list of Righty talking points with no points of reference. You vomit up terms like "BDS," "defeatism" and "rewriting history" as if they connected to any post that I've made in this thread.
I'll admit that I mentioned the term BDS up above in reference to Clinton, but I haven't mentioned Bush at all.
What history am I rewriting? My point throughout this thread is that Lefty disapproval has not destroyed the surge, so that must be the history you say I'm rewriting. Your idea, then, is that Lefty disapproval is destroying the surge, and I'd like to see proof.
My idea of debate is not one of posing endless questions that don't get answered; rather, in a debate, one side needs to answer the questions posed by the other. All my questions were the same question asked different ways: what is your evidence that Lefties have wrecked the surge?
You, Karl and Purple Avenger have made this assertion. I've asked you to back it up. If it's the dire issue you think it is, then there should be truckloads of proof out there.
You weaselly references to Patton, Rommel, questions and demands don't disguise the fact that you have neither the balls nor the facts to back up what you say.
I'll admit that I mentioned the term BDS up above in reference to Clinton, but I haven't mentioned Bush at all.
What history am I rewriting? My point throughout this thread is that Lefty disapproval has not destroyed the surge, so that must be the history you say I'm rewriting. Your idea, then, is that Lefty disapproval is destroying the surge, and I'd like to see proof.
My idea of debate is not one of posing endless questions that don't get answered; rather, in a debate, one side needs to answer the questions posed by the other. All my questions were the same question asked different ways: what is your evidence that Lefties have wrecked the surge?
You, Karl and Purple Avenger have made this assertion. I've asked you to back it up. If it's the dire issue you think it is, then there should be truckloads of proof out there.
You weaselly references to Patton, Rommel, questions and demands don't disguise the fact that you have neither the balls nor the facts to back up what you say.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 16, 2007 10:42 AM (Nc1tF)
23
"Doc Carwash":::
go ahead and slip that BURQA on lefty
I value FREEDOM and CHRISTIAN VALUES like the FOUNDING FATHERS
mebbe you heard about them???
go ahead and slip that BURQA on lefty
I value FREEDOM and CHRISTIAN VALUES like the FOUNDING FATHERS
mebbe you heard about them???
Posted by: Karl at July 16, 2007 04:15 PM (58uP5)
24
Doc - Thanks for clarifying your remarks. Here I thought you started out the thread with the following smart assed comments:
"What victory are you writing about here? The "al Qaeda is stronger than ever" victory, the "Taliban is retaking control of sections of Afghanistan" victory, or the "you can't expect anything to have improved yet, give it more time" victory?
Seriously, Karl: except for you, the best I hear even the most war-minded of Administration flaks say is, "I'm sure we'll win some day; be patient." How are you seeing that we are on the "verge of historic victory?"
Question for the rest of you: was there such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or are derangement and syndromes purely the province of Liberals?"
Then you moved on to more bullshit:
"Pray tell: how on earth has the Left held the surge down? The President has received the troops and money he asked for. Are you just laying the groundwork so you have someone to blame in case the whole surge thing goes south?"
Now you say all along you just were demanding an answer to a simple question about how the left has destroyed the surge.
Doc you have a hard time making up your mind, don't you. You like talking about balls a lot too. Do you have any issues you want to fess up about there, cupcake?
I don't believe anybody claimed actual destruction of the surge yet, but the left appears to be working on it. I already referenced two widely publicized incidents involving Harry Reid. They were probably discussed on this blog. If you aren't already familiar with them you are just wasting bandwidth here. Search this blog or use google if you have to educate yourself.
Congress requested a report from Petraeus in September. They are suddenly taking action toward a withdrawal in advance of that report. What has changed since the governing legislation requiring that report and this sudden flurry of activity toward withdrawal. It is the full implementation of the surge and a glimmer of success. The left is so fully invested in defeat, they cannot afford to wait for a positive report in September. I demand to know of your evidence to the contrary. Military commanders sometimes find it hard to plan if they are about to have their legs yanked out from under them, or so I'm told.
The Iraqi goverment also cites as a reason for a lack of progress on political reconciliation the uncertainty of the duration of the American commitment to Iraq. Surely you have seen those references as well. Guess who has been fueling the uncertainty of the commitment, buddy.
Thank you for your concern about my balls. I hope they didn't hurt your chin.
"What victory are you writing about here? The "al Qaeda is stronger than ever" victory, the "Taliban is retaking control of sections of Afghanistan" victory, or the "you can't expect anything to have improved yet, give it more time" victory?
Seriously, Karl: except for you, the best I hear even the most war-minded of Administration flaks say is, "I'm sure we'll win some day; be patient." How are you seeing that we are on the "verge of historic victory?"
Question for the rest of you: was there such a thing as Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or are derangement and syndromes purely the province of Liberals?"
Then you moved on to more bullshit:
"Pray tell: how on earth has the Left held the surge down? The President has received the troops and money he asked for. Are you just laying the groundwork so you have someone to blame in case the whole surge thing goes south?"
Now you say all along you just were demanding an answer to a simple question about how the left has destroyed the surge.
Doc you have a hard time making up your mind, don't you. You like talking about balls a lot too. Do you have any issues you want to fess up about there, cupcake?
I don't believe anybody claimed actual destruction of the surge yet, but the left appears to be working on it. I already referenced two widely publicized incidents involving Harry Reid. They were probably discussed on this blog. If you aren't already familiar with them you are just wasting bandwidth here. Search this blog or use google if you have to educate yourself.
Congress requested a report from Petraeus in September. They are suddenly taking action toward a withdrawal in advance of that report. What has changed since the governing legislation requiring that report and this sudden flurry of activity toward withdrawal. It is the full implementation of the surge and a glimmer of success. The left is so fully invested in defeat, they cannot afford to wait for a positive report in September. I demand to know of your evidence to the contrary. Military commanders sometimes find it hard to plan if they are about to have their legs yanked out from under them, or so I'm told.
The Iraqi goverment also cites as a reason for a lack of progress on political reconciliation the uncertainty of the duration of the American commitment to Iraq. Surely you have seen those references as well. Guess who has been fueling the uncertainty of the commitment, buddy.
Thank you for your concern about my balls. I hope they didn't hurt your chin.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 16, 2007 11:48 PM (0pZel)
25
"daleyrocks":::
been watching ABC/CNN/NPR/AP???
ACTUALLY:::
baquba and alanbar = IN THE BAG
10 battalions of trained iraqi soldiers
iraqis rising against alqaida
democraticly elected govt!
easy from here DONE DEAL
GEORGE W BUSH vissage on Mount. Rushmore = IN THE BAG
been watching ABC/CNN/NPR/AP???
ACTUALLY:::
baquba and alanbar = IN THE BAG
10 battalions of trained iraqi soldiers
iraqis rising against alqaida
democraticly elected govt!
easy from here DONE DEAL
GEORGE W BUSH vissage on Mount. Rushmore = IN THE BAG
Posted by: Karl at July 17, 2007 02:46 AM (58uP5)
26
Oh, my god. Daleyrocks suggests I'm a homo. Whatever will I do?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 17, 2007 09:27 AM (ZivRj)
27
Doc - You and other lefties prove time and again that you have unique ways of filtering and interpreting information that defy rational analysis. Have fun with your conclusions, cupcake.
Now get me the information I demanded and a sandwich, or you are just wasting bandwidth here.
Now get me the information I demanded and a sandwich, or you are just wasting bandwidth here.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 17, 2007 09:53 AM (0pZel)
28
Doc, why haven't you produced the information I demanded?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 17, 2007 10:30 AM (0pZel)
29
Reynolds wrote that his planned attack would help topple U.S. President George W. Bush.
What will the idiots do when there is no George Bush, I mean they are obviously "insane" and will need to let off that steam somehow. 19 months of BDS left and then shrinks will have their offices full because their will be no where to direct their insanity, jacka**es.
What will the idiots do when there is no George Bush, I mean they are obviously "insane" and will need to let off that steam somehow. 19 months of BDS left and then shrinks will have their offices full because their will be no where to direct their insanity, jacka**es.
Posted by: Jaded at July 17, 2007 12:48 PM (0lpqx)
30
If you can give me some actual proof that I and my ilk are "keeping the surge down"--and by "actual proof" I mean something other than the random noise you've made up until now--then my faith in humanity may be restored.
You and your ilk (MSM) are making the American public believe that the surge is not working thereby increasing the pressure on a General who needs 100% focus on the battle at hand. I can assure you that nothing you say nor Pelosi or Reid does will keep this surge from working if the American public will get it's news from Michael Yon and other new media and people like myself who educate those around me. If you truly had faith in humanity you would be supporting and cheerleading the surge because by 2008 it will have cleared the way for our troops to come home while stopping a Cambodian killing field from occurring in the Middle East, or do you really care?
You and your ilk (MSM) are making the American public believe that the surge is not working thereby increasing the pressure on a General who needs 100% focus on the battle at hand. I can assure you that nothing you say nor Pelosi or Reid does will keep this surge from working if the American public will get it's news from Michael Yon and other new media and people like myself who educate those around me. If you truly had faith in humanity you would be supporting and cheerleading the surge because by 2008 it will have cleared the way for our troops to come home while stopping a Cambodian killing field from occurring in the Middle East, or do you really care?
Posted by: Jaded at July 17, 2007 12:57 PM (0lpqx)
31
Doc - Where is that information I demanded!
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 17, 2007 07:06 PM (0pZel)
32
Daleyrocks, you're a grade-A fool.
When you write, "I demand to know of your evidence to the contrary," you're asking me to provide evidence for an assertion I never made. What do you want me to do, make something up so that you have something to crow about?
I'm done with this thread now. If you want to continue stalking me, you'll have to go elsewhere.
When you write, "I demand to know of your evidence to the contrary," you're asking me to provide evidence for an assertion I never made. What do you want me to do, make something up so that you have something to crow about?
I'm done with this thread now. If you want to continue stalking me, you'll have to go elsewhere.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 17, 2007 09:32 PM (KZ7OL)
July 13, 2007
Neighbors: Edwards Campaign HQ A Nuisance
Silky Pony's campaign headquarters is not feeling the love:
This is actually the third time Edwards campaign HQ has been evacuated. While the latest scare involved digital watches, the two previous threatening packages involved an inert white powder. Chapel Hill Police have narrowed down the suspects in these three cases to the rest of the North Carolina.
Thursday marked the second postal scare in four months at John Edwards’ campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill. Both incidents proved to be harmless, but for businesses in Southern Village, Edwards’ headquarters is becoming more of a nuisance. Businesses complain that they're losing money. Some of them shut down for the day. Business owners told WRAL they're tired of the scares and tired of the business day interruptions. One business owner plans to do something about it. Dr. Annelise Hardin runs a pediatric dentist office on the same floor as Edwards’ campaign headquarters. She said she has had enough of bomb scares and evacuations. Her office plans to draft a letter to the building's management expressing frustration about the loss of business. She is planning to get other companies in Southern Village to sign the letter. Keith Getchell runs a restaurant two doors down from Edwards’ campaign headquarters. The bomb scare wiped out his lunch crowd, he said. He, too, is frustrated and plans to sign Hardin's letter.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:19 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So, the good people of Southern Village are being cowed by threats from domestic terrorists. They're upset because the possibility of another anthrax attack is hurting business. And they want Edwards to move.
Not very brave or patriotic of them, is it, Bob.
I wonder if you'd be quite so amused if this was Fred Thompson's campaign HQ.
No, probably not.
Not very brave or patriotic of them, is it, Bob.
I wonder if you'd be quite so amused if this was Fred Thompson's campaign HQ.
No, probably not.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 13, 2007 07:49 AM (KwXSc)
2
I, too, find it interesting that you complain not about domestic terrorist threats made against an American because of his political beliefs, but about the target of the threats. And I, too, wonder if your attitude would change if these domestic terrorists targeted Republicans.
You do see the logical incoherence of this post, don't you? It's a bit like blaming the murder victim for leaving blood on the street.
You do see the logical incoherence of this post, don't you? It's a bit like blaming the murder victim for leaving blood on the street.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 13, 2007 08:34 AM (r9Q9X)
3
Well, I don't know who's making these threats, but I do know that Silky Pony's campaign is in serious trouble, and this sort of thing gets him publicity. I haven't heard of the serious dem contenders getting these threats.
Posted by: Bill Smith at July 13, 2007 09:11 AM (g9oK/)
4
Bill, you aren't the first to think that, not by a long shot. Silky only seems to get infusions of media attention when under attack (usually from a certain acidic blonde) which the campaign then uses to troll for cash.
It does seem quite odd that someone with so little chance is getting these threats, while none of the Democratic nor Republican frontrunners seem to be having this problem.
It does seem quite odd that someone with so little chance is getting these threats, while none of the Democratic nor Republican frontrunners seem to be having this problem.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 13, 2007 09:39 AM (HcgFD)
5
Uh, let me get this straight. You two gentlemen are suggesting that Edwards is sending these suspicious packages to himself. These packages that disrupt the business of his campaign headquarters, and its neighbors, that it's all a publicity stunt to help with fund-raising.
Because the possibility of same slighty unhinged nutjob sending them is a much less likely scenario.
Is that right?
Bob, we don't often agree on things, but I never took you for a tinfoil hat kinda guy.
Whew.
Because the possibility of same slighty unhinged nutjob sending them is a much less likely scenario.
Is that right?
Bob, we don't often agree on things, but I never took you for a tinfoil hat kinda guy.
Whew.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 13, 2007 11:42 AM (KwXSc)
6
All threats should be taken seriously. That said, I think there is something wrong with the guy when he conspires with Hillary to limit who can be in the debates (just read it on Drudge).
He is not holier then thou and the debates are and always should be open to all contenders. That's what a debate is for. If they aren't that serious or an idiot let it show. He and Billory shouldn't be the ones to pick and choose.
He is not holier then thou and the debates are and always should be open to all contenders. That's what a debate is for. If they aren't that serious or an idiot let it show. He and Billory shouldn't be the ones to pick and choose.
Posted by: Retired Navy at July 13, 2007 12:04 PM (cqZXM)
7
Look, if instead of sending nuts to Jericho people had sent condoms to Clinton, that would have been funny too, even though the overall situation was a crying shame.
If the 'threats' to Edwards were real threats then this would be very serious and not funny at all. But these are threats in the same way that Dillinger's soap gun was a threat to his guards.
I would also note that if a faux populist isn't safe in the heart of pseudo-intellectual Chapel Hill/Carrboro, he ain't safe anywhere.
-TF
If the 'threats' to Edwards were real threats then this would be very serious and not funny at all. But these are threats in the same way that Dillinger's soap gun was a threat to his guards.
I would also note that if a faux populist isn't safe in the heart of pseudo-intellectual Chapel Hill/Carrboro, he ain't safe anywhere.
-TF
Posted by: TierFlyer at July 13, 2007 12:53 PM (0Nt8i)
8
The bomb scare and the anthrax scare aren't John Edwards' fault.
On the other hand, John Edwards has been telling us for months that there's no war on terror, it's just a "bumper sticker." So why is it that he's taking these threats so seriously?
Perhaps the universe is trying to tell him something.
On the other hand, John Edwards has been telling us for months that there's no war on terror, it's just a "bumper sticker." So why is it that he's taking these threats so seriously?
Perhaps the universe is trying to tell him something.
Posted by: Mike at July 13, 2007 01:00 PM (6gdkP)
9
David,
Give me a little credit, will you?
I'm not suggesting at all that Edwards or anyone on his campaign have any hand in this at all. Frankly, the staffers are probably worried sick--the Edwards clan never comes close to the mail, I'm sure (just like any other candidate, and so has little to be worried about directly).
Edwards does tend to attract, however, the lunatic fringe of the ultra-far left, and I don't think either one of us would put anything past extremists, even an attempt to get him some media attention (and that doesn't seem to garner much attention at that, his stock is so low).
You could make the same argument, of course, saying the loony far could be capable of such a thing and you'd be right, except for one thing: I don't see anyone on the right who mistakes him for a serious candidate.
He wouldn't be "worthy" of such an effort for any righties I've heard of when Obama and Hillary are all but the anointed pair, with the primaries set up to only decide whether it is going to be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. If someone on the right was targeting someone for threats, the don't end to waste time on also-rans, which is what most of us consider Edwards.
Give me a little credit, will you?
I'm not suggesting at all that Edwards or anyone on his campaign have any hand in this at all. Frankly, the staffers are probably worried sick--the Edwards clan never comes close to the mail, I'm sure (just like any other candidate, and so has little to be worried about directly).
Edwards does tend to attract, however, the lunatic fringe of the ultra-far left, and I don't think either one of us would put anything past extremists, even an attempt to get him some media attention (and that doesn't seem to garner much attention at that, his stock is so low).
You could make the same argument, of course, saying the loony far could be capable of such a thing and you'd be right, except for one thing: I don't see anyone on the right who mistakes him for a serious candidate.
He wouldn't be "worthy" of such an effort for any righties I've heard of when Obama and Hillary are all but the anointed pair, with the primaries set up to only decide whether it is going to be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. If someone on the right was targeting someone for threats, the don't end to waste time on also-rans, which is what most of us consider Edwards.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 13, 2007 01:03 PM (HcgFD)
10
Come on, Bob. You clearly imply an Edwards campaign conspiracy to raise funds by picking up on Bill Smith's comment and asserting that he isn't the "first one to think that, not by a long shot."
You avoid saying so clearly, but you seemed to know quite well what Bill meant to say--well enough to know that more than one person has said the same thing.
You then go on to point out how odd you find it that Edwards seems to be the only candidate with such a problem. What is this supposed to mean, if not "maybe he really is doing this himself to get publicity?"
If you don't think Bill was implying that the Edwards campaign may have staged these attacks to help raise funds, and you weren't agreeing with him that there may be something to this, then what exactly did you mean? Even as you back off from your implication that the attacks are a publicity move by Edwards you manage to suggest a possible scenario for exactly that: he attracted extremists to his campaign, and extremists are capable of anything.
Except right-wing extremists--who are savvy enough to know which candidates are serious, and leave the also-rans alone.
BTW: they are all serious candidates right now--Clinton was no where near the radar screen in July 1991. You may find Edwards more serious than you think if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, where populists fare well in democratic primaries. And watch for Tom Tancredo--I predict he will poll better in early primary states than many people think.
One more thing: If Edwards' campaign is destined for ignonimy anyway, why do you pay so much attention to him yourself?
You avoid saying so clearly, but you seemed to know quite well what Bill meant to say--well enough to know that more than one person has said the same thing.
You then go on to point out how odd you find it that Edwards seems to be the only candidate with such a problem. What is this supposed to mean, if not "maybe he really is doing this himself to get publicity?"
If you don't think Bill was implying that the Edwards campaign may have staged these attacks to help raise funds, and you weren't agreeing with him that there may be something to this, then what exactly did you mean? Even as you back off from your implication that the attacks are a publicity move by Edwards you manage to suggest a possible scenario for exactly that: he attracted extremists to his campaign, and extremists are capable of anything.
Except right-wing extremists--who are savvy enough to know which candidates are serious, and leave the also-rans alone.
BTW: they are all serious candidates right now--Clinton was no where near the radar screen in July 1991. You may find Edwards more serious than you think if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, where populists fare well in democratic primaries. And watch for Tom Tancredo--I predict he will poll better in early primary states than many people think.
One more thing: If Edwards' campaign is destined for ignonimy anyway, why do you pay so much attention to him yourself?
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 13, 2007 02:06 PM (r9Q9X)
11
RSS,
I did not imply any such thing as the Edwards campaign be involved, nor do I think that is what Bill Smith meant.
If you would like to start inferring, or deciphering, or tossing chicken bones in a voodoo spell to twist what I said into what you wish I would say, knock yourself out.
As for why I cover Silky, the answer should be obvious: he's local news, if not as deserving of the national spotlight as he would like.
I did not imply any such thing as the Edwards campaign be involved, nor do I think that is what Bill Smith meant.
If you would like to start inferring, or deciphering, or tossing chicken bones in a voodoo spell to twist what I said into what you wish I would say, knock yourself out.
As for why I cover Silky, the answer should be obvious: he's local news, if not as deserving of the national spotlight as he would like.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 13, 2007 02:33 PM (HcgFD)
12
If you "did not imply any such thing as the Edwards campaign be involved," nor "think that is what Bill Smith meant," then what exactly were you trying to say? What did Bill Smith mean, in your opinion? You protest mightily about what you did *not* say, but still no clarity on what you really *did* say.
I don't need chicken bones and voodoo to infer or decipher your meaning, CY. I read and understand English quite well, and while I can't read your mind or know your intent, I know exactly what the words you used mean, whether you do or not.
If you do not mean to say that you think Edwards' staff might be responsible for these attacks, you should stop using language that clearly says you think it is possible--such as your example about left-wing extremists.
And clarify for your readers exactly what you did mean. Inquiring minds want to know.
I don't need chicken bones and voodoo to infer or decipher your meaning, CY. I read and understand English quite well, and while I can't read your mind or know your intent, I know exactly what the words you used mean, whether you do or not.
If you do not mean to say that you think Edwards' staff might be responsible for these attacks, you should stop using language that clearly says you think it is possible--such as your example about left-wing extremists.
And clarify for your readers exactly what you did mean. Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 13, 2007 03:00 PM (r9Q9X)
13
Edwards does seem to have a problem with neighbors. From the guy across the road from his mansion to the businesses in the building with his headquarters, they seem not to feel he improves the neighborhood. Maybe you have to get up close to appreciate what a pain in the neck he is.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at July 13, 2007 03:41 PM (uT2/F)
14
Let me get this striaght.
Bob is not suggesting that the Edwards campaign is sending itself bomb scares, because that would be just crazy. Rather, an Edwards supporter is sending the Edwards campaign bomb scares because it might get Edwards some positive attention in the national press.
I'm glad we have that cleared up.
Bob is not suggesting that the Edwards campaign is sending itself bomb scares, because that would be just crazy. Rather, an Edwards supporter is sending the Edwards campaign bomb scares because it might get Edwards some positive attention in the national press.
I'm glad we have that cleared up.
Posted by: Shochu John at July 13, 2007 04:10 PM (AVhuI)
15
Actually, I just thought of a better one. What if al Qaeda is behind the Edwards bomb scares because they want to make it seem like they are really afraid of him. This will give him some anti-terrorism cred so he'll get elected. Once Edwards is sworn in, al Qaeda will activate their mind control device that was installed during his last haircut. Then, mind-controlled Edwards and Osama bin Laden will establish their caliphate in America.
The double-bank shot Arabian-Manchurian candidate. It makes too much sense not to be true.
The double-bank shot Arabian-Manchurian candidate. It makes too much sense not to be true.
Posted by: Shochu John at July 13, 2007 04:19 PM (AVhuI)
16
Huh. Closer you get to Edwards' HQ in North Carolina, the more terrified the local conservatives seem to be of him winning the nomination. The "local news" fig leaf doesn't really justify this degree of innuendo and vitriol. Is it just me, or are they scared to see a son of the South running against ol' Fred come this time next year?
Posted by: Pennsylvania Voter at July 13, 2007 11:45 PM (z8fGd)
17
I wouldn't put it past him. He is a Lawyer you know. Obviously, a dam good one with a lot of tricks up his sleeves, are you forgetting how he bilked enormous sums for his clients while super lining his own pockets?. You know the price of goods to us carries this baggage.
Posted by: Cajie at July 14, 2007 07:44 AM (Sq2Zj)
18
You two gentlemen are suggesting that Edwards is sending these suspicious packages to himself.
These sort of things have been known to happen, so its not outside the realm of possibility. All it takes is one unstable staffer or supporter looking to score some free publicity.
I don't think Edwards is dumb enough to order such a thing himself though.
That being said, I'd put the chances of it being traceable to the Edward's camp or supporters at under 10%.
These sort of things have been known to happen, so its not outside the realm of possibility. All it takes is one unstable staffer or supporter looking to score some free publicity.
I don't think Edwards is dumb enough to order such a thing himself though.
That being said, I'd put the chances of it being traceable to the Edward's camp or supporters at under 10%.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2007 10:28 AM (EI+1K)
19
I don't think it would surprise anyone if someone affiliated with the Edwards campaign did this. Well it may surprise far left wing fanatical kooks like R. Stanton Scott but not anyone else.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 15, 2007 01:31 PM (Lgw9b)
20
CI:
Yeah, I'm such a "left-wing fanatical kook" that I served as a combat soldier in the US Army for twenty years. Trained, deployed, ruined my knees, and worked for peanuts to defend you and your Tumbleweeds.
How about you? What did you do in the Cold War, Daddy? Feed people wings and beer?
There is more to patriotism, sir, than calling your ideological opponents traitors and kooks.
Maybe business owners should indeed stay out of politics. I'll never spend a dime in a Tumbleweeds again.
Perhaps I'll also stop worrying about debating issues and facts on this site and go straight to personal attacks. Looks like the policy has changed.
Yeah, I'm such a "left-wing fanatical kook" that I served as a combat soldier in the US Army for twenty years. Trained, deployed, ruined my knees, and worked for peanuts to defend you and your Tumbleweeds.
How about you? What did you do in the Cold War, Daddy? Feed people wings and beer?
There is more to patriotism, sir, than calling your ideological opponents traitors and kooks.
Maybe business owners should indeed stay out of politics. I'll never spend a dime in a Tumbleweeds again.
Perhaps I'll also stop worrying about debating issues and facts on this site and go straight to personal attacks. Looks like the policy has changed.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at July 16, 2007 12:20 PM (r9Q9X)
21
It looks like Willard "Mittens" Romney is giving Silky Pony a challenge in the hair and makeup competition. Mitt's getting a makeover!
Posted by: Psycheout at July 17, 2007 12:46 AM (0Oxto)
July 12, 2007
Harry Reid's Attemped Dodge
ABC's Jake Tapper attempted to get Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to answer a simple question: Will Iraq be safer for Iraqi civilians if we pull out?
He spins, he twists, he dives, but Harry Reid refuses to answer the question.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:47 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I don't think he can answer it, CY; he's not psychic. Anybody who has an answer to the question one way or the other is engaging in speculation fueled in part by a political agenda.
Only two things can be said for certain: first, that the Coalition soldiers who have been killed and wounded over the course of the war wouldn't have been killed or wounded if the war hadn't happened; second, the innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in the course of the war (the number is controversial--let's call it one thousand) wouldn't have died because of the war.
Al Qaeda certainly seems to be no worse for wear after years of war--"regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001" is what the leaked intelligence document says.
It appears that the sole raison d'etre of the war now going to be to reduce the body count of a hypothetical civil war that absolutely, positively would not be on the horizon if we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place.
Only two things can be said for certain: first, that the Coalition soldiers who have been killed and wounded over the course of the war wouldn't have been killed or wounded if the war hadn't happened; second, the innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in the course of the war (the number is controversial--let's call it one thousand) wouldn't have died because of the war.
Al Qaeda certainly seems to be no worse for wear after years of war--"regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001" is what the leaked intelligence document says.
It appears that the sole raison d'etre of the war now going to be to reduce the body count of a hypothetical civil war that absolutely, positively would not be on the horizon if we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 12, 2007 06:26 PM (4F8SM)
2
being psychic, my answer is no it will not be safer.. and I don't care... at least not enough to have US troops dying to keep that from happening.
Posted by: stevesturm at July 12, 2007 06:49 PM (XBWtm)
3
I don't think he can answer it, CY; he's not psychic.
He was psychic enough to declare the sure a failure before it really even got started though, right?
He was psychic enough to declare the sure a failure before it really even got started though, right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2007 10:23 AM (EI+1K)
4
He was psychic enough to declare the sure a failure before it really even got started though, right?
O! Purple Avenger!
Thy pithy snark,
Thy attempts at humour
Doth miss their mark.
Yet once again
With your answer flip
You dodge the question
With a "witty" quip.
He was psychic enough to declare the sure a failure before it really even got started though, right?
O! Purple Avenger!
Thy pithy snark,
Thy attempts at humour
Doth miss their mark.
Yet once again
With your answer flip
You dodge the question
With a "witty" quip.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 14, 2007 11:05 AM (YBdFW)
5
What "question" was that I "dodged"? I don't recall you asking me any question here.
A quote back seems in order here.
A quote back seems in order here.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2007 09:58 PM (EI+1K)
6
"Issue" might have been the more appropriate word.
CY expects Reid to answer the question of whether Iraq will be safer for civilians if we pull out, a question I say that he is unable to answer because he isn't psychic.
Now, based on your reply to my post, you believe one of two things: either that Reid is actually a psychic, (and, if so, you need to abide by his earlier determination, since he's a psychic and should know what's going on); or, as seems more likely, that he's a non-psychic poltroon, in which case you need to excuse him from answering CY's question.
Instead of making the intellectually rigorous choice of dealing with Reid's (or anybody's) obvious inability to answer CY's question with certainty, you choose to make the easy drive-by partisan attack that doesn't really address the issue seriously. You have it both ways, ironically pointing out that he's not psychic and at the same time implicitly expecting him to perform the task of a psychic.
CY expects Reid to answer the question of whether Iraq will be safer for civilians if we pull out, a question I say that he is unable to answer because he isn't psychic.
Now, based on your reply to my post, you believe one of two things: either that Reid is actually a psychic, (and, if so, you need to abide by his earlier determination, since he's a psychic and should know what's going on); or, as seems more likely, that he's a non-psychic poltroon, in which case you need to excuse him from answering CY's question.
Instead of making the intellectually rigorous choice of dealing with Reid's (or anybody's) obvious inability to answer CY's question with certainty, you choose to make the easy drive-by partisan attack that doesn't really address the issue seriously. You have it both ways, ironically pointing out that he's not psychic and at the same time implicitly expecting him to perform the task of a psychic.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 10:10 AM (CrydK)
7
Doc:
Of course, when the Americans leave, the Iranians , Syrians, Saudis and all those other ratbags including the non-exhistent Al Quaediasts are going to sit around the old campfire, offer to bring peace to the region, and sing Cumbayaa.
Reid gets full intelligence briefings so he would know full well the likely scenarios.
Reid's and the other Donkeybats (and their Elephantine Donkeybat wannabees) problem is they have already said that the US is the problem in Iraq. So why then won't he just come out and say everything will be fine when the major impediment to peace is gone.
Maybe his intelligence briefings tell him something else.
Of course, when the Americans leave, the Iranians , Syrians, Saudis and all those other ratbags including the non-exhistent Al Quaediasts are going to sit around the old campfire, offer to bring peace to the region, and sing Cumbayaa.
Reid gets full intelligence briefings so he would know full well the likely scenarios.
Reid's and the other Donkeybats (and their Elephantine Donkeybat wannabees) problem is they have already said that the US is the problem in Iraq. So why then won't he just come out and say everything will be fine when the major impediment to peace is gone.
Maybe his intelligence briefings tell him something else.
Posted by: davod at July 15, 2007 04:43 PM (RdotW)
8
"Marine Testifies of Beatings, Murders
AP
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (July 15) - A Marine corporal testifying in a court-martial said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to "crank up the violence level."
Lopezromo said the suspected insurgent was known to his neighbors as the "prince of jihad," and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system.
Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony."
What a sick, despicable crime by the US Marines! Neither the Iraninans nor Al-Qaeda would commit such a depraved act upon an innocent civilian. Iraqi civilians would DEFINITELY be safer if the US Marines got out of Iraq.
AP
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (July 15) - A Marine corporal testifying in a court-martial said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to "crank up the violence level."
Lopezromo said the suspected insurgent was known to his neighbors as the "prince of jihad," and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system.
Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony."
What a sick, despicable crime by the US Marines! Neither the Iraninans nor Al-Qaeda would commit such a depraved act upon an innocent civilian. Iraqi civilians would DEFINITELY be safer if the US Marines got out of Iraq.
Posted by: BannedChatter at July 15, 2007 05:37 PM (E9Tyv)
9
What a sick, despicable crime by the US Marines! Neither the Iraninans nor Al-Qaeda would commit such a depraved act upon an innocent civilian. Iraqi civilians would DEFINITELY be safer if the US Marines got out of Iraq.
I don't know if you're being serious or not, BannedChatter, but, if you are, you just walked into an ambush.
Michael Yon links to appear in 3...2...1...
What a sick, despicable crime by the US Marines! Neither the Iraninans nor Al-Qaeda would commit such a depraved act upon an innocent civilian. Iraqi civilians would DEFINITELY be safer if the US Marines got out of Iraq.
I don't know if you're being serious or not, BannedChatter, but, if you are, you just walked into an ambush.
Michael Yon links to appear in 3...2...1...
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 15, 2007 06:40 PM (CrydK)
Processing 0.1, elapsed 0.2369 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1483 seconds, 589 records returned.
Page size 523 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.