• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

If West Virginia and San Francisco had a love child.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

It’s easier to kill a dangerous animal than a man who just happens to have different thoughts/values than one’s own.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Nothing says ‘pro-life’ like letting children go hungry.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

Spilling the end game before they can coat it in frankl luntz-approved dogwhistles.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

Books are my comfort food!

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Maybe you would prefer that we take Joelle’s side in ALL CAPS?

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Excellent Links / A Beauchamp Review

A Beauchamp Review

by John Cole|  August 5, 20071:04 pm| 34 Comments

This post is in: Excellent Links

FacebookTweetEmail

From Cathy Young.

Which, of course, means it is reasonable and doesn’t have any name calling, dripping sarcasm, and bitter ad hominem attacks, and as such probably doesn’t even count as blogging.

Still worth reading, though.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: Steeler Football »

Reader Interactions

34Comments

  1. 1.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    August 5, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    For an analogy: Suppose a conservative magazine ran an article about the baneful effects of same-sex marriage on general attitudes toward matrimony. Suppose it opened with an account of a conversation overheard by the author on a college campus in Massachusetts, a few weeks after that state’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex unions must be legalized, in which several college students favorably discussed polygamy and group marriage. Suppose some questions were raised about the accuracy of that account, and then it turned out that the conversation did take place — only it was a month before the same-sex marriage ruling and it happened not in Massachusetts but in Virginia. Would anyone consider that a trivial error?

    Well, yeah.

  2. 2.

    brock o. baum

    August 5, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    John Cole links to an error-filled, piece of obfuscation that re-iterates his points which have been already knocked down..and thinks it gives his arguments support..

    …all sorts of logical fallacies there…

    …John Cole..you are wrong on every level…yet you persist…let it go…move onto your next mistake..

  3. 3.

    John Cole

    August 5, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    John Cole links to an error-filled, piece of obfuscation that re-iterates his points which have been already knocked down..and thinks it gives his arguments support..

    …all sorts of logical fallacies there…

    …John Cole..you are wrong on every level…yet you persist…let it go…move onto your next mistake..

    Did you even read it?

    And I have no policy yet, but I might have to make up one to ban people who abuse ellipse the way you do.

  4. 4.

    laneman

    August 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    who and why is the brock o. baum ‘toon?

  5. 5.

    John Cole

    August 5, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    A pretty well known troll who makes his way around a number of sites. His name is widely known at Atrios and others.

    Funny thing is, he is so dumb he thinks he is trolling a left-wing site.

  6. 6.

    Andrew

    August 5, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    My ellipses go to ………..

  7. 7.

    ThymeZone

    August 5, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    John Cole..you are wrong on every level…yet you persist…let it go…move onto your next mistake

    Like letting you post here?

    BTW, not even the people who got C’s in Creative Writing used the ellipsis as much as you …. do.

    You remind me of the Bob and Ray “Slow Talkers of America” routine.

    Say it slowly. Slow ….. talkers …..of ……America.

    Classic funny fifty years ago. Watching you do it is like watching a dog lick its butt. Funny for a second, but then you really have to look away.

  8. 8.

    Hyperion

    August 5, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    i read the whole thing. after much “on-one-hand, on-the-other-hand”, she agrees pretty much with JC.

    i notice that more and more, MANY are explicitly acknowledging the unwillingness of some right wing crazies to face reality. rick moran has a post about the surge that mentions the downside of true believers shouting down folks with…facts. (hope those ellipses don’t offend anyone).

    so will RW Nuthouse get added to the blog roll? i mentioned it on the new blogroll thread but it does not appear now. it reminds me of B-J three years ago.

  9. 9.

    Wilfred

    August 5, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Boy, thanks for the update. This Beauchamp Paradox is one tough problem. I’ve already used up two composition books with timetables and diagrams. My sentence structure is failing. Was it Kuwait or Iraq? Who ate a rock? Hickory dickory dock, did Matt Sanchez s… Who dropped a brockabomb?

  10. 10.

    Ted

    August 5, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    I read Cathy’s post, and it’s well-reasoned and balanced. Still, I would rather hear from someone who at least served on the ground in Beauchamp’s area in Iraq at least at some point in the Iraq war. There are many things I’m sure wouldn’t make a bit of sense to all of us who’ve never even been there, but actually go on.

    Regardless, John and Cathy have a good point: none of this is earth-shattering. By the wingnutosphere’s reaction, you’d think it was another Abu Ghraib. Playing with corpses, killing dogs for no reason, etc, are disgusting, but not something you can use to say that the Iraq war is destroying the Army. Talk about deployment time, troop armor, recruitment rates, and VA care, that’s pretty much all you need.

  11. 11.

    marc page

    August 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Funny thing is, he is so dumb he thinks he is trolling a left-wing site.

    Unfortunately, any site that does not parrot four-square support for Mr. Bush (also known as ‘Dear Leader’) is ipso fracking facto “a left-wing site.”

  12. 12.

    Bruce Moomaw

    August 5, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    I find her pretty convincing. And — as she notes — the fact that one of Beauchamp’s questionable TNR stories concerns a boy who supposedly had his tongue cut out by barbaric insurgents for talking to Americans proves by itself that, regardless of his accuracy, neither he nor TNR is engaged in a conspiracy to Traitorously Weaken Our War Morale. (But then, as she also points out, at this point the Remaining 28 Percent will grab at anything. Quoting a line from the old original “Outer Limits” series that’s stuck in my head: “When one has nothing but straws to grasp at, one grasps at straws.”)

  13. 13.

    myiq2xu

    August 5, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Regarding the post by brock, ellipses marks are generally used to denote where something has been deleted.

    Usually, however, one doesn’t delete all of the cogent parts of their argument.

  14. 14.

    marc page

    August 5, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    There are “cogent parts” to brock’s (for lack of a better word) “argument” ?

  15. 15.

    RSA

    August 5, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    none of this is earth-shattering

    Tempest in a teapot is right. Beauchamp’s veracity aside, have none of the outraged commentators on the right read a war memoir? Or even looked at, say, old magazines that came out during wartime? In Thank God for the Atom Bomb, for example, Paul Fussell shows a photo, from a WW II era issue of Life magazine, of a woman looking thoughtfully at a Japanese skull sitting on her desk, a gift from her sailor boyfriend. That kind of shit was mainstream back then.

  16. 16.

    Dug Jay

    August 5, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Which, of course, means it is reasonable and doesn’t have any name calling, dripping sarcasm, and bitter ad hominem attacks, and as such probably doesn’t even count as blogging.

    Well, those words certainly don’t describe any posts that Messrs. Tim or Cole put up.

  17. 17.

    The Pirate

    August 5, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    I do take issue with the idea that “Beauchamp and his persecutors deserve each other.” Beauchamp is guilty of, at most, a little embellishment. That hardly puts him on the same level as the barbarian hordes calling for his blood.

  18. 18.

    garyb50

    August 5, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    …zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  19. 19.

    garyb50

    August 5, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    …OOPs, My Bad…

    …I meant…zzz…zzz…zzz…zzz…zzz…zzz…zzz…

  20. 20.

    Bruce Moomaw

    August 5, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Yeah, Dug Jay. It’s absolutely outrageous of Cole and Tim to respond to hysterical idiocy by pointing out that it’s hysterical idiocy. Couldn’t they be a little more tactful?

  21. 21.

    Rudi

    August 5, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    zzzzzzzz

  22. 22.

    jake

    August 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    A random thought: When a moonbat dares to mention the clusterfuck in Iraq or the clusterfuck at Walter Reed or any other war related clusterfuck, it seems that at least one person who identifies as Right oriented will reply with some variation of “War is hell (get over it).”

    Why did STB’s writings prompt the LIES ALL LIES response rather than the WiH response?

  23. 23.

    John Redworth

    August 5, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    Did you even read it?

    he doesn’t have to read it since he has inside information that Beauchamp admitted to lying.

    Does anyone else get the feeling that Brock has the logical fallacy page on Wiki bookmarked and randomly pulls out a term in hopes of sounding smart?

  24. 24.

    brock o'bummer

    August 5, 2007 at 7:22 pm

    IM N UR BLOGZ STEALIN UR ELLIPSEEZ

  25. 25.

    The Other Steve

    August 5, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    Et in arcadia ego…

  26. 26.

    marc page

    August 5, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    marc page Says:
    brock o. baum:

    here’s a “logical fallacy” to add to the list you just looked up on Wikipedia:

    You.

    August 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  27. 27.

    The Other Steve

    August 5, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    On a side note… you might want to see this followup on the votevets thing.

    Apparently, the guy didn’t just show up at that one event, he’d tried to get into an argument with Wes Clark at dinner the day prior. Clark told him it was illegal to be at a political event in uniform.

    So the next day at the panel, the same guy showed up. The talking him down wasn’t about his point of view. It was about the fact that he was in uniform, in violation of the law.

    I’m eagerly awaiting the Beauchamp attackers going after this guy, because the law is the law, and wrong is wrong.

    Right?

  28. 28.

    Andrew

    August 6, 2007 at 12:03 am

    Quick, someone call Matt Sanchez! I hear he’s good at getting men out of their uniforms.

  29. 29.

    cleek

    August 6, 2007 at 6:15 am

    Right?

    wrong.

    the law must be used in the service of The Cause before it’s a law. otherwise, it’s just a quaint anachronism.

  30. 30.

    Rusty Shackleford

    August 6, 2007 at 7:34 am

    Beauchamp’s writing is a poor knock-off of John Crawford’s The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell.

  31. 31.

    John S.

    August 6, 2007 at 7:48 am

    Well, those words certainly don’t describe any posts that Messrs. Tim or Cole put up.

    I get it…they are dirty Frenchies!

    Good one.

  32. 32.

    mds

    August 6, 2007 at 9:54 am

    By the wingnutosphere’s reaction, you’d think it was another Abu Ghraib.

    No, because Abu Ghraib was no big deal to these people, who joined Senator Inhofe in being primarily “outraged by the outrage.” It’s the disclosing of information that hasn’t been run through the regime’s propaganda filters that remains the true offense.

  33. 33.

    buzz

    August 6, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    “Clark told him it was illegal to be at a political event in uniform.”

    If Clark told him that, he was wrong. It isn’t illegal.

    “So the next day at the panel, the same guy showed up. The talking him down wasn’t about his point of view. It was about the fact that he was in uniform, in violation of the law.”
    Again, wrong. What law do you think you are talking about?

    “I’m eagerly awaiting the Beauchamp attackers going after this guy, because the law is the law, and wrong is wrong.”
    If it was the law. Which is isnt.

    Do you really think any of this would have come up if he had denounced the surge and Bush instead?

  34. 34.

    Buddy

    August 6, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    “Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • rikyrah on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:00pm)
  • rikyrah on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:00pm)
  • zhena gogolia on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:00pm)
  • Jackie on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 4:59pm)
  • WaterGirl on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 4:58pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!