I was going to write a snide and condescending post (why stop now?) about the continuing absurd reactions to the latest Beauchamp revelations, but then I read this at the NRO:
At this point, if TNR’s defenders engage this story at all — and providing they don’t simply accuse military investigators of coercing Beauchamp into recanting — we are likely to see sarcastic outbursts about how “this definitively proves that our troops are, to a man and woman, angels.”
No blogger following this story ever made that assertion, as far as I’m aware. What we have argued, repeatedly and in other contexts, is that our counterparts in the Iraq debate have lost all perspective with their focus on American “atrocities” as opposed to Al-Qaeda atrocities. Demand for evidence of the former is so high — and documented abuses so relatively scarce — that we have ambitious aspiring writers willing to lie and exaggerate in order to get published in prestigious national journals, and the editors of those journals willing to believe even the most dubious accounts of wrongdoing
You see- thousands of hours had to be spent because we were losing track of the fact that the “terrorists are worse.” It was a perspective issue, you see. They were afraid that we might think our soldiers are just as bad as the terrorists. BEAUCHAMP HAD TO BE REFUTED.
Really, what can you say to that kind of idiocy?
The narrative of this war, as far as the efforts of our soldiers are concerned, is not one of them being systematic abusers. The narrative is of good men and women who went into a hellhole to do the impossible, were under-equipped in many cases and overextended in most, and did everything they could to get their mission done. If there even is a subnarrative of abuse associated with the soldiers (which there really is not), most certainly Abu Gharaib and Haditha and other documented atrocities would take precedence over some jackass running over a dog. Even then, in the case of Abu Gharaib, if you ask the leftist pinko commies who have lost “perspective,” they do not blame the troops. They blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and senior leadership for creating Abu Ghraib.
At any rate, like Jim Henley, I know when I am beat. When the right is willing to bring out the ‘TERRORISTS ARE WORSE’, the wingnut equivalent of 5 aces in poker, there is simply nothing you can do but mock them some more for pure entertainment.
*** Update ***
Rick Moran is going to catch hell from the patriots for this post.
*** Update ***
Ruh roh, the story lives on:
We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”
Why does Major Lamb hate the troops?
ThymeZone
Amen.
rawshark
They know we are actually attacking the civilian leadership. They LOOOOOOOOVE the civilian leadership and will happily deflect the issue away from that on to anything else. The american people cannot be subjected to any information which would reflect badly on the people who run the war. The american people cannot be allowed to foster unhappy opinions about the PARTY. That’s the whole story. The war is a sideshow designed to keep people loving the Party.
Zifnab
Why do American atrocities get quotes but Al-Qaeda atrocities get no quotes? I think this is a perfectly cromulent example of discrimination in action.
Dave
Remfin
Once again the linking of Iraq and Al’Qaeda in a sentence for no discernable purpose. “But we never SAID Saddam was involved in 9/11 *wink wink*!!”
Jake
At least give them credit for realizing CLINTON DID IT! would sound pretty damn stupid.
Contrarian commie pinko moonbat: I blame all of the above and the soldiers involved for A.G. Chalk it up to respect for their ability to tell right from wrong.
BTW, TNR is back in fine form with a piece suggesting that the majority of people who are against the war in Iraq aren’t soldiers and therefore, should shaddup.
Education Guy
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to refute him simply because he was lying. That would be too provincial.
Declare victory John!
Bubblegum Tate
I give this a completely non-snarky “absolutely.”
For the snark, though…when you say this:
well, now you’re just a moonbat. For you see, “the troops” are indistinguishable from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the senior leadership (who are also indistinguishable from America). If you criticize the war planning, war policy, war strategy, or even the concept of invading Iraq, then you hate the troops. And I’m not using “the troops” as a collective noun. I mean you hate each and every individual soldier. Personally. And you should be strung up for treason as a result. The wingnuts told me so, and as we all know, they have been nothing but rational, level-headed, and correct about Iraq.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Which is what we’ll never do in Iraq.
Big picture, EG, big picture.
capelza
Have any of the people who are calling TNR a leftist rag actually ever read it?
It was in the other post, but if Marty peretz gets egg on his face then it will be worth it!
Redleg
If the wingnuts were as good at killing terrorists as they were at killing straw men then the war on terror would surely be over by now.
Zifnab
I’ll say. When has a winger ever been concerned about lying?
*cough* WMDs *hack* AG Gonzo *weeze* prisoner abuse and extraordinary rendition *gasp* “We could never have anticipated the breech of the levees!” *dies*
Seriously, though. The truth is important, and its nice to see wingtopias chasing after it.
Cain
This is all a clever trick to get righties to foam at the mouth on several threads at the same time and thus exhausting themselves.
I suggest a “Bush sucks!” thread and see if we can start a third front. Then we’ll declare victory.
cain
Tsulagi
Shit, I just post a comment to The Daily Beauchamp Comes To An End below, refresh, and now this…MORE BEAUCHAMP.
capelza
Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaa…..
tballou
“If there even is a subnarrative of abuse associated with the soldiers …”
The subnarrative is that war destroys. Placing otherwise decent and good people in the hellhole that is war is guarenteed to damage those people. It reduces humanity to its lowest, basest level, by definition. Anyone that expects anything different is deluding themselves. That our soldiers are affected by war and then act out there or at home is part of the deal.
How anyone participates in war without involvement in atrocities, or returns from war without post-traumatic stress syndrome is a miracle and this Administration has so miserably failed in that department is the real scandal.
MoonBatman
Lets add Scott Beauchamp to the list of heroes who have been defamed by the extreme right-wing Rovian swift-boating smear machine for speaking the truth.
Specialist
Yeah.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Ooh! An appearance by Usher!
Wilfred
This was from all the way back in May, of this year:
A great deal of what I’ve heard from Wingnutia involves the sheer improbability of any improper actions and, more importantly, the corresponding certainty that if there were any, people would rush to report it.
The report from the Pentagon was buried almost immediately and received zero play in the right-wing blogosphere. In light of this report, which received wide play in the Arab and Iraqi press, and the right-wing non-reaction, I’ve been suspicious of their ‘Lady doth protest too much’ reaction about Beauchamp from the beginning.
Education Guy, you seem pretty well-informed – your thoughts on the lacunae?
Christopher Taylor
Indeed, how unreasonable of people to want to defend the honor of troops and stand up for the truth. That’s some grade A idiocy! You need to take a page from Ross Douthat. He at least had the dignity to admit he was wrong.
Bruce Moomaw
Note that not one of these clowns notes (as Cathy Young did) that another of Beauchamp’s questionable TNR stories involved an Iraqi boy who supposedly had his tongue cut out by barbaric insurgents for consorting with US troops — which proves by itself the idiocy of “The Corner’s” argument above.
But, really, John, you’re losing perspective. You don’t HAVE to “beat them”. It’s like the Big Bang in reverse: they’re shrinking steadily in number — and as that happens, of course the average “temperature” (i.e., hysteria) of the remaining contingent will naturally be higher. Try persuading ALL of them, and of course you’ll “lose”.
Steve
Yes, it’s disappointing that the lefty blogosphere spent all that time trumpeting Beauchamp’s stories instead of focusing on how bad the terrorists are. Other than the fact that this didn’t happen, it’s a good point.
RSA
This goes directly against the necons’ central principle, unfortunately. No one who says, “Bring it on,” can have thought seriously about the downside of war.
capelza
Did the lefty blogosphere spend all this time trumpeting Beauchamp’s stories?
Really, I’m just asking here. I wouldn’t have heard about it it if it wasn’t for the baying of the hounds of “justice” on the right.
Why would the lefty (and obviously evil) blogosphere have wasted anytime on this when, if that was the intent, they had the convictions for rape and murder to “hate the troops” with.
Let’s see, someone totals my car, someone else leaves a scratch on the valance. Which am I going to “trumpet”?
Illogical.
The Other Andrew
Christopher–isn’t it a little late in the game for the right to suddenly decide that they care about the truth?
As for why this is getting so much play: pay no attention to the Maliki government falling apart; look at the shiny Beauchamp in my other hand!
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Do we have a scorecard on how many exposes have been successful, against how many were wild-goose chases?
Just off the top of my head, it seems for every Dan Rather or Beauchamp, there’s five “fake” Schiavo memos.
Delia
The thing is, the propaganda of soldier as True American Hero has been so instilled in the public that many people are incapable of believing them capable of the slightest misdeed. True story: my son who is a junior diplomatic officer serving in Korea ordered a Dell computer which was shipped through the APO postal system. He learned too late that like all such computers, it was stolen while in the system. Last Christmas he was visiting me in Oregon, and we went to the local post office where he was shipping some things back to Korea and insuring them for a large sum to keep them from being stolen. He told the postal clerk his computer story, and she was incredulous that Our Soldiers could ever do such a dishonest thing.
Now if good, honest American people can’t bring themselves to accept that American soldiers will commit simple theft, how much less will they accept that they’ll commit horrifying acts of sadism and brutality. The propaganda’s been well-catapulted, indeed.
ThymeZone
Probably the best, and certainly the most important, thing said on this thread.
The idea that we are fighting a useless war for that motherfucker should be enough to motivate anyone with a conscience to oppose the thing on principle.
jenniebee
Message Discipline wins again!
TR
You know why I don’t spend all my time clucking about the terrorists’ atrocities? Because they’re fucking terrorists. I expect that from them.
I don’t expect it from the men and women who fight in our name. I sort of assumed we were all on the same page there, what with us being the good guys and all.
daleyrocks
“Even then, in the case of Abu Gharaib, if you ask the leftist pinko commies who have lost “perspective,” they do not blame the troops. They blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and senior leadership for creating Abu Ghraib.”
Exactly, because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld personally trained each soldier during basic training, turning them into mindless killbots and torturers. That goes without saying. I thought every leftist pinko commie knew that. Why do you have to keep repeating the obvious?
Steve
TNR says:
It’s sort of amazing how many people refused to credit TNR’s fact-checking, because it cited anonymous sources, yet take the Weekly Standard’s report as gospel. You would think, since the military had no problem announcing that they had investigated Beauchamp’s allegations and found them to be without merit, they would have no problem confirming that Beauchamp had signed a statement retracting the allegations.
I wonder if there is another shoe that has yet to drop. This much I know: there was nothing remotely interesting about this story before the wingnutosphere got involved.
Bubblegum Tate
In all seriousness, pretty much everything I saw in the “lefty blogosphere” (as defined by wingnuts, which means it includes this site) was making fun of the wingnuts and the righty BLARGH!osphere for breathlessly trumpeting Beauchamp’s stories.
Also, good post, Wilfred; I had forgotten about that.
Comrade Mattski
I’m not so sure how many of these wingnuts have actually met or hung out with a typical grunt. I have a few friends who got out of the Corp 18 months into this Iraqi Catastro-fuck. And if anybody thinks that a bunch of 18-22 year old marine, hyped up on adrenaline and steroids, who joined the marines to kick ass aren’t capable of doing horrible things then they are out of there minds. These are people who like to zap each other with tasers at the highest setting to see who can stand up the longest to it. And that’s when they are in a good mood.
Cassidy
I immediately demand that all left leaning people in here hysterically denounce the atrocities of Al Quaeda and othe such religious nuttery, going back to ancient Babylon, before you are a qualified to talk about abuses committed by American Soldiers.
daleyrocks
“Even then, in the case of Abu Gharaib, if you ask the leftist pinko commies who have lost “perspective,” they do not blame the troops. They blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and senior leadership for creating Abu Ghraib.”
Yep, that civilian control of the military runs deep, right down to the individual killbot and torturer level. Who knew? We are indebted to the commie pinkos for pointing it out.
capelza
Cassidy, is it true you troll Perez Hilton?
Pro-US, are you?
The narrative of this war, as far as the efforts of our soldiers are concerned, is not one of them being systematic abusers.
Not for lack of trying on your part in particular and that of the left in general
Except that the author in question had proven himself to be an SOB of the first order prior to entry into Iraq. The making fun of the burn faced woman story was from Kuwait, as TNR was later forced to admit.
The National Review Online piece was spot on: for the left any story that shows the U.S. in general, or Bush and/or the U.S. military in particular, in a bad light is immediately credible because it fits their existing mental motif. So long as it “smells good”, it is good.
This story, for me, was not about this cretin, a man who was screwed in the head before he ever stepped into Iraq as witnessed by the brun faced woman in Kuwait story. No, this is about the left and their media choir shoveling out anything that denegrates the troops as a pipelock cinch, without question beyond “smell” tests.
Zifnab
You forgot the Dixie Chicks and Kayne West.
Also (and I have no idea how you missed this one) John Kerry.
capelza
Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa. Whoops, loss of matronly dignity.
A thousand pardons.
marc page
Here’s an odd thing:
Initially, the RighWingers said the woman with the burned face didn’t exist; but, if she did exist, no American soldier would have mocked her. Therefor, Beauchamp lied.
Now that Beauchamp has been painted as a sociopath, the RightWingers are absolutely certain the woman with the burned face exists, and Beauchamp didn’t lie when he said he (and others) mocked her.
And I’m still waiting for someone, anyone on the Right to say that Beauchamp lied about the boy with his tongue cut out. After all, Beauchamp lied about everything, didn’t he?
Tsulagi
When I followed the memorandum.com link above and saw all the Greater Wingnuttia there, and that they were all working off the same Weekly Standard anonymous source, I thought the same thing.
Maybe Beauchamp doesn’t realize he signed something before he didn’t. So if the WS anonymous source is in error, well, that would just add to the comedy of this whole lame ass thing. It’s looking like Natalee Holloway will be found before this non-story mercifully dies.
Yep, just read some of the comments. The ankle biters including Ace and Michelle are well represented in them.
Zifnab
We can only hope. Because clearly this story has not received enough play from the blogosphere to make us all gag on it.
jh
The name says it all. I think now is as good a time as any to start my “When faced with a jingoistic lunatic, quote Orwell” campaign:
A Party member “is expected to have no………respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party.”
Jake
True, but you are expecting a level of logical thinking that is waaay beyond the ability of the average fRighty.
Either that or to the fRight, the woman with the burned face is a bit like Schrodinger’s Cat. She either does or does not exist depending on whether STB needs to be painted as a rude jerk or a lying jerk.
Jeff B.
Spruiell’s post on NRO is pretty stupid. It’s not really about the supposedly disparate amount of attention paid to al-Qaeda atrocities vs. American atrocities, and even if there is an imbalance, I’m sure that would be improper anyway. After all, it’s the responsibility of a society to police itself…we should be freaking about about Abu Ghraib or atrocities committed by American soldiers, Haditha, etc. Meanwhile: al-Qaeda are evil, insane, torturing terrorist murderers? I’m shocked, shocked.
However, I will repeat what I wrote over on Moran’s blog here, because I think it’s a point that you (John) are missing:
Nobody – and I mean nobody – is claiming or thinking that “winning” the Beauchamp story is the equivalent of “winning” the war effort, or even contributing to it indirectly. That’s not what it was about for people like me. What it was about, as others have said, was a dinosaur media publication allowing a questionably reliable writer (the acknowledged fabulism of his earlier blog should have raised red flags) to post transparently questionable reports from Iraq without any serious factchecking. And then when they were called upon to finally research and check the stories, they actually seem to have engaged in a cover-up: sullen inveigling and obfuscation combined with a stubborn refusal to (as of now) acknowledge any substantive errors.
This isn’t an “Iraq” story, per se, though that’s obviously the context. It’s a media story, and as bloggers this is something that should interest us all. I don’t need to be told there are bigger issues in the world to worry about, that’s a shady dodge. (“Cheney is a liar! Teh war is teh evil!” Yes, and I have an attention span capable of focusing on both that AND this, thank you very much.) As to how the blogs went about their debunking here, how is it any different from the way they attacked Rathergate?
Furthermore this story has added relevance because the publication in question is TNR. We all saw Shattered Glass, and read stories about how the Stephen Glass affair supposedly rocked TNR on its heels and initiated a sea-change in how they source and report their stories. Therefore their surly refusal to acknowledge that they, once again, have gotten snookered here – and this time in a much more politically explosive context – is pretty outrageous. Again, it’s beside the point to gesture to other media misdeeds, or the wrongs of the Bush administration, or all the injustices of the world, and say “you should be outraged about THAT!” Well maybe I am, maybe I’m not. (I am, actually.) But I’ve got more than enough outrage for all things big and small. Don’t tell me not to care about this because you think there’s only enough emotion in the world to focus on things you prefer to look at.
To say that “l’affair Beauchamp” is ultimately minor in the context of the War is to miss the point. Of course it is. But it is NOT minor in the context of The New Republic’s history, or in the context of the tendency of mainstream media for stories which are “too good to check” because they flatter a preferred worldview. Those sorts of preferences can go either way, or course, left or right. That alone is significant enough to merit blogger attention.
Jeff B.
Crap, I left out a word in the first paragraph of my earlier post that totally changes the meaning. Second try:
“[This whole affair’s importance] not really about the supposedly disparate amount of attention paid to al-Qaeda atrocities vs. American atrocities, and even if there is an imbalance, I’m **NOT** sure that would be improper anyway.
Bubblegum Tate
Pro-US: Spoof or Blogs for Bush commenter? He sounds a whole lot like the latter (right down to the ridiculous handle), but the latter almost by definition comes across as the former when removed from its bubble.
over_educated
This story is the Hydra of the blogosphere, cut off one head and 2 more pop up. For Christ sake I think John has had about 4 “this is my last Scott Beauchamp post” posts.
srv
I demand the the Weekly Standard IMMEDIATELY release the names of their sources who are engaged in spreading lies the public.
tBone
Fixed for redundancy.
capelza
Which as he himself noted meant there’s be about 15 more. So he’s only got 11 to go!
Kevin Hayden
Thank you for remaining lucid, John. For the record, might I add that, as a liberal, I am also:
– opposed to crime.
– support children.
– have never owned a Che poster.
– have never spit on a soldier, even the ones who are mean and stupid.
– have never spit on a liberal, even the ones who are mean and stupid.
– willing to state that some of my best friends are white, in profit-making businesses and/or are churchgoers.
– not on food stamps.
– bathing regularly.
– think Osama Bin Laden is not a very nice fellow.
– think George Bush is not a very good employee.
I hope that clarifies things for the sociologists at The Weekly Standard, the intelligence agencies listening to my phone conversations and the militia members stockpiling arsenals for the coming Armegeddon in the basement of Joe’s Bar & Pulpit.
Steve
Here in New York City, we have courteously preserved a big hole in the ground all these years just in case people were inclined to forget about al-Qaeda’s atrocities and the fact that they’re worse than some guy who possibly ran over a dog. Which they weren’t, really, but it’s nice of us just the same.
Jeff B.
Steve –
I hope you bothered to read my follow-up, where I noted I’d accidentally left out a key word that utterly changes the meaning of that first paragraph.
tBone
Just because you’re too scared to spit on a solider doesn’t mean you don’t hate The Troops, moonbat.
grumpy realist
Ugh. Can’t we get Paris Hilton back in the news again instead?
Jake
A-HA! You didn’t say you’ve never spat on a conservative! [/wingin’]
Ugh
I’ll do my best.
myiq2xu
I too, am a liberal, but I am not ashamed to admit that:
I have been heterosexual all my life
I drink beer
I have been bowling on numerous occasions
I have never burned an American Flag
I did raise the Flag over Ft. McClellan and Ft. Irwin a few times
I once lived in a mobile home.
I went to public school.
I didn’t inherit anything except blue eyes and male pattern baldness.
AND
I love John Wayne movies.
I sure hope the other liberals don’t kick me out of the club.
MBunge
What exactly about the Weekly Standard would make anyone think they’re telling the truth about Beauchamp’s “recanting”?
Mike
jenniebee
So, the Weekly Standard has been refuted, have they? Whodathunkit?
The Other Steve
I spoke with Captain Winters of the 101st, stationed at FOB Falcon via email yesterday. He informed me that after two weeks of investigation they’re stumped. Apparently in reviewing the emails from Beauchamp, there were some cryptic messages which appear to be in some code.
Anyway, this has the military stumped, and they will be unable to continue their investigation until the crack team at the NSA is able to decipher the code.
Captain Winters says he is sorry for the disruption this is going to cause the blogswarm, but it was unavoidable.
fecapult
Blow Job? Just what is ‘is’?
The Other Steve
Clint Eastwood I could understand. Spaghetti westerns or Dirty Harry.
John Wayne get’s you kicked from the club for lack of taste.
Bruce Moomaw
On Capelza’s point: I too don’t remember ANY liberal bloggers mentioning Beauchamp’s story at all until the Rightbloggers decided to start screaming about it — although, admittedly, I also stay away from most of the screechier left-wing sites. I suppose it’s possible that a few of them mentioned it.
Now, to repeat what I said before: what about the questionable technical details in his earlier TNR story about the kid who supposedly got his tongue cut out by the insurgents for befriending US troops — and came back to befriend them again anyway? Even if Beauchamp was lying in this one too, it don’t fit so good with the Beauchamp And TNR Hate America meme, which is presumably why we’ve heard so little about it.
The Other Steve
And don’t mind John Cole. He’s not a real liberal. He was totally opposed to Casual Abortion Fridays when Pelosi recommended it.
Bruce Moomaw
And — once again — why are any of us (including me) wasting so much time on these hysterical morons in their steadily shrinking echo chamber? It’s not as though the MSM or the general populace has paid any attention at all to this whole affair.
John Cole
In my case, it is because they get so mad and then say dumber things.
The Other Steve
Doubtful. Hardly anybody on the left reads TNR since it became a Republican publication.
capelza
Bruce Moomaw…it is possible that some site like Democratic Underground said something, but I do not know, because I can’t stand going there and haven’t for years. Though again there’s that quandry. Why would the far left of DU read anything in THR..they are the extreme opposites in the “left”.
I confess that I am enjoying the trainwreck aspect of it. I am a bad person.
ConservativelyLiberal
In the last thread about Beaucamp, I said ‘Stick a fork in him, he is done…’ Well, I guess he is not done. That is if the wingnuts have their way.
I checked over at the far left headquarters (Daily Kos) just to see how they are going nuclear over Beaucamp. Not a single diary about him on the front page. Not one. Damn them! Those evil lefties! By not writing about this, they are forcing the right to have to make everything up and to keep on flogging this long dead horse.
This is obviously an evil plot by DK to keep the story in the headlines so that the right can deflect from more important stuff like people dying in Iraq and our Constitution and Bill of Rights being used as toilet paper by Cheney.
Yeah, thats the ticket!
Jim Treacher
Their ability to name a source?
Tsulagi
I went higher than that. Straight to Beauchamp’s battalion commander. He asked me to send along his warmest regards to Michelle and her warriors for their vigilance in this bit of code…
Maybe using the power of distributed wingnuttian brains wired together they’ll be able to collectively crack the code.
The Other Steve
Colonel Anon E. Mouse?
Is he related to Colonel Sanders per chance?
capelza
Jim Treacher, what source did they name?
Jim Treacher
I meant this source. Which is one more than TNR has named at this point. Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad, said, “An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.” Which doesn’t prove Beauchamp signed anything, of course, that’s true. Well, if WS made up that source and that quote, I hope somebody gets to the bottom of it.
cleek
have they named their source? does Major Lamb know about it ?
Jim Treacher
And there are the sources Bob Owens asked about it, which is bad because they should have put out a press release instead.
Jim Treacher
Okay, then, Major Lamb isn’t a source. My mistake.
John Cole
I believe Major Lamb is the source TNR just used who stated he has no knowledge that Beuachamp recnated. Not sure if he is the source of the “allegations are false” quote. Too lazy/indifferent to check.
The really sad thing is these poor bastards can’t drink in Iraq. I bet Major Lamb could sure use one after being caught in the middle of this idiocy for a week.
demimondian
Um, Jim? The Weekly Standard has a pretty serious credibility problem here. You see, in the quotation you yourself repeat, they say
You see, TNR quotes the same source, saying something rather different.
To forestall you next jackalope, there’s something here beyond “he says – he says”. You see, only one of those two quotations is consistent with the applicable regulations — and it isn’t the one from the WS.
myiq2xu
Digby at Hullabaloo was the first lefty I saw write about Comrade Beauchamp
Her only comment was she hoped it wasn’t true, but that if it was it was most likely due to the stressful conditions our troops are enduring.
Why do liberals hate the troops???
Jim Treacher
So Major Lamb told the Weekly Standard that the investigation was complete and Beauchamp’s allegations were found to be false, and then he told TNR that he had no knowledge of Beauchamp recanting and requested anonymity? Sounds like quite a prankster.
BruceR
If that source could keep his story consistent from one interview to the next, you’d be right, Jim.
Jim Treacher
I don’t think there’s any need for that. For a bunch of guys who keep protesting that you don’t care about this, you sure are quick to jump…
Okay, it’s the same Major Lamb both times, now I see what you’re saying. Well, that’s definitely a conundrum. Maybe if a neutral party asked Lamb for the scoop? No, but then that party’s motives would be impugned by one side or another, wouldn’t they? It’s a head-scratcher, alright.
demimondian
No, Jim. The WS claimed that Major Lamb said something. Unfortunately, what he said would have itself constituted an offense, so…well, the least damning interpretation I can put on it is that the WS repeated the quotation out of context.
ConservativelyLiberal
If they are still doing handstands over the recanting of Beaucamp, maybe they will break the code during one of them…
Jeff B.
Erm, it seems clear the only thing that Lamb is saying is that a.) Beauchamp’s allegations were found to be false; b.) he doesn’t know anything about a SIGNED RECANTATION.
These things aren’t mutually exclusive at all, in fact it’s not like you have to stretch hard to figure out what Lamb’s saying here. The New Republic’s pretense that Lamb is somehow exonerating Beauchamp here is flat-out dishonest given that he’s ALREADY on record as saying that Beauchamp’s allegations were fabricated.
Steve
I’ll just wait patiently for someone to corroborate the Weekly Standard’s anonymously-sourced claim about the recantation.
It’s astounding how many people who refused to believe the anonymous sources cited in TNR’s fact-checking believed the Weekly Standard’s anonymous source from the very first moment. What do you suppose could account for this?
demimondian
Sorry, Jeff, but they are. Did you see the sentence about “not commenting on investigations”? Yeah, well, that’s legally mandated. So Major Lamb either lied to the WS (and, in the process, comitted a farily serious offense), told the truth to the WS (and, in the process, committed a fairly serious offense), or was misquoted by the WS.
Which do you think is most likely?
myiq2xu
Well I read in the National Enquirer that Beauchamp was seen partying with Paris Hilton.
And if it was in the Enquirer, it must be true.
capelza
Poor Maj. Lamb. he must be completely and utterly sick of the whole damn thing.
ConservativelyLiberal
Because the Weakly Stranded is right? Always right? 24/7/365 right? So right that they don’t ever make a left turn on a road? So right that they had their left arms replaced with right ones? So right that it curves to the right?
Why does the right love most of the troops?
Jim Treacher
They saw the Weekly Standard’s prior statement from the aforementioned Major Lamb? (Although that’s in doubt now… I think? It’s hard to keep track.) Oh, and also their intrinsic wingnuttifluffiness.
The Other Steve
I read in the Weekly World News that he is the son of Bat Boy.
demimondian
Yeah, somehow when he took his service oath, he probably didn’t anticipate getting caught in a corssfire between the leftie blogs and the keyboard commandos of the fighting 101st bedwetters, did he?
Formerly Wu
But they’re not saying it exonerates Beauchamp. They’re merely countering the WS’s anonymously-sourced claim of the confession.
Basically:
TNR: “We talked to a bunch of soldiers we can’t name, and they say it happened.”
Lamb: “We talked to a bunch of soldiers we can’t name, and they say it didn’t happen.”
WS: “Beauchamp confessed to lying!”
TNR and Lamb: “No he didn’t.”
RSA
How could anyone accuse a political magazine founded and edited by Bill Kristol of getting something wrong?
ConservativelyLiberal
Fixed.
Jim Treacher
Don’t forget that they’re prone to namecalling and painting with too broad a brush!
Steve
The Weekly Standard, in a not so devastating response to TNR, demands that it prove a negative:
Look, either the military can talk about its internal investigation or it can’t. If it can’t, then how can we explain the prior statement from the military spokesman claiming that the investigation had debunked the story? And if it can, how the heck can it be that the only way we know about Beauchamp’s signed confession is from an anonymous source cited in the Weekly Standard? It makes no sense.
Kevin Hayden
tBone: it means I know that spit is good for masticating or combat boot shining. Were fear a consideration, I suppose I’d have to lie awake nights trembling at the thought that my Army National Guard roommate might have it in for me.
I also checked my Funk & Wagnall’s and wish to inform you that no evidence has been presented that there has ever been a genus or species by the name of ‘moonbat’. So you, too, can rest your pretty head instead of quivering at the thought that one may be coming to steal your girlfriend and your favorite kitty.
Jeff B.
demimondian –
Read Lamb’s quotes more closely. There’s no internal inconsistency. He said, to the WS: we investigated, found allegations to be false and unsubstantiatable. Then he said to TNR: I know nothing about any signed recantation, and I won’t go into the DETAILS of how we conduct our investigations.
Again, people are struggling mightily to catch Lamb in some kind of screwup here, but it’s not supported by his words. Lamb merely said he won’t discuss the details of how they investigate stuff, but that obviously has nothing to do with the willingness to discuss the actual OUTCOME of the case.
Seriously, people here are getting a little too eager to find an error here. And maybe there is something we don’t know. All I’m saying is that nothing we have on the record from Lamb is contradictory. He hasn’t violated anything, made any mistakes, and isn’t discredited as a source no matter how hard some people are trying to read that onto him.
Steve
But in fact, Lamb says “His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.” Why he would be able to cite the interviews as proof of falsity, but not a signed recantation as proof of falsity, makes zero sense to me.
Jake
OK. What else?
OMG, MAJ. LAMB IS A LIAR!
Jeff B.
I was unclear in my last post:
A lot of people here are trying, as per their expected “team” alignment, to pounce on a supposed discrepancy between Lamb’s two statements to say “AHA! Either the Weekly Standard is a lying rag that misquoted Lamb, or Lamb’s committed a serious military violation! PWN3D!” But again, that’s just because people are being intellectually lazy and leaping to the conclusion that these two statements somehow contradict one another, which they clearly don’t.
Perhaps it will later come out that the WS misquoted the guy, I dunno. Lord knows I don’t have a high opinion of their journalistic integrity to begin with. All I’m saying is that you can’t even come close to inferring that outcome from the evidence currently on offer. And that it makes those of you who cite this new TNR statement as somehow demanding revision of the earlier WS one look, well…like you’re not seriously engaging your higher analytical functions.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go listen to some Scott Walker. “Big Louise,” mmm-hmm good.
demimondian
No, Jeff. No matter what Beauchamp wrote, Lamb had no business discussing the truth or falsehood of the claims unless ordered to do so. If the investigation is still on-going (which is the case), then he needs to release NO details. There’s this thing call the UCMJ, and one of the things it guarantees is something called “due process” — you might want to look that up sometime.
Either Major Lamb is looking for an early-out, or the WS wasn’t accurate. Again, which is more likely?
Jim Treacher
So Major Lamb went into detail about how the Army conducts investigations by revealing the results of the investigation. Okay, that makes sense.
brock o. baum
John Cole really wasted his opportunity when his previously obscure blog was exposed to a wider audience, didn’t he?
…silly…
Jim Treacher
And Maj. Lamb shouldn’t have said the investigation was concluded, because it’s still ongoing, which we know because… Ugh! I lost the thread again. We know it’s still ongoing how?
Formerly Wu
I don’t think it’s Lamb we’re trying to discredit here (what would be the point?), as much as the Weekly Standard.
Z
I totally agree he had no clue what he was in for when he started investigating this…
like a Lamb to the slaughter.
demimondian
Oh, sorry, Jim. I forgot that you were a first-rate concern troll. I’ll type really slowly for you.
Beauchamp has clearly committed an offense. He is subject to disciplinary proceedings as a result — remember the mention of the UCMJ? Until those are complete, the spokesman needs to keep his *own* trap shut.
I’m sorry that you confuse yourself so effectively, but that’s really your own problem, not anybody else’s. Why don’t you keep it to yourself now?
myiq2xu
Hey Brock, perhaps John isn’t seeking attention, unlike some others. Or perhaps he prefers quality over quantity.
So how is your blog doing?
Dave
No, for the thousandth time, the collective opinion around here is that it’s a non-story. It is however amusing as all hell to watch the wingers get worked up about said non-story, and twist themselves into knots trying to disprove it, down to (my favorite), some idiot breaking out scale models to some how prove to himself and the rest of wingnutia that apparently you can’t run over a dog with a Bradly.
It’s been even more amusing to watch John and the rest of the regular commenter her mock you guys relentlessly.
Z
And what kills me is how all these mutton-heads are so sure they KNOW (without actually talking to anyone involved) whether it was TNR or the WS trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. I tell you… partisans are just a bunch of sheep.
Jeff B.
demimondian –
I’m a law student at good school, so I know a little something about due process. And I suspect you know as little about the UCMJ as I do, only I’m willing to admit it. I do know this, however: Lamb was not discussing an investigation that was on-going, but rather one that had wrapped up. I have no idea where you get the idea that this is “on-going.” It’s on-going for the blogosphere, and The New Republic, perhaps, but everything I’ve read indicated that the Army wrapped up their inquiry already. Hence no due process violation.
Cain
The only use this thread has is that we’re fighting the righties here so they’ll be too busy to post their spew elsewhere. You know maybe Bush’s strategy has some merit after all. I say ‘Bring em on!’ The 101 Fighting Keyboardist are probably their final throes!
It’s tuesday, do you know where your right hand is?
cain
Jim Treacher
Better than second-rate! Well, sorry to annoy you with my dumb questions. You guys are way smarter than me, so it takes me a minute to catch up.
Okay. So how will we know when it’s complete? Since the guy who said it was complete shouldn’t have said it was complete, that is.
Just silly, I guess!
Jim Treacher
So it’s not that you don’t care about it; it’s just a non-story. Check, got it. My bad.
Where are they? Lemme at ’em!
tBone
Don’t even try to gay marry me, you Leftist kook.
Actually, Kevin, I was engaging in what we here on the ultra-liberal Intertubes refer to as “spoofing.” Granted, when the real thing constantly has their Crazy Dial set to 11, it’s sometimes difficult to tell.
Personally, when a slap fight breaks out between WS and TNR, I think we’re all winners. Root for injuries!
capelza
tBone says:
I was thinking that earlier. Bill Kristol and Marty Peretz.
Catfight!!!!
Justin Slotman
One funny thing about all this is that many of the 26%ers seem to have no idea that The Left pretty much hates TNR these days.
Jim Treacher
See, that’s what I thought too, but apparently not. Maybe it’s not really wrapped up until the Army puts out a press release about it? Or not even then, possibly.
demimondian
And *particularly* on Iraq.
However, I’m sorry, no, I won’t cheer for injuries in any battle involving the Weakly Spittoon. I’d ever cheer for _The National Review_ in a journalistic cat fight with the WS.
Steve
No, he went into detail by saying that the company had been interviewed and no one had confirmed the story. Explain to me, please, the logic that claims Lamb can say “We know the allegations are false, because we interviewed the company,” but can’t say “We know the allegations are false, because he signed a sworn recantation.”
The fact that the spokesman can disclose that the company was interviewed, but has no comment on whether a recantation was signed, makes the Weekly Standard’s anonymously-sourced claim dubious. If it was true, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the spokesman couldn’t confirm it, the same way he confirmed that the company had been interviewed.
John Cole
But not as much as “we” hate the troops!
At any rate, I am loving the new direction from the Weekly Standard:
That is so awesome even Ace couldn’t think that up. “Sure- Major Lamb, the guy who we used as sole proof that all of Beauchamp’s claims were false has no knowledge of him recanting, but that doesn’t prove that our anonymous source is wrong. Prove our anonymous source is wrong!”
Isn’t that what they got all pissy with the TNR about in the first place?
And please, God, let the anonymous source be Matt Sanchez, so this can get better.
capelza
Oh yes, please. This is a guy who uses the phrase “Gay jihadist” with a straight (yeah, yeah I know) face.
myiq2xu
I heard from my cousin that Beauchamp made it all up.
My cousin’s girlfriend’s sister’s hairdresser heard it from another girl who’s sister’s boyfriend knows somebody who’s brother was in high school with Scott Beauchamp so you know it’s got to be true.
Jim Treacher
Oh. Yeah, you’re right, he did go into that level of detail. Interviews! I would never have guessed.
Or maybe he signed the sworn recantation (allegedly) because they interviewed the company (also allegedly) and found that the allegations are false (also also allegedly)? Nah, that doesn’t work either. I don’t know, that’s a stumper.
Z
Baaahhh! John just enjoys Lambasting the wingnuts.
demimondian
Good, Jimmy! You’re so *smart*, figuring that our all by yourself, without any of us having to tell you. You’re right — it *doesn’t* work.
Now, can you tell the rest of the class why?
Jim Treacher
Becauuuuuse… the fluffernutters said it’s true?
Oh, besides that, you mean. No idea, go ahead.
brock o. baum
And please, God, let the anonymous source be Matt Sanchez, so this can get better
..and don’t go smearing him because *wink, wink* that just wouldn’t be right..
Tulkinghorn
The 26%s do not talk to anyone to the left of themselves, so they don’t know what ‘the Left’ thinks, reads, or says. ‘The Left’ is just a straw man they can define and bash at will.
Did you not hear The Left wants us to lose the war, because they hate America, because they want to take over America and make it UnAmerica, because even though we Bushies are always right, if they can make us be proven wrong THEY ARE GONNA WIN AN’ RUIN EVERYTHING!!!
Rilly, ‘strue!
demimondian
Ah. I wondered if you knew what a lie is. Obviously not — Jimmy, what you just did is called “lying” (or, more collquially, “telling a lie”). You said one thing, then said something else which is not consistent with it. In this case, you said “Nah, that doesn’t work either”, but didn’t really believe it.
Now, that has a lot to do with our lesson today. Why don’t you go back and reread this thread, Jimmy. Steve, up above, explained why your idea doesn’t work. Go back and really read what he wrote, and I think you’ll understand.
TR
Sincerely,
Red State
Jim Treacher
Well, you’d know. Once again, I stand corrected. I really don’t believe that doesn’t work either, because… just because.
It’s a deal! In the meantime, could you explain to me how we know the investigation is still ongoing, which is why Maj. Lamb shouldn’t have said it was completed? That seems to be the crux of the biscuit, as it were. And, assuming that the investigation is indeed still ongoing, how will we know when it’s been completed?
RSA
I can see Alberto Gonzales making this kind of distinction, but it seems kinda bogus to me. If this were the case, Lamb is thinking, “I’ve told WS that the allegations are false. Now TNR is asking me about a recantation. I’ll tell them I don’t know anything about that, but I won’t volunteer any information about the substance of the allegations. They should have asked a better question.” That’s assuming that WS and TNR are telling the whole story, which hasn’t been established either.
myiq2xu
We’ll know it’s completed just as soon as Beauchamp admits it was all a pack of lies.
Then Wingnuttia can get back to ignoring the missing WMD’s, the missing 190,000 weapons, the missing pallets full of $100 bills, and the missing National Guard records of GWB.
rawshark
Matt Sanchez, this centurys Deepthroat? It really is Nixon all over again.
Jim Treacher
And how will we know if he’s admitted that? Not just because the Weekly Standard says so, I get that. But what would be a suitable forum?
John S.
Jim Treacher-
I just have to tell you, I have thoroughly enjoyed your comments in both threads. I don’t really know what side of the ideological spectrum you stand on, nor do I care. Your humor and general good nature are most welcome, and I generally find your posts at the very least thought-provoking.
I hope you stick around some post-Beauchamp.
Oh, and in response to your comment in the other thread regarding my molehill quip, yes I believe anyone has a right to comment on whatever the hell they feel like. I merely reserve the right to laugh and point at those people when they whip themselves into a frenzy over something as trivial as this.
AkaDad
Who’s Scott Beauchamp? Is he like the Ward Churchill of the military?
Jim Treacher
Thanks, John S.! Just trying to understand what the deal is. Here’s hoping we can all put our heads together and figure this thing out.
I agree that some people have gone overboard on this, and that’s definitely worth discussing too.
demimondian
(By the way, welcome, Jim. You’ve taken a lot of abuse from me — and taken it well. You’re going to win the point about the status of the investigation, and that’s an unusual feat. Please, stick around.)
Now, then…RSA — no fair giving Jimmie hints. Even worse, no fair giving him deceptive hints. Let’s go back over what you said:
That doesn’t stand up; TNR asked a direct follow up question about the substance of the allegations. Lamb should have repeated what he said before, and he didn’t.
James F. Elliott
Hey John, Slate says you’re a liberal!
Jim Treacher
I’m not sure why it should be any sort of feat at all. Either the investigation has been completed or it hasn’t. If it has, then how can Lamb get in trouble for saying so?
Thanks, but I gotta get goin’.
tBone
The Hola Fruta is what gave it away. That, and all of the troop-hatin’.
RSA
Unintentional, of course. The subtleties of spokesmanship entirely escape me.
rawshark
No not just because the WS says so. But if they have a source, someone who is willing to go on record then fine. The problem is sides give credibility to unnamed sources if they are being used by a trusted source like WS by righties and whoever by lefties (I don’t consider myself a lefty so I don’t know much about the life). This is dangerous. Once you show that you believe without question they can say anything and accuse you of treason if you don’t believe it. Beautiful. If Orwell was alive he’s sue them all for plagiarism.
rawshark
They also quoted Army Lawyer so, as he himself would say, give that the weight it deserves.
Steve
Let’s assume that he has, in fact, signed a sworn recantation.
Given that assumption, what explanation could you offer for the fact that the military spokesman won’t confirm or deny that he signed a recantation?
I haven’t heard a single explanation yet of why he would be happy to say “we conducted some interviews which proved the allegations to be false” but would refuse to say “he signed a recantation which proved the allegations to be false.”
Assuming, of course, that the Weekly Standard’s anonymous source has his facts straight. Apparently no one in the righty blogosphere thinks it’s important to seek corroboration of THAT story.
capelza
So that’s what Major Lamb says, according to USA Today or someone, I have honestly lost track.
And our intrepid cub reporter Bob Owens a few days ago says:
So do those two statements sound nearly identical because that’s how the military does it? This has bugged me a bit, because it has confused me, I hear about Lamb saying it, yet it was Boyulan a couple of days ago. Confused.
Jim Treacher
Maybe he didn’t know about it yet? He’s a spokesman, not an investigator. The Army’s a big organization. Maybe that information hadn’t gotten to him yet?
Pretty unlikely, I realize. The Weekly Standard is probably making the whole thing up, as usual.
Wilfred
Me, too. Goodnight Scott, Matt and Major Lamb, wherever you are, I’m going to bed.
Steve
Glad you acknowledge that anonymous claims need to be corroborated. I wish some of the right-wing blogs could be as honest.
Jim Treacher
Yep, even if it’s by other anonymous claims!
liberal
Justin Slotman wrote,
What’s even funnier is that we’ve been hating it for about 3 decades, ever since Marty Peretz purchased it in the mid-1970s.
“Even the liberal New Republic…
babyinthecorner
On Capelza’s point: I too don’t remember ANY liberal bloggers mentioning Beauchamp’s story at all until the Rightbloggers decided to start screaming about it—although, admittedly, I also stay away from most of the screechier left-wing sites. I suppose it’s possible that a few of them mentioned it.
DailyKos and some of the other major liberal blogs have been feuding with TNR for well over a year now. TNR supports everything the leftwing netroots is against. (The DLC, Joe Lieberman, THE INVASION OF IRAQ) I think it’s funny that the righties think they’ve felled a great Liberal Giant when really they’ve just squashed that little green dude that used to tag along with Jolly Green. (Ho, ho, ho!)
Anyway, the Kos vs. TNR feud is well documented. Here’s one example that show how much TNR is hated. And here’s another.
babyinthecorner
Ach! I forgot to put blockquotes around the first paragraph up there.
Early
If you’re going to keep invoking Orwell, certainly this is on point…
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
~ George Orwell
Thomas
I wonder if some people in the Army have doubts about their own investigation. Their investigation seemed to be done before TNR published its defense. TNR isn’t known for being full of risk-takers–it’s really hard to believe they would publish a defense of a questionable article without making sure their asses were covered, and that means the soldiers who verified the incidents are going to be real and believable.
So it’s not hard to imagine an ‘oh shit’ reaction coming from some Army officer when he saw that TNR came to a different conclusion than they did. Because at this point, either the TNR editors are career-suicidal master bluffers or they have the back-up they say they do.
Jim Treacher
“Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper.”
–George Orwell
RSA
I started reading TNR in the ’80s and gave up on it in the ’90s. There are some writers that I still miss reading, especially on books, architecture, art, and so forth, but I started skipping over pieces by Sullivan, Easterbrook, Peretz, and a couple of others, and eventually I realized that in any given issue there was very little that was left. (Sorry for the inadvertent pun, but it’s not far from the truth.)
Perry Como
“Papa loves mambo
Mama loves mambo
Papa does great with it
Swings like a gate with it” — Me
Sirkowski
Why is Michelle Malkin writting for a White Supremacist website?
Jim Treacher
NYT
WP
John Cole
Saw those- nothing new as far as I can tell. Army says the investigation is over and they can not corroborate the events and thus they are false, TNR says they can and is standing by their sources, WS says that still have an anonymous source who claims he recanted under oath, Army source is denying any knowledge of that/will not or can not comment.
On the upside, now with mainstream media attention, more soldiers can be grievously offended!
And I am up way too damned late. No more caffeine after 5pm for me.
conumbdrum
Wellll… that would be because Michelle Malkin is a racist thug, albeit a thug who likes to occasionally don cheerleader drag.
Today she’s only taking a break from her favoritest pastime – beating up on brown people – to put the boot into Scott Beauchamp. She’ll be back to hurling figurative stones into the faces of Mexicans and Muslims soon enough.
She used to enrage me, but I’m grateful for the Malkins of the right these days. The GOP can’t win the elections of tomorrow without the Latino vote, and the spittle-flecked Mexican bashing of Malkin, Tancredo, O’Reilly and their shitbird compatriots are rendering the Repubs downright toxic to our Hispanic brethren.
Every column Michelle writes bitching about “shamnesty,” is like a $10,000 donation to the Dems.
mike montague
Cheer up, guys. Maybe the surge will fail.
demimondian
Or, alternatively, it might succeed.
You’ll just have to wish *real* hard. And, failing that, you might try holding your breath until your face turns blue.
John S.
It’s just too soon to tell. But we’ll know for sure (this time) in another six months…
Andrew
Anchor baby guilt?
The Other Steve
Well you really can’t start counting the six months until September, because only then are all the troops in place.
Jones
weak and lame, Cole
You, like any other ‘journalist’ even a webblogger, should applaud a quest for truth.
These stories were lies. Exposing them is an absolute good. And the point you find so risible is a valid one, despite your continued snark (which proves you an unserious writer)- that the left continually tries to propagandize “moral equivalence” , we’re just as bad as they are, Boosh had killed more Iraqis than Saddam, etc.
Its not true, and good people will continue to fight the good fight publicizing that. Really, where do you get off on defending a scumbag like Beauchamp while smearing honorable and fair-minded bloggers who were looking for, and ultimately prevailed, in finding the truth.
Reality based community, indeed.
John Cole
I am nowhere near convinced as you seem to be that they were lies, damned lies, and more lies. The only thing I see so far is the military stating they are false because they can not corroborate them (lack of military corroboration does not make them false), and the Weekly Standard claiming Beauchamp has recanted (and there is no proof that even if he did recant under oath, it was not for reasons other than the fact that the stories were not true, although for me, the matter would be settled). The military refuses to comment (other than through leaks to the Weekly Standard), so at best we have a scenario in which both sides can believe what they want to be.
And, as I have stated repeatedly, I am grossly indifferent whether or not they are true, false, or mostly true. If it is indeed false, bad on Beauchamp, and bad on his buddies that corroborated the story to the TNR. It makes them a bunch of jackasses, and I really do not think the TNR is some liberal media outfit trying to lose the war- I think they made a good faith effort to make sure they were not publishing bullshit, and given that they are still standing by their source, I think they have done right by him, even though he may very well have sold them down the river by first deceiving them and then recanting under oath.
If they are true- who cares. The allegations are so minor I really won’t raise an eyebrow over the matter. Someone ran over some dogs. Someone insulted someone. Someone played with some bones. BFD. If everything alleged in these articles are true, it will nto change my opinion about the good men and women in the military one bit. You have heard of Pfc. Spielman, haven’t you? I don’t think his behavior reflects on all servicemen, either.
Any way you slice or dice this whole affair, the one thing that stands out is the hysterical over-reaction by Greater Wingnuttia.
rawshark
typical drive-by wingnuttery.
Scape-Goat Trainee
“Tulkinghorn Says:
One funny thing about all this is that many of the 26%ers seem to have no idea that The Left pretty much hates TNR these days.
The 26%s do not talk to anyone to the left of themselves, so they don’t know what ‘the Left’ thinks, reads, or says. ‘The Left’ is just a straw man they can define and bash at will.
Did you not hear The Left wants us to lose the war, because they hate America, because they want to take over America and make it UnAmerica, because even though we Bushies are always right, if they can make us be proven wrong THEY ARE GONNA WIN AN’ RUIN EVERYTHING
Rilly, ‘strue!”
Gosh!
Do alot of Lefties actually hope we win in Iraq?
Let’s find out:
“Gilmore Says:
“I must be out of touch. Why am I supposed to hope this? I don’t want the surge to work. I don’t want us to “win” in Iraq. I’m supposed to hope we manage to prop up our puppet government which will cooperate in robbing Iraq of all its oil revenues and set up a Shiite theocracy? I’m supposed to hope the “surge” gives us the excuse to stay in Iraq even longer and kill more Iraqis as well as our own troops? No, I don’t really hope for that at all, sorry.”
Didn’t have to go far to find that little nugget….
You guys make this FAR too easy.
grandpa john
Hmmm , more typical wingnuttery, one post represents an entire political party. does that also apply to Coulter and the republican party?????