You know, going back to the Beauchamp story, you have to remember just how crazy this time period was for everyone. The wingnut narrative was in danger, and they just had to destroy Beauchamp for basically telling what everyone who has ever spent a day in uniform knows- all our troops are not angels, and some bad shit sometimes goes down. We had folks screaming for his own troops to “take care of him,” people wanting him court-martialed, and so on, and they went to extreme lengths to have the young man destroyed- while he was in theatre avoiding bullets and serving his country.

Just to remember how crazy the wingnut reaction was to the possibility that not all our troops are angels (and thereby threatening the war narrative and taking away the media as an excuse for everything going wrong in the war), you have appreciate this classic post at the Power Line, where reader Stuart Koehl “proved” that a track vehicle could not run over a dog by eyeballing a 1/32 scale model of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. As Tbogg noted in one of the all time classic blog posts, “The role of the dog was played by a 3-inch My Little Pony named Princess Sparkle Snowflake Rainbow. Next up: Warren Commission report disproved using a Hot Wheels Terrordactyl Track.”

As to Stuart Koehl, what happened to him? Well rest assured, “expertise” like that is highly valued in wingnut circles, and he was rewarded with a guest appearance at none other than the Weekly Standard just a few months later:

There is a lot about Obama’s story that makes no sense. Let us start with the opening line:

“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon—supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.”

Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been “sent to Iraq.” Sorry, the Army doesn’t work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can’t break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics.

You remember how this worked out, don’t you? Jake Tapper, in one of his best moments from last year, ended the wingnut screeches once and for all:

I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information.

Short answer: He backs up Obama’s story.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain—then a Lieutenant—took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but—in ones and twos—15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

Jake then goes on to verify every claim Obama made.

So when you think back to this time period, remember what we were dealing with and the quality of “evidence” that the usual suspects on the right latched on to to defend their own personal fantasies. The second anecdote in this post is extremely relevant, as these jackasses have now spent the last few months accusing Obama of “dithering” in regards to Afghanistan.

Just wrong about everything, which is, of course, why David Gregory will have McCain on again soon.

I’m going to keep repeating it until someone notices. CNN’s current series Killing at the Canals, which focuses on the investigation and conviction of the Army NCOs who murdered detainees execution style and dumped their bodies into canals, is about the First Sergeant who commanded Scott Beauchamp. His name is First Sergeant John Hatley, and he wrote the following letter to outside sources trashing Beauchamp, a soldier in his command:

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

1SG Hatley and the other NCOs executed these men in March of 2007. Scott Beauchamp wrote Shock Troops in July 2007. Hatley wrote this letter after July of 2007, insisting that Beauchamp was disturbed because he wrote about making fun of someone in a cafeteria or running over a dog. He wrote that letter attacking Beauchamp, knowing that just a few weeks earlier, he and others had taken it upon themselves to put a gun to the back of several detainee’s heads, pull the trigger, and dump their bodies into a canal.

But they would have you believe that no one in their unit would run over a dog.

Or play with bones.

By the way, Scott Beauchamp is still in uniform serving his country honorably. None of the wingnuts who freaked out about him at the Weekly Standard or elsewhere have gotten around to enlisting.

Using my amazing powers of predicting things that a particle board desk could see coming, I expect Sarah Palin to blame the lies in her book on her ghostwriter. Points will also be awarded for the book editor, fact-checking team (I honestly want to know who served on that chain gang) and her moron-to-English translator.

Bart Stupak is either lying or stupid (or both) when he said this:

Whether public funds should be used for abortion services is exactly the sort of issue we should be debating openly on the floor of the House of Representatives. My amendment to include Hyde language in H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is not new or out of line with the current policies regarding federal funding for abortions. There is a strong precedent going back more than 30 years for adding Hyde language. The ban on federal funding for abortions is a long-standing American policy that has been in place since the 1970s and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This amendment is not about limiting choice when it comes to abortion services. There is nothing in the amendment that prevents those who choose to obtain abortion services from doing so. The Hyde language simply says taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for those services. Just as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) does not provide plans that cover abortion services, nor should the plans for individuals who enter into the public option or receive federal subsidies for healthcare cover abortions. They are free to purchase a supplemental plan or pay for these services with their own money should they so choose.

And this:

No. They’ve been fighting me since July on this. My reaction is that they are saying that no insurance policies will be able to sell abortion coverage, and that is not true. All the members have to do is look at their update that they got from the majority leader, Steny Hoyer [D-MD], that he sent to us about three minutes before 10 [o’clock Saturday night], before we voted on the amendments. Basically, he said, ‘Look, the Stupak amendment is the Hyde amendment. You can’t use federal funds to pay for abortions. However, you can get supplemental coverage, and it does not prevent private insurance companies from selling elective abortion coverage.’ I think the only surprise I have is how much they’ve mischaracterized the amendment, even after their own majority leader report that we all get before we vote clearly states the purpose of the amendment and shows it’s not greater than current law, so all this about taking away women’s rights, restricting it—it’s no different from the restrictions right now.

Because the facts in this case pretty clearly demonstrate that the Stupak amendment goes well beyond Hyde and is a radical piece of legislation:

The George Washington School of Public Health and Health Services has analyzed Stupak-Pitts, and concludes that “the Amendment would produce industry-wide effects, leading to the elimination of health plan coverage for nearly all medically indicated abortions.”

Additionally, “based on past experiences with claim administration decisions involving treatment exclusions,” the analysts conclude that insurers are likely to interpret the exclusion broadly, and exclude not just elective abortions, but also medically indicated abortion and “treatments for serious illnesses, injuries, and medical conditions that include an abortion undertaken for health reasons.” Insurance administrators, they find, are likely to err on the side of coverage denail in order to avoid sanctions.

So not only does Bart Stupak either not know what his amendment does, or he is lying about it, but he wants to blow up the entire health care bill if he doesn’t get his way in the Senate, a legislative body of which he is not even a member.

Who do we send money to to primary this guy? I left the GOP in large part because of the godbotherers.

Jack, Place Grenette Fountain.

Jabman, Please Lock.

Email me a link to your one or two favorite pics on a photo site like Flickr (do not send the image itself please) and I will put up favorites in open threads. Send a short caption if you want one.

Click on the photos for a link to the photographer’s website. To see all photo threads, click on ‘photo blogging’ at the bottom of the post.

If your computer cannot read our email links at top right, my email is (remove the zeroes): portus0jackson0ii at yahoo dot com.

It’s that time of year again, everyone. When everyone gathers together at their family homes to commence the War on Christmas. Via memeorandum, here is the opening salvo in this year’s battle, which I will call the “War on Christmas, Godwin Edition”:

Nazi Germany celebrated Christmas without Christ with the help of swastika tree baubles, ‘Germanic’ cookies and a host of manufactured traditions, a new exhibition has shown.

The way the celebration was gradually taken over and exploited for propaganda purposes by Hitler’s Nazis is detailed in a new exhibition.

Rita Breuer has spent years scouring flea markets for old German Christmas ornaments.

She and her daughter Judith developed a fascination with the way Christmas was used by the atheist Nazis, who tried to turn it into a pagan winter solstice celebration.

Umm, it kind of used to be a pagan celebration. It wasn’t too long ago that Christian ministers were fighting the concept of the Christmas tree, it was so clearly a Pagan leftover.

I fully expect this news story to make Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly cry tonight. I’m not sure how they will tie it to ACORN and the Obama administration, but you know they will.

I’m sure there will be lots of wailing and beating of the breasts about the National Debt, which just topped 12 trillion (and make no mistake, that is a disaster), from the usual suspects on the right. Since the last eight years didn’t happen, and they are free to pretend that Obama spent all 12 trillion in the last nine months propping up ACORN and SEIU “union thugs” (have you noticed right-wingers can’t use the word union without adding “thug?” Unless of course, they are talking about civil unions, and then they always have to tack on “oh, hell no.”), I’m sure the commentary will be quite interesting at the Corner and elsewhere in wingnuttia.

I would love to hear how the Republican plan for slashing the deficit and tackling the debt will work. I’m interested in how capital gains tax cuts, making the Bush cuts permanent, ending the “death tax,” continuing the prescription drug plan while ignoring the rising costs of health care, permanent war in the middle east and privatizing social security are going to bring our books back into the black.

I’m all ears, guys.

Not sure if you all caught it last night or not, but AC360 is running a series on the murder of detainees by several NCO’s that resulted in long convictions for the men (as it should). Unmentioned is that the First Sergeant who was convicted, John Hatley, was Scott Beauchamp’s NCO. CNN has never made the connection, apparently.

Those are the men who would never run over a dog.

It’s an axiom of American politics that everything that happens is good news for conservatives. Therefore, since the Palin book tour is happening, the Palin book tour is good news for conservatives.

And yet, aside from the Weekly Standard whackjobs, I haven’t hear anyone say that Palinpalooza is good news for conservatives. Not Halperin. Not Ambinder. Not the Politico. And the Weekly Standard’s line is more just “she pisses liberals off, and that is good” than any kind of argument that she represents good news for conservatives.

Can anyone think of any argument that prolonged exposure to Sarah Palin is good for conservativism? I can’t think of any. There’s got to be some, given that, it is in fact good news for conservatives since it is happening.

Update. I have to admit, Rich Lowry has come up with the most convincing argument I’ve heard yet that Republicans can use her to keep the teabaggers from forming a third party. It’s still not that convincing because I don’t believe the teabaggers will from a real third party (though they may run challenges in states with third-party infrastructure).

Her supporters identify with her populist, unaffected vibe and tend to be disaffected with politics as usual — they’re Palin Perotistas. A drastic image makeover would only drive them away.

Republicans need these voters more than ever given the roiling grassroots revolt against Obama’s governance. Without them, they can’t get a majority; they’d be doomed if they were ever to slide into a splinter party. If Palin is their voice and channels their energy productively, she’s part of the Republican answer to Obama, no matter what presidential politics ultimately holds for her. There’s an upside to rogue.

Here is another great story:

This is how I found Murphy, the Best Dog in the World. My kids and husband were ready for a dog long before I was. We already have two young cats, and my last dog was difficult to say the least. He was a shelter pup who turned out to have really dominant aggression issues—bit multiple people (including me) before we finally found the right training and routine for him. He never did become a lovey dog, and he was completely untrustworthy around kids, but we worked it out. However, that experience left me somewhat anxious about dogs—especially after we had kids.

This summer, I read all the details of the saga of JC looking for a dog, finding Missy/Lily, preparing for her to come home, helping her adapt, etc. I thought about how happy he seemed, and listened to all you snarky folks testify on the happiness your dogs bring…so I did some research, and found the local breed rescue for golden retrievers. It took me quite some time to make the move, do the paperwork and be evaluated…etc. When they called in mid-July and said they had a young male dog named Buddy (all homeless goldens are named Buddy, it seems), I was overwhelmed with worry. I thought, I don’t know his past. What if he bites one of the kids? What if the fact that he’s not neutered yet means he’ll be aggressive, even after neutering? Etc. My husband and I went to meet him, and though he was very friendly and nice, I still wasn’t sure. DH was ready to bring him home that day, but all my anxieties were making me fear dog ownership. Then we thought, OK, let’s take the kids and see what he thinks of them. We told the children: don’t run up to him. Let him approach. Don’t grab, extend your hand fist down. Blah blah safetycakes. Of course, we got there, they ran flying up to this dog, grabbed him to pet him, and fell to the ground with him, where he flopped over and put his head in my 5-year-old’s lap and started getting belly rubs. So much for caution.

We named him Murphy, and he is the sweetest, most easygoing creature on the planet. He came home to us skinny, with mats all over, three kinds of parasites, and his ears full of gunk. Despite the fact that he spent most of his early life tied to a tree in someone’s yard, he loves everyone, including the cats (who only sort of love him back). He lets all the neighbor children pile on him, he loves to go places and see new people, he lets us do all grooming and stuff, and all he asks is cuddles and food. I feel like John said about Lily—this is one of the best decisions I ever made as an adult. Goldens are sort of the happy stoners of the dog world, and Murphy is even happier and more lovey than most.

Middle TN Golden Retriever Rescue, http://www.rescueagolden.org. I started volunteering with them right after we got Murph, and it’s amazing to contribute to these wonderful rescue stories.

So none of you knew that your dog testimonials were helping this lurker along the road to dog life…but never fear, even when he ate my favorite red shoes, I didn’t say “FY John Cole and Balloon Juice!” I just told Murphy, “who’s a bad dog? You are! Yes, you are, you sweet thing!” Thanks, JC and BJ.

Going to be a fun few weeks, because we have a lot of these stories.

Ambinder has some campaign emails that make it pretty clear that Palin was a complete and total PITA the entire campaign. Anything the woman is involved in leads to pure chaos.

And about her assertion in the book that she wanted to do more interviews but the McCain team wouldn’t let her, well, there is this email:

Nothing a little shopping at Saks couldn’t overcome, I’m sure.

Heckuva job, John McCain.

This is great. Red State “interviews” Sarah Palin, although I’m not really sure you could call this an interview, because there are no real quotes, and it turns out she has been doing some book learning:

One of the criticisms leveled by the right when Palin was chosen as McCain’s nominee is that she had not shown she’d done the reading to lead, i.e. read the Hayek, Friedman, Goldwater, Bastiat, to form her thoughts. She admitted she is a gut level conservative, but also said that criticism comes mostly from “shallow people who have not delved into [her] record.”

I did not want to sound like Katie Couric and ask what she’s read, but I broached the subject and she went right into mentioning Thomas Sowell and Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. She said she has read some of the foundational stuff, but she sees no need to focus on the old writings. She likes “the modern stuff too.” Her preference is policy and application, focusing on writers who are not just following up on foundational conservative ideas, but applying those ideas too.

I can’t believe 25% of the country thinks this woman could be President.

BTW- does the Bible count as an “old writing?”

Remember that mantra from the past eight years? At any rate, the Democrats finally broke the filibuster on one judicial nominee:

Senate Democrats broke a GOP filibuster Tuesday against a district judge first nominated eight months ago by President Barack Obama for a seat on the federal appeals court.

The Senate voted 70-29 to end debate over the nomination of Indiana Judge David Hamilton, who was tapped by Obama in March to fill a vacancy on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton was Obama’s first judicial nominee.

The full Senate is now expected to move forward quickly on a final vote on the nomination.

I’m as shocked as you are that the Democrats fought this. In other news, even the media is starting to notice the hypocrisy:

In 2005, Republicans spoke for days about the insult of the judicial filibuster, calling it unconstitutional. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now the Senate Republican leader, said in 2005 of the Democrats: “For the first time in 214 years they’ve changed the advise and consent responsibilities to advise and obstruct.”

North Carolina’s Richard Burr, like many other Republicans, said the debate was about “fairness” and “about principle and …. allowing judicial nominees an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.”

And the man who is now the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, contended that “the Republican leadership have been consistent on this issue even when it was not to their political benefit to do so. We have opposed judicial filibusters and have not supported them.”

Imagine that- taking what the Republicans have said in the past, show that what they are doing today is completely at odds with their past statements, and point out they are hypocrites. Have these guys been watching the Daily Show to figure out how this reporting thing is done?

Bart is at it again:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) pledged on Tuesday morning to defeat healthcare reform legislation if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to 20 anti-abortion-rights Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.

“They’re not going to take it out,” Stupak said on “Fox and Friends,” referring to Senate Democrats. “If they do, healthcare will not move forward.”

He’s basically a political terrorist a kidnapper. He doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to get what he wants, so he’s threatening them- take this amendment out, and we kill your loved one. Steve Benen points out that it is all sound and fury, but should Stupak actually attempt to blow up health care reform because not everyone in the House and Senate is a pro-life extremist, the Democrats should kick him out of their caucus. That might seem harsh, but this is the most important (or so they say) piece of legislation the Democrats have pursued for decades, and anyone who intentionally sabotages it for his own little culture war BS should be forced to pay a price.

*** Update ***

Some of you hate the terrorist bit. Probably right and it is over the top. I apologize. But what really irritates me about this is that Stupak isn’t concerned about the actual health care bill- he’s concerned with advancing his religious agenda through a health care bill, and if he doesn’t get what he wants in the OTHER branch of Congress, he will work to blow up the whole bill. That is infuriating and wrong.

Hell, I’d even understand it if pro-choice advocates had tried to advance the ball in the pro-choice direction, and Stupak said “If they do that, I am voting against it.” But he isn’t doing that, and what he is doing is much more extreme. He is going well beyond the Hyde amendment, and then threatening to blow up the bill if people don’t follow through with his religious beliefs. He’d let tens of millions of people go without health insurance just because he couldn’t for private insurance companies to no longer cover abortion. That makes him pretty despicable in my book. And the fact that the more conservative Senate Democrats aren’t even going to give him the time of day tells you everything you need to know, if the Fox news appearances didn’t already.

I realize that full-throttle wankery is not to everyone’s tastes. But if you like the stuff, do yourself a favor and read Lee Siegel’s “Obama’s Dangerous Obsession” piece. The idea is that Obama’s remarks at Fort Hood betray a dangerous infatuation with Lincoln and that, although everyone loves Lincoln, the guy presided over a bloody civil war, so we might also expect presidents who like Lincoln to want to preside over bloody wars. It’s more complicated than that and, honestly, I’m not sure that it makes any kind of logical sense. But he really explores the studio space. It’s a little hard to believe that it’s not parody.