Danger- Cognitive Dissonance

I am very concerned about the mental well-being of Dean Barnett and Michelle Malkin. Sooner or later it is going to occur to them that commie traitor vichy French AMERIKKA hating liar Scott Beauchamp is also a member of the 9/11 generation.

That is gonna suck when that sinks in.






25 replies
  1. 1
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    That is gonna suck when that sinks in.

    Yes, but bear in mind that you’re talking about a woman who stood in front of a bombed-out mosque, proclaimed the mosque not destroyed, and considered it a fantastic victory for her over the America-hating media. She’s like a boxer lying on the canvas after a 10 count telling her opponent, “Boy, I really kicked your ass!”

  2. 2
    baldilocks says:

    Regarding service members who joined after 9/11, Beauchamp is the exception that proves the rule. Certainly there are others.

  3. 3
  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    Yar- pretty clearly I am snarking.

    Although I am not sure why Beauchamp is being lumped in with Macbeth. Other than in the mind of John Hinderaker, has anything been proven false about Beauchamp’s piece?

  5. 5
    Jake says:

    Sinks in? Sinks in how? The only way to get a fact into their thick skulls is with a diamond tipped drill.

    And that’s assuming their entire tedious schtick isn’t an epic display of attention whoring.

  6. 6
    baldilocks says:

    Of “The 9/11 Generation,” Malkin says they are (generally) “brave, smart, dedicated, faithful, and committed to protecting our country’s best interests.” This description is the antithesis of Beauchamp and Macbeth (both of whom joined up after 9/11) and their service, though their actions are dissimilar.

  7. 7
    baldilocks says:

    Have you read that guy’s blog?

    The problem, John, is twofold: if the accounts are true, he did nothing to stop them (such as go to a superior); or at least he says nothing about doing so. (Why would he? Finding out that an officer or an NCO put such cretins in check would ruin the out-of-control military theme.)

    If the accounts are not true, then he’s sullied the character (not to mention damaged the morale) of his fellows. Lose-lose.

  8. 8
    John S. says:

    Remember John, the right-wing blogosphere is never wrong, never aplogizes and never issues a retraction.

  9. 9
    Zifnab says:

    Malkin’s site likes the word “Unhinged” doesn’t it? I think there’s at least three different titles in the right-hand bar containing the word.

    Just out of curiosity, are there any “hinged” liberals she cares to make comments on?

  10. 10
    capelza says:

    Why are not these same people “kerning”and “cow having” this guy doing the same to one, just one even, Bush admin offical?

  11. 11
    Dreggas says:

    You forget these people are cheerleading for an administration who had people going out and telling everyone that they “make their own reality” and we just get to sit back and watch.

  12. 12
    dan says:

    its sad when you are done in by your own straw man.

  13. 13
    HunterBlackLuna says:

    ‘Sinks in’? That would imply the framework for intelligence, pattern-recognition, and any ability to think with their head at all. I have my doubts weither Malkin has any of those traits.

  14. 14
    Ryan S. says:

    My God this subject is boring me to tears… Who CARES!
    As country folk, I have seen countless guys in trucks purposely swerve to try and hit dogs/cats/other animals running along the side of the road. Most missed, a couple didn’t, one in particular bothered me a shiny black truck I was following all of a sudden went to the shoulder and ran over a kitten.
    So now what I need to have two eyewitnesses to verify my experience. Lunatics

  15. 15
    Jake says:

    So now what I need to have two eyewitnesses ^who are registered Republican voters to verify my experience.

    Fixed.

  16. 16
    Jason Eckelman says:

    WOW. Just, wow. I just went to Malkin’s god-awful site to see for myself if her and her loathsome commenters were indeed talking shit about a member of the military currentrly serving in Iraq, and low and behold, they really were. What the f*** is it with these people? I guess it’s really just a cult of personality with them. Any criticism of Bush or his policies just flat out will not be tolerated.

    I wonder if the military ever gets sick of being used as props by stateside nut-jobs who want them to be stationed in a hostile war zone for the rest of eternity…

  17. 17
    Krista says:

    As country folk, I have seen countless guys in trucks purposely swerve to try and hit dogs/cats/other animals running along the side of the road.

    I live in the sticks too, and fortunately, have never seen that happen. If I ever saw anybody I know doing that, my rage would know no bounds.

  18. 18
    Zifnab says:

    WOW. Just, wow. I just went to Malkin’s god-awful site to see for myself if her and her loathsome commenters were indeed talking shit about a member of the military currentrly serving in Iraq, and low and behold, they really were.

    But… but… but… we don’t know if he’s in Iraq. He could be writing this whole story from Amsterdam over weed and hookers. We know he was making it all up because Bradley vehicles are physically incapable of running down anything smaller than a moose and there are no graveyards with dead children in Iraq that haven’t been already fully documented.

    Also, army regulations clearly forbid wearing a child’s scalp below one’s helmet, so he must have been making that up too. And he got busted down to PV2 from Private First Class, from what we extrapolated off his MySpace page. The only reason he even wrote those stories was because the New Republic whored off one of their editors on him as his fiance. So, when you think about it, this is all one big sex scandal.

  19. 19
    Fledermaus says:

    I wouldn’t hold your breath John. Consider this

    It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

    — Powerline, July 2005

  20. 20
    jg says:

    baldilocks Says:

    Have you read that guy’s blog?

    The problem, John, is twofold: if the accounts are true, he did nothing to stop them (such as go to a superior); or at least he says nothing about doing so. (Why would he? Finding out that an officer or an NCO put such cretins in check would ruin the out-of-control military theme.)

    If the accounts are not true, then he’s sullied the character (not to mention damaged the morale) of his fellows. Lose-lose.

    He’s dismissed if he’s right and he’s dismissed if he’s wrong. What an easy game to play.
    Why would anyone bother to talk about what’s really happening over there? There’s is a built in mechanism for right wingers to use whenever uncomfortable information begins to come near their area of consciousness. If you are face to face with a winger when info starts to circle the danger area (anywhere with earshot) you can see the mechanism work. You can actually see them searching for the correct means of dismissal for this particular piece of info floating in the room. If nothing returns in a short time the mechanism throws a default value, Clinton did it too.

  21. 21
    RSA says:

    French AMERIKKA hating liar Scott Beauchamp is also a member of the 9/11 generation.

    Scott Beauchamp is no true Scotsman seems to be the conservative mantra, ironically enough.

  22. 22
    baldilocks says:

    He’s dismissed if he’s right and he’s dismissed if he’s wrong. What an easy game to play.
    There’s is a built in mechanism for right wingers to use whenever uncomfortable information begins to come near their area of consciousness.

    Jg, the way I suspect that the Army will respond to the situation in question isn’t a “right-winger” response (regardless of your idea of how *all* right-wingers think is correct or not), but a response that stems from what I know about the *objective* laws and regulations to which all members of the US Armed Forces are subject.

    If Beauchamp didn’t do what he was supposed to do–according to the oath he took when he enlisted–he’s screwed. It’s not my rule nor the right-wing’s rule, but the US Armed Forces’ rule, i.e. the UCMJ.

  23. 23
    baldilocks says:

    Scott Beauchamp is no true Scotsman seems to be the conservative mantra, ironically enough.

    Neither am I. :-)

  24. 24
    John S. says:

    Scott Beauchamp is no true Scotsman

    I beleive this refers to a logical fallacy. Something the blahgosphere knows all about.

  25. 25
    ERF says:

    John Cole asked: “Other than in the mind of John Hinderaker, has anything been proven false about Beauchamp’s piece?”

    Private Beauchamp was just uncovered yesterday. If he is telling the truth in his writings, many other soldiers, when they have a moment, will corroborate him. And if he is not, those soldiers will expose him. The veracity of “Scott Thomas” will soon be evident to the fair-minded.

    Will John Cole and his readers be able to look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp honestly?

    Does it depend on which way the veracity issue is settled?

Comments are closed.