Open Thread

Let’s discuss Scott Beauchamp, who was widely regarded as not existing, but who now exists- much to the chagrin of the lunatic fringe of the right wing blogosphere.

I guess we know why he didn’t put his real name on it- it is FRENCH sounding! Of course he wants us to lose! The VICHY have infilitrated the ARMY!

The real question- is Scott Beauchamp actually Jamil Hussein?

*** Update ***

The twin assholes chime in:

Once again, as I’ve said all along, you can’t “support the troops” while publishing agitprop that suggests the troops are a bunch of sociopaths. The Nation went after the troops a couple of weeks ago; the “Thomas Diarists” were The New Republic’s tepid entry into the field. As regards the accuracy of Beauchamp’s charges, I’m sure we’ll be hearing from his superiors before the sun sets in Iraq. Not everyone runs an investigation at the same leisurely pace as Franklin Foer.

TNR has found this war’s John Kerry wannabe. Time will tell whether his motives are as pure and his accuracy as reliable as his illustrious predecessor.

Dean Barnett, supporting the troops. Still no word (that I am aware of- I can’t read them ALL the time- no one should be forced to) from Dean and Hugh why a 3.5% increase in salary for the troops is outrageous.

*** Update #2 ***

First they claimed Beauchamp’s unit never discovered a mass grave. They were wrong.

Then they claimed he was not really soldier. They were wrong.

Now we are arguing whether or not a Bradley can run over a dog. Any guesses as to how this is going to turn out?

They really should listen to Yglesias’s advice:

That’s just crazy. All these people need to stop. They need to take a deep breath. They need to apologize to the people at TNR who’ve wasted huge amounts of time dealing with their nonsense. And they need to think a bit about the epistemic situation they’re creating where information about Iraq that they don’t want to hear — even when published in a pro-war publication — can just be immediately dismissed as fraudulent even though the misconduct it described was far, far less severe than all sorts of other well-document misconduct in Iraq.

What is great is that we both know they won’t- instead, they will attempt to ruin this soldier’s life. Hell, I expect the calls for a court martial to begin soon.

*** Update #3***

From the comments, proof you can not run over a dog with a Bradley:

Case closed. Beauchamp is a liar.

*** Update #4 ***

Scale models used to disprove Beauchamp. Hilarity ensues.

158 replies
  1. 1
    Ugh says:

    Let the games begin at your old digs.

  2. 2
    Redleg says:

    Let the slandering begin! I see that Powerline and Malkin have already started the assault on this soldier. Support the troops indeed.

  3. 3
    dslak says:

    Isn’t the next step to try to get him dishonorably discharged?

  4. 4
    Redleg says:

    I particularly like how the neocon nuts at Redstate are calling Beauchamp a liar, crazy, etc. while just a few weeks ago they were defending the honor of all the GIs convicted of illegal killings in Iraq. Sheesh.

  5. 5
    The Pirate says:

    It’s really delicious irony, isn’t it? They don’t give a fuck about the troops at all, all they care about supporting is the fantasyland that lives in their head.

  6. 6
    The Pirate says:

    Seriously, what a bunch of scumbags.

  7. 7

    I am going to say a prayer for Pvt. Beauchamp. The winguts are going to try and ruin his life. It really sickens me how easy it is for them to dehumanize a 24 year old who is fighting for us in Iraq simply because it suits them.

  8. 8
    Jake says:

    It makes me think of a complaint expressed by “thoughtful” bigots during the civil rights movement. They had no problem with “the coloreds,” provided they “knew their place,” and didn’t “cause any trouble.”

    To paraphrase the Plastic Ono Band: The Soldier is the N[]gger of the World. Or in more modern parlance, the neo-cons what every soldier to be their little beyotch.

  9. 9
    Wilfred says:

    First they said he didn’t exist, now they say he’s a liar: How come it’s so difficult to imagine some soldiers making fun of s disfigured girl when it was possible for some others to rape and murder another?

    Where’s Hopalong Cassidy? Maybe he can give us some insights.

  10. 10
    cleek says:

    i do love the whole idea that there’s no way a Bradley driver could’ve hit a dog because he can’t see the right side of the vehicle.

    anyone here find it impossible to tell where your right wheels are, when you’re driving, even though you can’t see them out your window ? do you constantly hit potholes and squirrels with your right tires because you just can’t see where they are ? or do you somehow (magically?) avoid them because you have a pretty good mental model of where they are ?

  11. 11
    Paul L. says:

    Redleg Says:
    Let the slandering begin! I see that Powerline and Malkin have already started the assault on this soldier. Support the troops indeed.

    Scott Thomas Speaks

    It’s really sad to see someone claim they have ultimate moral authority to insult women and kill dogs without anyone questioning their character just because they’ve been to Iraq.

    The real question- is Scott Beauchamp actually Jamil Hussein?

    Yes, Whether what he wrote/reported is true, made up or embellished is not important.
    Re: Jamil

    Let me also assure you all the AP welcomed the Jamil Hussein focus – encouraged it, even. It masked the issue of false reports from Iraq. Were six people burned? Probably not. Were four Mosques burned? Demonstrably not. Did one of those Mosques contain 18 people who were killed in the fire (as the NY Times claimed)? No. Were 184 Mosques attacked last February? No again. Does any of this matter now? Nope. This huge victory (in a battle that shouldn’t have been fought) in the information war has essentially given the AP a free pass to report anything without fear of question for months to come.

  12. 12
    Halffasthero says:

    I do not know exactly what he wrote since I was not following this. KJudging from some of the posts I read, I do foresee that he will be subjected to a lot of character assasination. He is going to learn an important life experience I suspect. That it is easier to be popular than right.

  13. 13
    Redleg says:

    PaulL,
    Show me where I said the truth wasn’t important.

    On another point, how would Malkin and Powerline know the truth? Sure, they’ll get to the bottom of this soldier’s story- but not before they are finished slandering him.

  14. 14
    Paul L. says:

    cleek Says: anyone here find it impossible to tell where your right wheels are, when you’re driving, even though you can’t see them out your window ? do you constantly hit potholes and squirrels with your right tires because you just can’t see where they are ?

    Because everyone knows that driving a Bradley is the same as driving a truck/car.
    I am guessing that the field of view in your car/truck lets you know where the right tire is by being able to see the fender above the right tire.

  15. 15
    rachel says:

    Wilfred Says:

    First they said he didn’t exist, now they say he’s a liar: How come it’s so difficult to imagine some soldiers making fun of s disfigured girl when it was possible for some others to rape and murder another?

    It’s obvious: he lied about his own existence, moonbat. Just like any American soldiers who say bad things to anybody ever don’t exist. Where’s the girl, huh? He hasn’t produced her, so he must have lied about her existence, too. The rapes and murders are a plot of the enemy, too–unless they aren’t. In which case, it’s your duty as a ‘Merkin to forget them.

    Yeesh.

  16. 16

    I gotta say Huh? What the hell are all you talking about?

    Ok, other than the usual right-wing nuts bashing on our soldiers, I guess i don’t know the backstory here.

  17. 17
    Halffasthero says:

    I need to amend my last entry – I am making that statement under the assumption what he wrote is accurate.

  18. 18
    Pb says:

    Ok, let me get this straight, how pathetic is this…

    As we’ve noted in this space, some have questioned details that appeared in the Diarist “Shock Troops,” published under the pseudonym Scott Thomas.

    So “Scott Thomas” was a pseudonym, therefore, right wing blogs would have to do some digging to find out who he really is–fine…

    They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal.

    Ok, that sounds reasonable, and especially given the frothing in the wingnutosphere about this, I think he was wise to do so.

    I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

    Ok. So the devious Scott Thomas Beuchamp, who the wingnutosphere thought didn’t exist, cleverly disguised his identity by using the insidious pseudonym “Scott Thomas” — no one could have predicted that his “pseudonym” would actually be the first two-thirds of his real name! No wonder they couldn’t find out who he really was!

    Sheesh. Say it with me now: wingnuts are incapable of doing real research. Because, you know, that involves facts. Eeeevil, liberal facts. At this point, I think this is a defining characteristic of a wingnut. That is to say, if you can do actual research with real facts, then you might possibly be a conservative, but you can’t be a wingnut.

  19. 19
    Redleg says:

    PaulL,
    Next time you submit evidence to defend your position, it might be a good idea to actually cite a credible source instead of a neocon-oriented website. You should keep in mind how little credibility the neocons have now.

    You also failed to address my point about how your buddies at Redstate are so eager to defend GIs convicted of illegal killing while not defending Beauchamp’s right to free speech.

  20. 20
    Jake says:

    Related to this, is it time to start hating on Pat & Kev’s mom?

    I can’t believe no one has compared her to Shehan, called her shrill, or at least hinted that she’s gone a bit loony: “Clearly Mrs. Tillman is still grieving for her son.”

  21. 21

    You also failed to address my point about how your buddies at Redstate are so eager to defend GIs convicted of illegal killing while not defending Beauchamp’s right to free speech.

    That’s easy. See by standing up for Soldiers in violation of Military Code, they are showing their support for the troops.

    By standing up for soldiers who write about other soldiers in violation of Military Code, you are showing your contempt for the troops.

    I thought this was all obvious.

  22. 22
    John Cole says:

    Because everyone knows that driving a Bradley is the same as driving a truck/car.
    I am guessing that the field of view in your car/truck lets you know where the right tire is by being able to see the fender above the right tire.

    Not to get facts in the way of your spin, but I actually have driven a Bradley, and probably have a thousand hours in the driver’s seat of an M1 A1 Abrams.

    In the M1, you sit in a reclined position in the center of the hull of the tank, equi-distant between both tracks, neither of which you can see. Additionally, most of the time driving, my hatch was closed, and I was navigating using a series of thick glass periscopes that were about 9-10″ wide and 2-3″ tall.

    And guess what- I could run over a dog.

    Please STFU about things you don’t have any experience with and do not understand.

  23. 23

    I can’t believe no one has compared her to Shehan, called her shrill, or at least hinted that she’s gone a bit loony: “Clearly Mrs. Tillman is still grieving for her son.”

    Did she meet with Hugo Chavez and make an announcement that she’s going to provide a primary challenge to Harry Reid of Nevada?

    I have one more question from the article you linked.

    Geren then tapped Gen. William Wallace to review the probes and recommend disciplinary actions.

    Is Gen. William Wallace eleven feet tall and does he shoot fireballs out of his arse?

    Just curious.

  24. 24
    Redleg says:

    John Cole said “Please STFU about things you don’t have any experience with and do not understand.”

    John, are you suggesting that these know-nothings should keep quiet about everything except eating cheetos, building model planes, and jerking off?

  25. 25
    John Cole says:

    And for the record, vision is MUCH easier in a Bradley than an M1.

    Here is a youtube video of a driver’s view from an M1 while “buttoned up” (the hatch being closed).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLecGy5UHXM

  26. 26
    Krista says:

    I am guessing that the field of view in your car/truck lets you know where the right tire is by being able to see the fender above the right tire.

    Does anybody here actually have to look at the right front fender in order to figure out where your front right tire is on the road?

  27. 27
    Punchy says:

    From the Red State comments:

    Having posted more than once against “Scott Thomas”, I’ll eat a bite or two of crow and salute the man for coming forward. Also, I strongly admonish anyone from going after him physically or psychologically.

    the mere fact the author of this comment thought it necessary to express his desire that someone NOT BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF HIM for telling the truth is just insane.

  28. 28
    Paul L. says:

    Next time you submit evidence to defend your position, it might be a good idea to actually cite a credible source instead of a neocon-oriented website

    You mean like the New York Times? They never pushed a bogus story.
    i.e. their Duke Lacrosse rape hoax coverage.

    Redleg Says: You also failed to address my point about how your buddies at Redstate are so eager to defend GIs convicted of illegal killing while not defending Beauchamp’s right to free speech.

    Is this the Hollywood definition of “Free Speech”?
    I can say anything I want and you can not criticize what I said. Your criticism infringes my Free Speech

  29. 29
    pharniel says:

    Does anybody here actually have to look at the right front fender in order to figure out where your front right tire is on the road?

    only shit poor illinois/ohio drivers

  30. 30
    cleek says:

    I am guessing that the field of view in your car/truck lets you know where the right tire is by being able to see the fender above the right tire.

    try driving a bigger car – you’ll immediately feel uneasy about the width and length, even though you can see both fenders and the front edge of the hood. but you develop a model of the car by practice, by getting a feel for where the parts are, even if you can’t see them. and it doesn’t take long.

    maybe Bradleys have some magic mind-scrambling power that prevents their drivers from getting a good feel for the dimensions of the vehicle, no matter how much training and experience they get ? if so, i’d consider that a design flaw far greater than an obscured right-front corner.

  31. 31
    Pb says:

    Did she meet with Hugo Chavez

    Let’s hear it for meeting with Hugo Chavez — at least someone is, right? I must not have gotten the memo where meeting with foreign leaders–even if our government doesn’t like them at the time–is such a bad thing. Was there a “let’s give Hugo the silent treatment” edict that I missed? The best diplomacy is a good offense? What’s the reasoning here?

  32. 32
    Krista says:

    Is Gen. William Wallace eleven feet tall and does he shoot fireballs out of his arse?

    That sounds painful. (Then again, the original quote, with fireballs from his eyes and lighting bolts from his arse, doesn’t sound a whole lot more comfortable, does it?)

  33. 33
    Pb says:

    TNR has found this war’s John Kerry wannabe. Time will tell whether his motives are as pure and his accuracy as reliable as his illustrious predecessor.

    I hope they are; would that Dean Barnett’s were.

  34. 34
    Larv says:

    Is the original piece written by Mr. Beauchamp available online?

    BTW, you’ve gotta love the Dean Barnett article at the linked Memeorandum page. You see, the issue isn’t whether Mr. Thomas/Beauchamp actually exists, or whether the events he described actually happened, but rather the nerve of TNR to actually print them. Because there’s no better way to show your contempt for the troops than to publish them.

  35. 35
    caustics says:

    Oh my. And nice to see Michelle Merkin respond with her usual class.

  36. 36
    Punchy says:

    Does anybody here actually have to look at the right front fender in order to figure out where your front right tire is on the road?

    Am I the only one REALLY confused about how someone driving not in England can see his/her right fender of their car while driving on the far left side? You peeps got x-ray vision or sumpin?

  37. 37
    Cassidy says:

    What’s the background on this? I followed the link and got his “coming out”.

  38. 38
    Davebo says:

    I’m sorry, but John, you’ve got to figure out a way to attract a higher quality wingnut here.

    Or perhaps, this really is as good as it gets…

  39. 39
    keatssycamore says:

    Punchy,

    That’s exactly what I wanted to know. How can you see the right-hand fender while driving? The corner of the hood of your auto, ok, but the fender?

    You use your experience and a rudimentary knowledge of physics (IMC) combined with a rudimentary knowledge of geometry (IMC) and, bam, you’re driving…

  40. 40

    Wait a minute. I found the Shock Troops diary.(one good thing I guess about having a free TNR subscription, even though most of the articles are dreck)

    So this whole debate is over whether or not you can drive a Bradley over a dog?

    Talk about pathetic.

  41. 41
    Wilfred says:

    Rachel says:
    The rapes and murders are a plot of the enemy, too—unless they aren’t. In which case, it’s your duty as a ‘Merkin to forget them.

    Are you questioning my ability to stick my head up my ass and ignore reality in favor of deliberate self-deception? I hope not, because I know for a fact there are no dogs in Iraq. Or girls, even. Only our guys, and smelly brown people.

  42. 42
    Redleg says:

    PaulL,
    The New York Times gets it right a hell of a lot more often than the Malkins, Redstaters, and others.

    Once again you dodge my point. The point is not about whether Beauchamp has a right to free speech- the point is that the wingnuts, like yourself, seem to be much more inclined to defend convicted GIs (and Border Patrol Agents) than to defend those who criticize illegal actions taken by US forces in Iraq.

  43. 43
    Paul L. says:

    And guess what- I could run over a dog.

    I bow to your experience.
    Driving a Bradley is the same as driving a car/truck.

    Please STFU about things you don’t have any experience with and do not understand.

    Another follow up on TNR’s “Shock Troops”

    Last story, the “dog hunting” story is also tripped up technically and procedurally. For instance:

    Third: When the U.S. Army takes to the streets on patrols we do it deliberately, with task and purpose. “Thomas” describes the Bradley slowing down and ‘jerking’ suddenly to hit dogs. This just isn’t possible. If he is slowing down, then the vehicles behind him are slowing down, and there is a gap created between him and the vehicles in front of him. This would violate standard operating procedure (SOP) and make the convoy more susceptible to attack. While no one that has been to Baghdad can deny that there are large packs of wild dogs roaming the streets, to think that that is all a Bradley crew is worried about is absurd. The streets are also filled with IED’s and EFP’s. They line every street and and every corner. They are the number one killer in Iraq. When we travel in convoys, dogs are not our concern. We watch the streets, we look at curbs, we look at rocks, we look at windows for snipers and trigger men, we don’t look at wild dogs. Also, if this guy is driving a Bradley, how is he marking his “dog kill count” in a green book. Again, any leader would have corrected this action immediately, not only because it is subject to UCMJ action, but mainly because it endangers the lives of every man in that convoy.

    One of the myths constantly told about VN is everyone there was high. Well that may have been true in the rear areas, but it wasn’t true of the vast majority of combat troops in the field. Oh they too used drugs at that time, but only when they were standing down and in the rear themselves. If you showed up out in the bush high, your peers would quickly make sure you never did it again by demonstrating their displeasure in a secretive but physical manner. When you’re out in indian country, you don’t play games with other people’s lives. And that is what the ‘dog hunting’ story is all about. What you’re supposed to believe is this was not only allowed, but condoned. Either that or you’re supposed to believe this guy is out there tooling around by himself doing dumb stuff.

    These guys, as pointed out earlier, don’t move that vehicle without the track commander (an NCO or officer) being in that vehicle and in command. They also don’t deploy vehicles as singles. They move in groups. So not only is there someone in charge of the vehicle, there’s someone (an officer or senior NCO) in charge of the group. And can you guess who the vehicle commander reports too?

  44. 44
    capelza says:

    Good grief. I drive a Saab, I can’t see ANY part of my car in front of the windshield (it’s designed that way, nice actually), unless of course I stick my head out the window and crane for a view (not to be recommended while motoring one would think), but I still have a pretty damn good idea where my tires are in relation to objects that might pass in front of them, like a dog. Or a curb, or anything a driver as to avoid..or not.

    But John Cole has put the thing to rest anyway.

  45. 45
    Jake says:

    the mere fact the author of this comment thought it necessary to express his desire that someone NOT BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF HIM for telling the truth is just insane.

    However, the mere thought of what would happen if the lard-asses of the 101st Keyboard Brigade tried to beat up a soldier with combat experience is amusing.

    Anyway, they wouldn’t be “going after him,” for telling the truth. They’d be “going after him,” for emboldening the enemy or lowering morale or whatever shit excuse they make up.

  46. 46
    Zifnab says:

    Not to get facts in the way of your spin, but I actually have driven a Bradley, and probably have a thousand hours in the driver’s seat of an M1 A1 Abrams.

    Firstly, John, that statement makes you epically super cool. I was a big tank dork back in Middle School and I’ve still got a half dozen “Tanks for Tots” style coloring books and science books in my room at home.

    That said – wingnutters trashing someone for speaking from the truth from an authority position when its not what they want ot hear? Um… *gasp*… I guess. This is so mundane its barely news.

    TNR has found this war’s John Kerry wannabe. Time will tell whether his motives are as pure and his accuracy as reliable as his illustrious predecessor.

    Bleh. If by “time will tell” Hewitt means, “he’s guilty of treason against High Prince George. Where’s my rope?” then expect a fun week of wingnuts screaming just loud enough to get on FOX News for their 2-minute hate-off.

  47. 47
    John Cole says:

    These guys, as pointed out earlier, don’t move that vehicle without the track commander (an NCO or officer) being in that vehicle and in command. They also don’t deploy vehicles as singles. They move in groups. So not only is there someone in charge of the vehicle, there’s someone (an officer or senior NCO) in charge of the group. And can you guess who the vehicle commander reports too?

    Once again, you have no idea WTF you are talking about. Having convoyed all across Europe and the Middle East at the helm of an M1, it is never a precision movement as described here. Traffic patterns, vision limitations, other factors all make convoy travel much more accordion like than a tightly organized convoy. The vast majority of your time in a convoy is racing to catch up to the vehicle ahead of you or slamming on the brakes so you don’t rear end the vehicle ahead of you. And really, the accordion is the only way to describe it- the convoy contracts and expands due to real world factors.

    Additionally, vehicles are moved ALL THE FUCKING TIME without an NCO or officer as the “track commander.” What they mean by track commander is that there is never just a driver in the vehicle- there must be a driver and one other body up top to watch for blind spots. The “track commander” in that case can be a PV2 fresh from Ft. Knox. Ideally, you would want an NCO, but let’s face it- you idiots do not understand what SOP means- standard operating procedure. Yes, you try to adhere to it, and yes, if something goes wrong and you are violating SOP there will be hell to pay, but does that mean SOP is always followed? Of course not.

    You fucking idiots sound dumber and dumber the more you plumb the depths of topics you have no fucking experience with.

  48. 48

    Original article

    Here’s the relevant paragraph:

    I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America–providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle’s tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver’s hatch. One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn’t have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.

  49. 49

    The vast majority of your time in a convoy is racing to catch up to the vehicle ahead of you or slamming on the brakes so you don’t rear end the vehicle ahead of you. And really, the accordion is the only way to describe it- the convoy contracts and expands due to real world factors.

    By claiming a convoy works as an accordian you are denigrating our troops and their expert driving skills.

    We’ve all seen the National Guard convoys on I-80 through Nebraska, and they don’t work at all like how you claim they do.

  50. 50
    Andrew says:

    Since when was Michael Vick deployed to Iraq?

  51. 51
    Paul L. says:

    Once again you dodge my point. The point is not about whether Beauchamp has a right to free speech- the point is that the wingnuts, like yourself, seem to be much more inclined to defend convicted GIs (and Border Patrol Agents) than to defend those who criticize illegal actions taken by US forces in Iraq.

    What convicted GIs did I defend?
    So you are saying once someone is convicted of a crime, no one can question if evidence was wrongly suppressed or if new evidence should be considered.
    I guess you are against Project Innocence doing DNA testing to help the unjustly convicted.
    Beauchamp has a right to free speech. He also can be punished by the military under the UCMJ.

  52. 52
    Formerly Wu says:

    When the U.S. Army takes to the streets on patrols we do it deliberately, with task and purpose. “Thomas” describes the Bradley slowing down and ‘jerking’ suddenly to hit dogs. This just isn’t possible.

    Unfortunately, even a basic understanding of human nature would admit that the line between “isn’t possible” and “happened anyway” is crossed every day, even in the most mundane situations.

    Not even our army, great as it is, is immune to that.

  53. 53
    Formerly Wu says:

    What convicted GIs did I defend?

    You missed the operative phrase “like yourself.”

    So you are saying once someone is convicted of a crime, no one can question if evidence was wrongly suppressed or if new evidence should be considered.
    I guess you are against Project Innocence doing DNA testing to help the unjustly convicted.

    This is such a marvelous application of the Chewbacca Defense that I think it should be fossilized in resin and preserved for future generations.

  54. 54
    Zifnab says:

    Since when was Michael Vick deployed to Iraq?

    Hehe. Nice.

  55. 55

    John,

    I think you’re wrong on this. Check out HotAir. Allahpundit is a straight shooter. This guy, Beauchamp, is a soldier, but he made this stuff up, or perhaps exaggerated and twisted some kernel of truth into these horrible stories.

    They have excerpts from his 2006 MYspace/blog, which oddly foreshadow the events described in the TNR article.

    The guy’s a jerk, a self-styled writer, with a chip on his shoulder. The “Wingnut bloggers” are right on this business. Please check it out further.

  56. 56
    Cassidy says:

    Not knowing the story here, the whole jerking around thing is pretty normal. I can’t vouch for any dog hunting, but who knows.

    But as convoy SOP goes, patrols constantly increase and decrease speed as well as move around the road to avoid being timed for a command detonation. Constant speed is a bad idea. They’ve also taken to hanging IED’s in bridges, aimed down, so vehicles routinely jerk back and forth across lanes of traffic.

  57. 57
    Formerly Wu says:

    What convicted GIs did I defend?

    You missed the operative phrase “like yourself.”

    So you are saying once someone is convicted of a crime, no one can question if evidence was wrongly suppressed or if new evidence should be considered.
    I guess you are against Project Innocence doing DNA testing to help the unjustly convicted.

    This is such a marvelous application of the Chewbacca Defense that I think it should be fossilized in resin and preserved for future generations.

  58. 58
    John S. says:

    Nice to see Paul L. is still impervious to facts and logic. And in other news, water is still wet.

    But, but, but THE DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS!

    Heh.

  59. 59
    Formerly Wu says:

    What a strange double post.

  60. 60
    caustics says:

    Beauchamp has a right to free speech. He also can be punished by the military under the UCMJ.

    Paul L. – Just out of curiosity, which section and article of the UCMJ do you think Pvt. Beauchamp violated? And what should be the appropriate punishment?

  61. 61
    Zifnab says:

    What convicted GIs did I defend?
    So you are saying once someone is convicted of a crime, no one can question if evidence was wrongly suppressed or if new evidence should be considered.

    Maybe you could try using some of that judicial zealotry in favor of Bush critics, rather than smearing any troop you consider too liberal. That’s all we’re saying.

    If you’ve got some compelling new evidence on Haditha, however, we’re always hear to read it.

  62. 62
    Paul L. says:

    Once again, you have no idea WTF you are talking about. Having convoyed all across Europe and the Middle East at the helm of an M1, it is never a precision movement as described here.

    Once again, you have no idea WTF you are talking about. Having convoyed all across Europe and the Middle East at the helm of an M1

    Do you think it might be a little different being on patrol in a war zone with possible encounters with IEDs in the road? Shortcuts you can do in the US or a friendly country might not be overlooked.

    Then again this guy is just a Military yes-man who has on idea what goes on in the field.

    As for the Bradley and the dogs? COL Boylin, (PAO for General David Petraeus) put this out:

    Due to the threat of IEDs, our combat vehicles are driven professionally and in control at all times. To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle’s crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren’t allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are *not* allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.

  63. 63
    LITBMueller says:

    So this whole debate is over whether or not you can drive a Bradley over a dog?

    Talk about pathetic.

    Yeah, when I used to play “GoldenEye” on my Nintendo 64, I could run over whole soldiers in a Russian tank with impunity!!!

    That settles that debate…

  64. 64
    Rome Again says:

    The “track commander” in that case can be a PV2 fresh from Ft. Knox. Ideally, you would want an NCO, but let’s face it- you idiots do not understand what SOP means- standard operating procedure. Yes, you try to adhere to it, and yes, if something goes wrong and you are violating SOP there will be hell to pay, but does that mean SOP is always followed? Of course not.

    Expecting SOP in a war zone is kind of like expecting to be successful hailing a cab in Hell, isn’t it?

  65. 65
    Wilfred says:

    So here we are, 4 years into this criminal war in which tens of thousands of people have been killed or maimed, millions exiled, an entire society destroyed, and numerous instances of crimes against Iraqi civilians reported, with accompanying compensation (diyat) paid to survivors, and the right wing is in an uproar because Beauchamp says a soldier ran over a dog on purpose?

    I give up.

  66. 66
    John Cole says:

    John,

    I think you’re wrong on this. Check out HotAir. Allahpundit is a straight shooter. This guy, Beauchamp, is a soldier, but he made this stuff up, or perhaps exaggerated and twisted some kernel of truth into these horrible stories.

    They have excerpts from his 2006 MYspace/blog, which oddly foreshadow the events described in the TNR article.

    The guy’s a jerk, a self-styled writer, with a chip on his shoulder. The “Wingnut bloggers” are right on this business. Please check it out further.

    It may very well be that he exaggerated and lied, in which case I hope he gets what is coming to him. On the other hand, it may turn out that everything he has said is true. Does it change ANYTHING about this war whatsoever in either scenario?

    I personally do not have anything invested in the issue, but I do hate it when people make misinformed posts stating that things couldn’t have happened when they clearly could have.

    As a side note, what really honks me off about the Hugh Hewitts and the Malkins is that this is the kind of issue that they focus on- so what if some idiot lied in a piece in TNR (something that has not been established yet). Does that mean we are actually winning and there is no civil war and that this administration’s handling of the war has been competent?

    No, it just means that they (Malkin et. al) have more ammo to spread their insidious distortion campaigns- it meand more distractions, and honest discussion of the war and events on the ground will be shouted out by chants of “THE MEDIA WANT US TO LOSE.”

    and the right wing is in an uproar because Beauchamp says a soldier ran over a dog on purpose?

    I give up.

    What he said.

  67. 67
    Cyrus says:

    The guy’s a jerk, a self-styled writer, with a chip on his shoulder. The “Wingnut bloggers” are right on this business.

    LOL. This is an insult now? Is the opposition to intellectuals, to facts, or both?

  68. 68
    capelza says:

    A “wingnut blogger” accusing someone else of being a “slef-styled writer”?

  69. 69
    ThymeZone says:

    The twin assholes chime in:

    The point is missed. Nobody pays any attention to these buttheads, except others in the blogosphere.

    When Bushwar had plus-50 approval ratings, blogspeakists (wrongly) thought that these people were somehow important.

    They weren’t, but they especially aren’t now.

    If blogworld wants to be relevant, it needs to spend less time in self-referential egg-throwing and in self-justifying activities, and start promoting a real idea or two.

    Snark attacks over these idiots’ blatherings are not going to accomplish anything much except filling column inches in the daily blograg.

    Expecting SOP in a war zone is kind of like expecting to be successful hailing a cab in Hell, isn’t it?

    Hades … and step on it!

  70. 70
    Krista says:

    Bah, too hot to argue about driving and dogs.

    In happier news, my boss walked into the office this afternoon and said, “It’s too damn hot in here. Go home.”

    /cracks open beer.

  71. 71
    Paul L. says:

    Paul L. – Just out of curiosity, which section and article of the UCMJ do you think Pvt. Beauchamp violated? And what should be the appropriate punishment?

    I do not know. I would guess they would use the following.

    § 892, Article 92. Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation
    § 893, Article 93. Cruelty and maltreatment
    § 898, Article 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules
    § 907, Article 107. False official statements
    § 911, Article 111. Drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel
    § 932, Article 132. Frauds against the United States
    § 934, Article 134. General article. Includes offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial and which may “cause disorder and neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Article 134 is often considered to be a “catch-all” for various offenses that aren’t necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, et al.

    As for punishment, I do not know enough about Military law to guess.

  72. 72
    canuckistani says:

    Expecting SOP in a war zone is kind of like expecting to be successful hailing a cab in Hell, isn’t it?

    Hell is chock full of cab drivers. I’m sure one will stop, if only to go the wrong way and run up the meter.

  73. 73
    Zifnab says:

    Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.

    See, I like how Petraeus is willing to put his credibility through the meat-grinder again by getting a personal finger in on the matter. Deny, deny, deny. Then lie about everything.

    Yeah, I think the President just found a General after his own heart. What a fuckwit. I pity anyone in uniform serving under that hack.

  74. 74
    John Cole says:

    As for punishment, I do not know enough about Military law to guess.

    ???

    Why stop now?

  75. 75
    HyperIon says:

    this is OT unless i can slip it in under the “revisiting a previous controversy like we will re-visit this current one”:

    is this substantive?

    i haven’t kept up with this. IIRC the methodology was not challenged. yet this seems to imply that someone has a problem with the data analysis.

  76. 76
    caustics says:

    LOL. I think you forgot § 894, Article 94. Mutiny or sedition.

    As for punishment, I do not know enough about Military law to guess.

    Just admit it: you didn’t a damn thing about the UCMJ before you just Wiki’d it.

    But I appreciate the response.

  77. 77
    Tsulagi says:

    but does that mean SOP is always followed? Of course not.

    OMG! Say it ain’t so! SOP not followed by everyone at all times in all situations in a war zone? You mean that’s actually possible? Gasp.

    But as convoy SOP goes, patrols constantly increase and decrease speed as well as move around the road to avoid being timed for a command detonation. Constant speed is a bad idea. They’ve also taken to hanging IED’s in bridges, aimed down, so vehicles routinely jerk back and forth across lanes of traffic.

    Yep.

    So this whole debate is over whether or not you can drive a Bradley over a dog?

    Talk about pathetic.

    Yep.

  78. 78
    canuckistani says:

    To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle’s crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren’t allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are not allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct

    If I were driving in a war zone, I’d be twitching back and forth every time I saw a suspicious camel turd on the side of the road, and dare my vehicle commander to complain about it. Do they expect us to believe that the soldiers drive around like they’re on parade in Red Square?

  79. 79
    Cassidy says:

    Not making this up…IED’s have also been planted in animal carcasses on the road.

  80. 80
    elchubs says:

    As for the Bradley and the dogs? COL Boylin, (PAO for General David Petraeus) put this out:

    Due to the threat of IEDs, our combat vehicles are driven professionally and in control at all times. To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle’s crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren’t allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are not allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.

    That’s total B.S. You can’t possibly believe that some joe who’s been getting shot at everyday for the past 12 months is going to give two shits about some dumbass rules that some POG living it up in the greenzone comes up with.

    I know that my unit keeps an informal running tally of PEOPLE that we’ve killed be they enemy, civilian, or unknown status. They also keep track of how they died. Some of the more colorful categories include, crispy critter (burned to death), road kill (run over), and kranged (a Ninja Turtles reference that has to do with the fact that when a high power round strikes the human head alot of times the brain is ejected mostly intact). I also know that guys in my company hit animals on purpose. Guys also (I’d be a liar if I didn’t count my self among them) ensure the zero on long range rifles by firing at the wild dogs and cats that roam around the city. This practice also trains you to hit small, fast moving targets at pretty long distances. It’s sick but then again so is this war.

  81. 81
    Wilfred says:

    So this whole debate is over whether or not you can drive a Bradley over a dog?

    Talk about pathetic.

    But what if it was the Iraqi Lassie (La’assie) and T’immy told it to run home and tell Pa that Granpa had stepped on an IED disguised as a cowchip and he’d better get Doc and come real quick?

    Or what if it was Teri Schiavo’s dog?

  82. 82
    keatssycamore says:

    Not making this up…IED’s have also been planted in animal carcasses on the road.

    So at least swerving to hit live dogs is safer than swerving to hit dead ones. Isn’t it? I’m confused by all this doggie death dealing.

  83. 83
    Punchy says:

    I personally do not have anything invested in the issue, but I do hate it when people make misinformed posts stating that things couldn’t have happened when they clearly could have.

    Paul knows his trucks and tanks, John. Tonka and Playmobil has taught him well, and those trucks NEVER drive in wayward fashion. It’s therefore clear that you’re just one lying sonofabitch.

  84. 84
    Paul L. says:

    Just admit it: you didn’t a damn thing about the UCMJ before you just Wiki’d it.

    I had a passing famillary with the UCMJ.
    Enlisted US Navy 85-91
    All I remember now was the catchall article Article 134.

    Why stop now?

    Sorry John, I was under the impression was not as easy to run over dogs with in loud 30 ton diesel-powered vehicle with a limited field of view with a car. You corrected that.
    Using your example, I plan to jump down the throat of anyone who talks about handguns and does not know the difference between a revolver and a automatic.

  85. 85
    Cassidy says:

    So at least swerving to hit live dogs is safer than swerving to hit dead ones.

    Was just putting it out there as a little bit of trivia.

  86. 86
    Tsulagi says:

    Not making this up…IED’s have also been planted in animal carcasses on the road.

    If that was directed at me, you didn’t need to take aim. I know they’ve also been planted in soldiers’ bodies.

    While I was being sarcastic following the first blockquote, I agreed with you and then with TOS that this whole thing is pathetic.

    Personally, now reading the piece TOS linked to on TNR I think there was some embellishment going on in Scott Thomas’ piece. Do I know for sure? Nope. Could it all be true? Possible.

    Bit even if every word in the Beauchamp article was certified true by Jesus, does it really fucking matter at all in the grand scheme of the GSAVE? No.

  87. 87
    Cassidy says:

    If that was directed at me, you didn’t need to take aim. I know they’ve also been planted in soldiers’ bodies.

    See post above you. I’m largely staying out of this one, as I haven’t read anything by this kid, so I don’t know.

    Yeah, I know about the bodies too.

  88. 88
    canuckistani says:

    Not making this up…IED’s have also been planted in animal carcasses on the road.

    The idea occurred to me, but I refrained from mentioning it in case I was giving ideas to terrorists.

  89. 89
    Punchy says:

    Or what if it was Teri Schiavo’s dog?

    God damn that’s funny.

  90. 90
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Check out HotAir. Allahpundit is a straight shooter.

    When did “straight shooter” get redefined to mean “total fucking wingnut?” As a copy editor, I like to stay abreast of the evolution (oh, I’m sorry, intelligent design) of language and definitions, but this one got by me somehow.

    Yeah, when I used to play “GoldenEye” on my Nintendo 64, I could run over whole soldiers in a Russian tank with impunity

    And that’s a Russian tank. Imagine what you could do with a good Murrican tank!

  91. 91
    over_educated says:

    Over the past few year I have become somewhat immune ot being angry at the wingnut-o-sphere as outrage fatigue sets in pretty quickly.

    But for some reason this story and the swiftboating associated with it makes me really, really angry. (I have a friend who works on tanks in Iraq, and from some of the stories he tells me, the studd Scott Thomas describes is relatively mundane).

    Anyone know where we can send letters of support to this guy? I imagine the next few months of his life aint going to be easy.

  92. 92
    Davebo says:

    Enlisted US Navy 85-91

    Interesting. What rating?

  93. 93
    Cassidy says:

    Well, if he did make the stuff up, then it isn’t a “swiftboating”. It’s definitely a hyper response to something that’s largely pointless, but if he is willing to embellish or lie about things like that (of what I’ve seen here), then I feel no sympathy for him.

    OTOH, if it embellishment, his platoon mates have allready took it out on his ass, for disparaging their names.

  94. 94
    Wilfred says:

    I know they’ve also been planted in soldiers’ bodies.

    In soldiers’ bodies? Hard to believe in American soldiers’ bodies laying around long enough unguarded for someone to plant an Ied inside them. I’d like to see a reference for that one.

  95. 95
    Sirkowski says:

    How long the wingnuts have fallen, they’re now attacking soldiers.

  96. 96
    Cassidy says:

    In soldiers’ bodies? Hard to believe in American soldiers’ bodies laying around long enough unguarded for someone to plant an Ied inside them. I’d like to see a reference for that one.

    I can’t find any articles at the moment, but one particular scenario is 3 Soldiers who they lost communications with. Upon investigation they found one dead and the other two missing. When those Soldiers were found, the area around the bodies and the bodies themselves were booby trapped. If I remember correctly, it took approx. 8 hours to recover the bodies.

  97. 97
    caustics says:

    All I remember now was the catchall article Article 134.

    I understand. Thank you for your service. But please also try to understand that many of us are of the opinion that a bunch of kids running around in sweltering heat with a constant overdose of adrenaline are bound to do some questionable things. And that this is just one more reason to bring them home. Now.

  98. 98
    Chad N. Freude says:

    As for punishment running over animals, I do not know enough about Military law driving a Bradley to guess avoid making a fool of myself by guessing.

    Fixed.

  99. 99
  100. 100
    Sirkowski says:

    This proves you can’t run over a dog with a tank.
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=tGTs8Uz7V5o

  101. 101
    Tsulagi says:

    Hard to believe in American soldiers’ bodies laying around long enough unguarded for someone to plant an Ied inside them. I’d like to see a reference for that one.

    Google is thy friend.

  102. 102
    caustics says:

    Cassidy – I’m dying for you to tell us how we will ultimately prevail in asymmetrical urban warfare in a country twice the size of Idaho.

  103. 103
    Pug says:

    You know, I would be neither shocked nor surprised if some young buck in the Army in a war zone ran over a dog on purpose. I wouldn’t even think less of him. Young men do crazy things even when they aren’t in a war zone. I mean, I feel bad for the dog and all, but it is just a dog.

    The dog story is weak. It just isn’t that shocking if true. This story is supposed to be some kind of smear against American troops? We’ve got a full-bird Colonel talking about running over dogs? Please. Get out of here.

  104. 104
    rea says:

    Well of course it isn’t necessarily easy to hit a dog with a Bradley, and it’s against the rules. That would be the whole point of doing it, wouldn’t it?

  105. 105
    Cassidy says:

    And where did that come from?

  106. 106
    Chad N. Freude says:

    Sorry John, I was under the impression was not as easy to run over dogs with in loud 30 ton diesel-powered vehicle with a limited field of view with a car. You corrected that.
    Using your example, I plan to jump down the throat of anyone who talks about handguns and does not know the difference between a revolver and a automatic.

    Well, if the person ignorantly makes false analogies between them or he/she makes claims about things that can’t be done with one of them only they really can, I guess the throat-jumping in your irrelevant comment designed to direct attention away from what is actually under discussion would be justified.

  107. 107
    Perry Como says:

    John Cole Says:

    As for punishment, I do not know enough about Military law to guess.

    ???

    Why stop now?

    Brilliant!

  108. 108
    Jake says:

    Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.

    Uh yeah, am I the only one who sees the complete ignorance of basic human psychology here?

    First, if people were 100% Vulcan rational, the threat of IEDs would keep them from putting themselves in the position where IEDs were an issue at all. The ranks of our military would be pretty damn thin.

    Second, if you put a big unwashed tree-hugger like myself in a vehicle that could flatten a car, cars would get flattened, lines would be crossed, protocol would be broken.

    Finally, the human brain just can’t sustain a heightened level of any emotion, including fear. Talk to someone who lives in the more exciting parts of Israel. They don’t walk around thinking “Omigod, omigod, omigod! I’m gonna dieeee!” Shit when the Beltway Snipers were making fall in DC so exciting I was suprised at how many times I had to tell myself to Look Out! and two seconds later, back to normal, and that only lasted a month or so. I’m going to guess that after a year or less in Iraq the threat of IEDs is on people’s minds but how far to the front it is depends on how long its been since the last one went off, so the “threat” of IEDs ain’t enough to keep people from horsing around in their vehicles.

    Shorter me: I call bullshit.

  109. 109
    cleek says:

    Yeah, when I used to play “GoldenEye” on my Nintendo 64, I could run over whole soldiers in a Russian tank with impunity

    yeah, but did you re-enact the scene with real-life scale-models ?

  110. 110
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    yeah, but did you re-enact the scene with real-life scale-models ?

    Holy shit. Did he…? And he thinks he proved…? Playing in the sandbox…? What kind of…?

    Holy shit.

  111. 111
    Paul L. says:

    Sirkowski Says:

    This proves you can’t run over a dog with a tank.
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=tGTs8Uz7V5o

    Amazing, you put a card in the bike’s spokes and it sounds just like the diesel engine of a Bradley.

  112. 112
    capelza says:

    Anyone that has had a dog or cat or other critter run in front of it on a very crowded and loud roadway..well there a whole lot of loud vehicles and it didn’t stop the poor little critter.

    Apparantly Col Boylin (and some here) don’t drive very much.

  113. 113
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Also, thanks for your post–and, more importantly–your service, elchubs. Hope you and your unit come home soon safe and sound.

  114. 114
    Fledermaus says:

    Drivers aren’t allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are not allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement.

    OK, so the defense is there is no way it could have happened because it is against the rules. I’m going to have to try that one out at my next trial: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no way my client stole from walmart because stealing is against the law. Therefore you must acquit”

  115. 115
    Pug says:

    ..there is no way it could have happened because it is against the rules..

    Try this: “I could not have been speeding, Officer. That would be against the rules.”

  116. 116

    On retrospect, and looking back at the story again. It’s quite obviously faked. The kerning and proportional spacing is all wrong.

    I would like to say that I am very glad that the powerlineblog team got a chance to play with their toys.

  117. 117

    John,

    The only issue for me is “Did this stuff happen?” I share your distaste for Malkin & Hewitt and how they use these stories as a distraction. Of course, this story does not change how things are going in Iraq, nor how Bush f*cked it up. etc. But you’re blogging and commenting about it, so the story has some importance, some interest. Fair enough?

    Let’s start with the burden of proof. It’s on Beauchamp & TNR. These are controversial statements; they need to be verified. The motivations of the Beauchamp-attackers doesn’t interest me. Or, perhaps I should say, the burden of proof still is on Beauchamp, no matter how evil Malkin and Hewitt are.

    Has anyone verified his stories? Somewhere I recall a “two-source” rule of journalism.

    As for Beauchamp himself, whose credibility, I submit is of great interest and relevance, his Myspace & blog are very revealing of his motivations, and even suggestive of his source for specific details like the skulls story.

    As for TNR, Beauchamp is engaged/married to a TNR staffer, and this morning, they just canned the guy who let that information out. So, TNR has not covered itself in dispassionate, lets-get-at-the-facts, journalistic glory.

    Like you, I am not a war denialist, nor (any longer) a Bush supporter, but that’s no reason to jump to the defense of an uncorrobated story, written by a guy with an obvious ax to grind, and about which TNR is behaving secretively and non-transparently.

  118. 118

    Guys also (I’d be a liar if I didn’t count my self among them) ensure the zero on long range rifles by firing at the wild dogs and cats that roam around the city. This practice also trains you to hit small, fast moving targets at pretty long distances. It’s sick but then again so is this war.

    I want to soften this comment by noting that I do have two cats and a dog.

    Now It’s my understanding that arab/islamic culture does not value pets. I found this article talking about a ban on the sale of cats and dogs in Saudi Arabia as ordered by the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

    Bearing this in mind, which means there probably isn’t a great desire within the culture to care for the animals. Then topped off with the fact that this is a war zone and it’s hard enough to get food already.

    Shooting them is probably doing them a favor.

    Anyway, thanks for the comments elchubs. I think it’s important to have real live perspectives on what war is like. I don’t care whether or not they fit my political views, I want to know what is happening.

  119. 119
    Nikki says:

    The Commissar,

    I understand where you are coming from. But I’m going to have to agree with a lot of the commentors here and say that, in the great scheme of all things Iraq, this story and the reaction really don’t matter.

  120. 120
    PaulB says:

    Like you, I am not a war denialist, nor (any longer) a Bush supporter, but that’s no reason to jump to the defense of an uncorrobated story

    He didn’t. He jumped on the idiotic statements that claimed to have “debunked” the story. I would assume that John neither affirms nor denies whether the events took place. John is being anti-stupid here, not pro-TNR or pro-Beauchamp.

  121. 121

    Let’s start with the burden of proof. It’s on Beauchamp & TNR. These are controversial statements; they need to be verified.

    Actually maybe we should get to the heart of the matter.

    Why do you think these statements are controversial? The article is a bit colorful, and certainly not without a bit of artistic flourish.

    But are you seriously claiming that war isn’t hell? That people don’t die? That feral dogs aren’t roaming the streets picking at dead bodies?

  122. 122

    And one more thing

    Has anyone verified his stories? Somewhere I recall a “two-source” rule of journalism.

    It’s color commentary. It’s not journalism.

    The New Republic is an opinion rag, it’s not a news source.

    What’s even more amazing, is that TNR is run by a bunch of pro-war wingnuts. And you are attacking them for not clapping their hands hard enough.

  123. 123
    John Cole says:

    He didn’t. He jumped on the idiotic statements that claimed to have “debunked” the story. I would assume that John neither affirms nor denies whether the events took place. John is being anti-stupid here, not pro-TNR or pro-Beauchamp.

    Any opportunity to stick my thumb in Dean Barnett’s eye will be taken. Period.

  124. 124

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    And .. now work with me here .. as long as I then get Malkin and Hewitt and Barnett to dispute my story, you all will go after THEM, right?

  125. 125
    canuckistani says:

    And .. now work with me here .. as long as I then get Malkin and Hewitt and Barnett to dispute my story, you all will go after THEM, right?

    Would they dispute the story, or say “We told you so!”?

  126. 126
    Sirkowski says:

    The Commissar, you’re comparing apple and space rockets.

  127. 127
    capelza says:

    The Commissar Says:

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    And you guys thought “I” had a vivid imagination with my “Final Countdown” scenario.

    Canuckistani is right. They’d just run with it, and be looking for pics!

  128. 128
    Tsulagi says:

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    While slathered in Hola Fruta?

    Sorry.

    ;)

  129. 129
    John Cole says:

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    What is all this crap about porpoises?

    Alternate response- Is that a porpoise in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

  130. 130
    Dreggas says:

    The Commissar Says:

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    And .. now work with me here .. as long as I then get Malkin and Hewitt and Barnett to dispute my story, you all will go after THEM, right?

    Too.Damn.Funny.

    Personally Commie I would defend your right to man on porpoise love if it floats your boat but then again I am a pretty open minded guy (just ask anyone here), that and I’ve known divers who were close to being raped by porpoises so the porpoise probably would enjoy it.

  131. 131
    capelza says:

    Dreggas, I know porpoises are smart and stuff and horny little devils, too, but a DEAD porpoise is…well maybe he’s just pining for the fjords. Never mind.

  132. 132
    Jake says:

    And .. now work with me here .. as long as I then get Malkin and Hewitt and Barnett to dispute my story, you all will go after THEM, right?

    Nah, we’d ask for photographic proof. No offense but your analogy would be better if you said “Me and two well known members of the blogothingy and gay sex with members of a Florida football team.” because once A.S. and J.C. say “In your dreams,” there’s no controversy.

    As for TNR, Beauchamp is engaged/married to a TNR staffer, and this morning, they just canned the guy who let that information out.

    Just a question: Do you think this reaction could have anything to do with the fact that people are screaming for the scalp of the Uhmuricah hater? If female members of the staff suddenly started getting invective laden rants … you can imagine the rest.

  133. 133

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    I used to go after garter snakes with the lawnmower. I hate snakes. Ocassionally I’d use a hoe or a shovel.

    Actually I don’t mind snakes, as long as they don’t live in my yard, and especially if they don’t get inside the house.

  134. 134

    As for TNR, Beauchamp is engaged/married to a TNR staffer, and this morning, they just canned the guy who let that information out.

    Was it a gay marriage?

  135. 135
    Chad N. Freude says:

    man on porpoise love

    Rick Santorum would have something to say about that!

  136. 136
    Halffasthero says:

    To The Commissar:

    What part needs to be disputed? Just asking. : )

    Nice counterpoint. Please tell me it is only that…

  137. 137
    demimondian says:

    I love the debunking of the Lancet study. “Would have negative confidence intervals” — right. Which part of “confidence intervals are neither positive nor negative” does that dude have trouble with, I wonder? It may be that there is a statistical error in the analysis, but having an added outlier result in a “negative confidence interval” is just…stupid.

  138. 138
    Dreggas says:

    The Other Steve Says:

    I’m gonna write a post in my blog about me and John Cole and Andy Sullivan having gay sex, f*cking dead porpoises, and running over cats’ heads with lawn mowers on our last Backsliding Bloggers Get-Together up in Provincetown.

    I used to go after garter snakes with the lawnmower. I hate snakes. Ocassionally I’d use a hoe or a shovel.

    Ranger Rick had a 10 foot dick and showed it to the lady next door…

  139. 139
    Wilfred says:

    This thread no longer has a porpoise.

  140. 140
    capelza says:

    Just a question, if anyone is still reading this open thread.

    Why has it come down in “history” that Bill Clinton was responsible for Ruby Ridge?

    I have seen this on at least three blogs today.

  141. 141
    Jim Treacher says:

    “Widely regarded as not existing”? I’ve seen questions about his identity, but I haven’t seen anybody say outright, “This guy doesn’t exist.” And given TNR’s history, I don’t think it’s out of bounds to question their fact-checking.

    Hell, all Stephen Glass did was report about a fictional software company. And they made a movie about it!

  142. 142
    jake says:

    Why has it come down in “history” that Bill Clinton was responsible for Ruby Ridge?

    Shit. Talk about creating your own reality. Unless this is supposed to be proof that Clinton is so omnipotent and nefarious that even when he was Governor of Arkansas he was directing undercover operations all the way in Washington.

    I guess if you go by whatever calendar these idiots are using you could say Clinton was responsible both for allowing the Sept. 11th attacks to occur (something we’ve already heard) and the invasion of Iraq.

    Voila, Clinton did it!

  143. 143
    jake says:

    he was directing undercover operations all the way in Washington Idaho.

    I knew that sounded wrong.

  144. 144
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I have seen plenty of questioning if he even exists at RedNeckState. So I have seen it discussed in one right wingnut echo chamber, and I am sure that is likewise at other ones.

    While I have no idea if what was written is true or not, any guy who says that every single man in service in Iraq has never done anything vicious, mean and/or nasty is full of $hit. Guys know guys, and I have met plenty of guys who have a natural mean streak in them. They think nothing of hurting others, and in fact they enjoy it. When I was a kid, I watched a couple of guys who nailed a cat to a telephone pole, poured lighter fluid on it and lit it on fire. It ripped its tail off to get free, and it collapsed and died within 50 feet of the pole. It was done in a non-populated area of town, by the river. I was only 11 at the time, and the kids who did it were 14-16 years old. I was aghast, but what could I do about it? I went along with it, but I quit hanging out with them after that. It was one of the more disturbing things I have ever seen other ‘humans’ do in my lifetime.

    I know guys who have electrocuted their ‘friends’ who were drunk and passed out at a party. Same situation with fireworks between toes and down pants. I could go on and on with examples like this. They are the rule, not the exception. Running over dogs in Iraq is entirely possible, and pretty sedate compared to other things they could do.

    Every single man in the armed services is not perfect, they are not all angels. There are more good people serving than bad, I think I can say that safely, but there will be plenty of guys who have a twisted sense of ‘humor’. Unfortunately, that is the case and anyone who says different is a liar.

    As far as his fiancee working at TNR, that could explain his connection to them in this, and that is the end of it. Can this all be made up? IMO, yes. Is it likely he made it all up? Well, I know enough about guys to say there is a strong possibility that he did not make it up. Could he have embellished it? Yes, he could have. Stories have a way of being ‘enhanced’ by the person telling them. But this does cut two ways. He could be giving the shorter view of what he has experienced as he was horrified by it and rehashing the details is painful. Or he could embellish it to make it look worse than it was.

    All I can say is that some men are just flat out cruel. Some think of it as being a part of the macho view they have of what makes up manhood, and their own manliness in general. Knowing this, anyone who thinks atrocities have not happened in any war zone throughout history is a lying skunk.

    Much as I hate to say it, men can be cruel. My gender can do some pretty sick things in the name of personal amusement.

  145. 145
    Jim Treacher says:

    “I have seen plenty of questioning if he even exists at RedNeckState.”

    Questions are not statements.

  146. 146
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    Jim Treacher Says:

    “I have seen plenty of questioning if he even exists at RedNeckState.”

    Questions are not statements.

    Well, if you want to split hairs…

    When you question something, are you not making a statement?

    From the Houghton Mifflin Company Thesarus:

    statement (noun)

    – The act or an instance of expressing in words: articulation, expression, utterance, verbalization, vocalization, voice. See words.

    Hmmm…. it has to be a flighty righty thing I guess. I guess you could make a dictionary and thesarus of right wing definitions, and both would be pretty thick volumes. I can say that there sure has been a whole lot of redefining of the english language by the right lately…

    Kinda makes Clinton’s ‘definition of is‘ look like childs play, that is for sure…

  147. 147
    Jim Treacher says:

    When you question something, are you not making a statement?

    No, you’re asking a question. “Is this guy really a soldier?” is not the same thing as “This guy is not a soldier.” Questions are not statements, and doubt is not certainty. But I guess that’s a right-wing thing to say.

  148. 148
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    From RedNeckState:

    Now, to go along with… by RBMN

    …CBS’s “fake, but accurate,” we have TNR’s “mythical, but accurate.” Actually, TNR’s story borders on (if not crosses over to) “impossible, but accurate.”

    Now I take the meaning of “mythical, but accurate” to mean that he does not exist, and “impossible, but accurate” to mean that no soldiers would ever do what has been alleged as they are saints. Also, I would say that the above quote is not in the form of a question.

    I could dig up more, but why waste my time.

  149. 149
    Jim Treacher says:

    You’re the one who said they were questioning whether he exists. I was taking your word for it. But even in that quote, I don’t see, “This guy definitely does not exist, that’s a fact.” Also, I don’t know who RBMN is.

  150. 150
    buck smith says:

    I think COL Boylin’s point about the threat of IEDs and how vehicle’s are piloted makes sense. If driver actions increase the IED risk for others in the vehicle, they would probably let him know about it.

    And if Scott Thomas Beauchamp made fun of a woman disfigured by an IED, he is an asshole and I hope the military punishes him for doing so.

  151. 151
    jake says:

    Is this a rhetorical question?

  152. 152
    Tony J says:

    Ranger Rick had a 10 foot dick and showed it to the lady next door…

    So she took off her dress and then he made a mess on the curtains and windows and floor?

  153. 153
    Xanthippas says:

    John Cole Says:

    As for punishment, I do not know enough about Military law to guess.

    ???

    Why stop now?

    Best comment on this post.

  154. 154
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    The idea occurred to me, but I refrained from mentioning it in case I was giving ideas to terrorists.

    Yet again, Iraqis planting bombs to blow up American soldiers in Iraq are not terrorists. They’re insurgents; they have more right to fight an American occupying army than the American colonists did to fight to troops of their lawful king back in 1776.

  155. 155
    buck smith says:

    Phoenician,

    So what are the 150,000 Iraqis in the Iraqi army who ar fighting the insurgents alongside the Americans?

  156. 156
    keatssycamore says:

    Vichy?

  157. 157
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    That’s about right.

  158. 158
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    Either that or, as I understand it, they’re militia just jockeying for position and biding their time for the real civil war to break out.

Comments are closed.