What Happened to Beauchamp?

It has now been a week since Beauchamp outed himself as the DIARIST WHO HATES AMERIKKA AND HER TROOPS (and not necessarily in that order), and I see the only one still writing about it is Hugh Hewitt’s less scrupulous sidekick, Dean Barnett. Even then, Dean’s post consists of basically an excuse to link to this intrepid report by Matt “Yes I appeared in Gay porn but that does not mean I am gay and even if I am for some reason the Right-wing gives me a pass anyway” Sanchez (obligatory Onion link), in which his investigation has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman (PROOF BEAUCHAMP IS A LIAR!).

At any rate, since it has been only a week, I am curious why there is little conversation about Beauchamp. Last week he was single-handedly destroying morale, fueling terrorist hate, and smearing the country. He was such a threat that every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set phasers on smear, and hysteria reached a fevered pitch in no time.

But now, nothing.

Is it possible that he was just a convenient distraction for the internuts that control discourse in the right-wing blogosphere, and now that the chest-thumping and bellowing and feigned outrage at these terrible smears against God and Country have been publicly displayed, they can move on to some other distraction? Like little dogs, they can go bite someone else’s ankle for whatever the perceived grievance du jour might be? Personally, I am betting it is Obama’s turn, as Malkin, the crown princess of the nutroots activist brigades on the right (no one can start a hysterical linkfest like she can), is already on the issue.

At any rate, Beauchamp, we have forgotten you in just a few days, but thank you. You gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica when they investigated you and your girlfriend. You gave certain others a testosterone rush they have not felt since High School football when you gave them an opportunity to opine about giving you a blanket party. And most of all, thank you for providing a week-long distraction as to how fucked up things really are in Iraq.

*** Update ***

LOL. Having served as judge, jury, and executioneer after deeming everything Beauchamp said as a lie, The Sundries Shack claims that they are merely waiting for the investigation to finish. You see, that is how it works- first you deny, then you smear, then you have a linkfest attacking the person, then you shift the goalposts on your accusations, then you smear some more, AND THEN you investigate.

BTW- How is that investigation going? Have you deep thinkers done any more sand table exercises to determine if it is possible to run over a dog with a track vehicle? Inquiring minds want to know.

Plus, I am a hate-filled wretch (and I thought I had BDS)! If you would only stop being so easy to hate…

*** Update #2 ***

This, from the Sundries Shack, really needs a second dose of mocking, but I do not have the energy:

I realize that accepting that the right can be patient and rationial in its criticisms is an alien thought to Cole. Then again, having watched him descend into blithering idiocy for a couple years now, I’m not surprised that such a simple concept would have so much trouble finding traction in his brain.

I know when I think of the behavior directed at Beauchamp last week, patient and rational are the two adjectives that spring to mind.

*** Update #3 ***

Jeff Goldstein claims last week’s hysteria was merely “fact-checking.” This takes silly to a whole new level, but at least this piece from Jeff is better than the impenetrable gibberish he offered up last week.

*** Update #4 ***

An update from planet Goldstein:

update 3: John Cole just IMed me, trying to be chummy. I invited him to blow me.

I assume that impeaches anything I ever write from here on out.

Actually, what I said was “the upside of your comments section is I can now link to you again without having to hear you whinge about how mean my commenters are.”

That was me being “chummy.”

*** Update #5 ***

The New Republic posts a statement about the alleged “fiction” that Beauchamp penned:

All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp’s account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

Read the whole thing.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

307 replies
  1. 1
    Jon H says:

    “has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman ”

    Turns out it was only Jonah Goldberg on a visit in-theater.

  2. 2
    Attaturk says:

    I saw this at the Weekly Standard blog yesterday and I saw the name Matt Sanchez and I thought, “Is he that one guy who did the gay porn? Nah, even they couldn’t be that stupid.”

    I see now that I was wrong, that are even that stupid.

  3. 3
    Attaturk says:

    Well, not “that” but “they”.

    I’m not saying I’m not stupid too. ;-)

  4. 4

    Beauchamp went and ruined the fun when it turned out that he was an actual soldier instead of just an MFA student looking to destroy western civilization. Nothing makes the wingnuts cringe like someone who actually went to the war they were such cheerleaders for.

  5. 5
    Punchy says:

    DIARIST WHO HATES AMERIKKKA AND HER HIS TROOPS

    Remember John, they’re racist AND sexist.

    As for this:

    I am curious why there is little conversation about Beauchamp

    Because they have an obious and critical terrorist attack on bridge in Minny to investigate. The Kool-Aid gives you special vision powers that allows you to see the C4 remenants and blast patterns.

  6. 6
    Zifnab says:

    Personally, I am betting it is Obama’s turn, as Malkin, the crown princess of the nutroots activist brigades on the right (no one can start a hysterical linkfest like she can), is already on the issue.

    Yeah, this is a real laugh riot. Conservative hacks, having spent every waking hour since Jan. 9th, 2000 looking for an excuse to invade or nuke Iraq and Iran, are now accusing Democrats of being too damn hawkish over the countries currently harboring Osama Bin Laden and his friends.

    It’s a delicious mix of concern troll (“Can liberals really handle going to war when they’re all a bunch of peacenik, terrorist-hugging, appeasers?”) and mind-boggling hypocrisy (“We can’t unilaterally invade a former ally to capture something we don’t even know is there!”). Where does Malkin get her material? It’s hilarious.

  7. 7
    Paul L. says:

    I am curious why there is little conversation about Beauchamp

    There is no new news on Beauchamp. Do you want to heard a rehash?
    BTW ,Jack Kelly (A Pittsburgh columnist who I read) was on Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday and he mentioned Beauchamp does that count?
    I remember the same white hot rage against Tom Delay and Mark Foley from you and the left. Now Crickets.
    Why no mention of this?
    DeLay Wins Appeal

    Every time I bring up the Duke Lacrosse Rape hoax, I am told to move on.

    How about more on the Haditha Marines?

    Because they have an obious and critical terrorist attack on bridge in Minny to investigate. The Kool-Aid gives you special vision powers that allows you to see the C4 remenants and blast patterns.

    And fire melting steel for the first time in history. See the 9/11 truth movement.

  8. 8
    Dreggas says:

    Another symptom of the right is RADD better known as Rage Attention Deficit Disorder.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    tBone says:

    It’s a delicious mix of concern troll (“Can liberals really handle going to war when they’re all a bunch of peacenik, terrorist-hugging, appeasers?”) and mind-boggling hypocrisy (“We can’t unilaterally invade a former ally to capture something we don’t even know is there!”). Where does Malkin get her material? It’s hilarious.

    I had exactly the same thought. Malkin was for unilateral invasion of Muslim countries before she was against it. Guess the cheerleader outfit has been retired, huh?

    Every time I think these people can’t get any more hacktacular, they manage to surprise me.

    Speaking of hacks:

    And fire melting steel for the first time in history. See the 9/11 truth movement.

    Yeah, those people are fucking nutters, Paul. Thanks for acknowledging that the same holds true for the pantswetters on your side.

  11. 11
    Cols714 says:

    I’ve been seeing the term milblogger, but I don’t know what it means. Any help?

  12. 12
    over_educated says:

    Well, you see, Tom Delay and Mark foley both lost their jobs and considering that most folks on the left are not:

    A. Vindictive or
    B. Cruel

    I we were content that the approriate penalty was applied. Thus their was no need to conintue making those folks lives miserable.

    Duke lacrosse- Do you read this blog? Because John came out repeatedly against the prosecutor early in the story. I know, you are unaccustomed to folks displaying intellecutal honesty and deviating from the party line, but you would be suprised what happens when you remove your head from your ass.

    As for the Rosie 9/11 conspiracy brigade: I think you will find that folks who write and comment on this blog treat those morons with the same, if not more derision than you. Trying to say that all anti-war bloggers buy into 9/11 conspiracies is like saying all right wing bloggers belive the Earth is flat. (Although lately the John Birch society meme has me a bit concerned that some Republicans might try to throw those Al Quaeda bastards off the end of the Earth).

    I can’t remember if you are a spoof or not, if so, well played!

  13. 13
    Formerly Wu says:

    Why no mention of this?
    DeLay Wins Appeal

    Same news, somewhat more credible source.

  14. 14
    Elvis Elvisberg says:

    Poor Matt Sanchez. That’s a hell of a nickname to have to go through life with.

  15. 15
    over_educated says:

    I wish there was a way to edit your own comments on this blogbecause reason I never catch my horrible grammar and spelling until after I post… (such as my incorrect use of the word “their” in my previous post). Instead they must stand forever as monuments to my bad grammar and poor spelling.

  16. 16
    tBone says:

    I wish there was a way to edit your own comments on this blogbecause blog because for some reason I never catch my horrible grammar and spelling until after I post

    Fixed. :)

  17. 17
    Tsulagi says:

    Like little dogs, they can go bite someone else’s ankle for whatever the perceived grievance du jour might be

    Yeah, the Chihuahua warriors are fierce like that. When they aren’t too busy humping Cheney’s leg.

    Also, good to see “Dirty” Sanchez is in Iraq hot on Beauchamp’s tales. Nothing like an ungay gay pornstar to expose the meat to bring relief for his buds like Uncle Jimbo.

  18. 18
    Poika says:

    Milblogger = Military blogger (I believe.)

  19. 19

    […] John Cole, hate-filled wretch, asks why the right-side bloggers aren’t still dogpiling Scott Beauchamp. Beauchamp is the soldier who wrote several anonymous pieces for the New Republic alleging firsthand witness accounts of our soldiers engaging in rank cruelty and corpse desecration. Righty bloggers immediately jumped on the story, found out Beauchamp’s real identity and that his stories don’t appear to have actually happened. […]

  20. 20
    Dadmanly says:

    MILBLOGGER: Military blogger, such as Greyhawk and Mrs. G at Mudville Gazette, Matt and friends at Blackfive, Austin Bay, myself and about 1000 others around the world.

    MILBLOGGERS were among those who raised questions about the veracity of Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s “diaries.” (And about whether he was even a soldier, which he in fact turned out to be.)

    Beauchamp’s First Sergeant has made oblique mention of Beauchamp having some serious problems and a vivid imagination, the unit PAO has challenged several aspects of Beauchamp’s account, and local commanders are investigating those aspects of Beauchamp’s stories that would represent significant failures in unit discipine: allegations of unreported mass grave, corpse desecration, unsafe and improper use of military vehicle. You see, the military takes this kind of indiscipline very seriously.

    Those with boots on the ground can’t say anything more while the investigation continues.

    Unlike Representative Murtha and others of his ilk, we intend to reserve further comment until investigations or other news suggest whether Beauchamp has been victimized for telling “the truth,” or an opportunist peddling fable as fact to advance a writing career.

    But Mr. Cole, feel free to keep the hysteria in churn. That suits our devious VRWC plans.

  21. 21
    Davebo says:

    “Beauchamp’s First Sergeant” How is Sgt Jamail these days?

  22. 22
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Forget beauchamp, there’s a new soldier turned traitor on the loose

    I remember that guy from Control Room. You could tell he was very conflicted; he had basically been tasked to lie, spin, and obfuscate to people for whom he had a growing sympathy. And the Al Jazeera guys kinda knew it and wouldn’t let him off the hook (unlike the American reporters, who basically said, “Give us the talking points so we can get outta here”).

    It’s nice to see he has really followed his conscience, though it’ll be sad/darkly comic to see the wingnuts try to smear the bejeezus out of him.

  23. 23
    Formerly Wu says:

    Those with boots on the ground can’t say anything more while the investigation continues.

    Why stop now?

  24. 24
    Ripley says:

    Why no mention of this?
    DeLay Wins Appeal

    Yes, an interesting question. Another interesting question is why there’s still a link to the Tom DeLay Legal Defense Fund on Tom DeLay’s “blog”. Perhaps an even more interesting question is why there’s still a Tom DeLay Legal Defense Fund.

    I guess Tom just hasn’t heard the news, yet.

  25. 25
    WB Reeves says:

    Having debated the Beauchamp imbroglio with a few of the baying hounds, I’d say that as the original “he’s a fake” meme unraveled its promoters broke into “incoherent ranter” and “wait a see” wings. Neither of these positions really provides much satisfaction long term.

    Once it was clear a Beauchamp was indeed a soldier serving in Iraq, arguing that he was a liar or traitor couldn’t fly unless the military command took some action against him. Even wing nut hacks would have a problem arguing that “libruls” in the Army chain of command were conspiring to protect a “traitor in the ranks”.

    Maybe they remember what happened to Joe McCarthy when he red baited the Army.

  26. 26
    Xanthippas says:

    I’ve been waiting for them to turn on this soldier-traitor, but to get some juicy stuff they might have to actually read a whole book that the guy has written, which is probably more effort than we should expect of them.

  27. 27
    Zifnab says:

    I do appreciate how Paul can equate a pair of Congressmen caught up in pedophilia and money-laundering charges with a soldier in Iraq reporting bad news.

    Apparently, verbally molesting a 16-year-old and violating Texas State Law to help rig elections are bad. But writing for TNR is equally bad.

    How do you score any points with such funny-shaped goalposts?

  28. 28
    Oregon Guy says:

    Rod Powers (Matt Sanchez) on Countdown:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DztJbOXnF0

  29. 29

    […] On matters Beauchamp: [Dean Barnett’s post] consists of basically an excuse to link to this intrepid report by Matt “Yes I appeared in Gay porn but that does not mean I am gay and even if I am for some reason the Right-wing gives me a pass anyway” Sanchez (obligatory Onion link), in which his investigation has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman (PROOF BEAUCHAMP IS A LIAR!). […]

  30. 30
    Paul L. says:

    Having debated the Beauchamp imbroglio with a few of the baying hounds, I’d say that as the original “he’s a fake” meme unraveled its promoters broke into “incoherent ranter” and “wait a see” wings. Neither of these positions really provides much satisfaction long term.

    You are right, It is not that the media has fell for fake veterans before that would cause the baying hound to doubt the story.

    Duke lacrosse- Do you read this blog? Because John came out repeatedly against the prosecutor early in the story. I know, you are unaccustomed to folks displaying intellecutal honesty and deviating from the party line, but you would be suprised what happens when you remove your head from your ass.

    I did not say that John Cole was wrong about the Duke lacrosse hoax.
    I said

    Every time I bring up the Duke Lacrosse Rape hoax, I am told to move on.

    I will clarify this by saying it is other commenters here who tell me to move on. Not John Cole.

  31. 31
    over_educated says:

    “Beauchamp’s First Sergeant has made oblique mention of Beauchamp having some serious problems and a vivid imagination, the unit PAO has challenged several aspects of Beauchamp’s account, and local commanders are investigating those aspects of Beauchamp’s stories that would represent significant failures in unit discipine: allegations of unreported mass grave, corpse desecration, unsafe and improper use of military vehicle. You see, the military takes this kind of indiscipline very seriously.’

    Hmm a bunch of anonymous unsourced contacts of the various bloggers who previously accused Beauchamp of not even existing make vague references that Beauchamp’s story might be unreliable.

    Well, between that and the sandbow modeling, I guess case closed.

    BTW.. Did you even read Beauchamps piece? Hey never used the term “mass grave” or indeed implied it was such (except in the fevered imaginaiton of wingnuts).

  32. 32
    Doubting Thomas says:

    But Mr. Cole, feel free to keep the hysteria in churn. That suits our devious VRWC plans.

    Excuse me if I have trouble taking anything written by one who calls himself “Dadmanly” as serious.

    He’s definately an 11 on the manly scale of absolute gender!

    He knows truly manly soldiers take their orders from the 101st Keyboard Commandos.

  33. 33
    Paul L. says:

    Zifnab Says:

    I do appreciate how Paul can equate a pair of Congressmen caught up in pedophilia and money-laundering charges with a soldier in Iraq reporting bad news.

    Apparently, verbally molesting a 16-year-old and violating Texas State Law to help rig elections are bad. But writing for TNR is equally bad.

    How do you score any points with such funny-shaped goalposts?

    Have either been

    convicted

    of a crime yet?
    If you say indicted, I will point out that the Duke Lacrosse players were indicted.
    BTW, how you verbally molest someone with IM text?

  34. 34
    Sirkowski says:

    Beauchamp’s stories were exactly the sort of things that give people like Cole that delicious frission that makes them stay in bed just a little bit longer in the morning.

    Stay in bed just a little bit longer in the morning? What the fuck is that supposed to mean???

  35. 35
    Zifnab says:

    You are right,. It is not that the media has fell have fallen for fake veterans before. that That would cause the baying hound to doubt the story.

    Fixed for grammar.
    Real Americans learn proper English. Just like a Commie to use a Commie Splice.

  36. 36
    over_educated says:

    “Have either been convicted of a crime yet?”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHhah..uh haha.. uhhaha… *gasp* Give me a minute… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

    1. When has “being convicted” of anything EVER stopped wingnuts from going off the deep end?
    2. While Foley wasn’t CONVICTED of sending naughty e-mails to congressional pages he publically admitted to doing it. So until he is convicted must we assume that he has not, in fact, a dirty pedophile pervert?

    “BTW, how you verbally molest someone with IM text?”

    Post your IM address and I am sure many members of this board would be more than happy to elighten you.

  37. 37
    Ted Barlow says:

    Remember MEChA, the Latino student group that former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamente belonged to when he was a student?

    During the California recall election, you couldn’t go to a right-wing blog without reading about how horrible MEChA was. They were a group of “fascist hatemongers”, in Glenn Reynolds’ phrase, the Latino equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan. They were very possibly traitors conspiring to reclaim the Southwestern United states for Atzlan. They were a clear and present danger to the United States.

    Bustamente lost the election, but MEChA didn’t go anywhere. It’s still going strong on over 300 campuses. However, the instant MEChA lost its status as a lever to elect Republicans, no one, but no one, gave a shit about it. The terrifying conspiracy of fascist hatemongers was yesterday’s news.

    This stuff will drive you crazy if you let it, John.

  38. 38
    Formerly Wu says:

    Have either been convicted of a crime yet?

    Has Beauchamp?

  39. 39
    TomB says:

    What, exactly, is there left to say?

    Beauchamp is a fabulist. His stories have been discredited. He is being investigated by his command. And TNR is “on vacation”.

    BTW, did EVERYBODY who questioned his intial stories claim for a fact he wasn’t a soldier? Because, if not you have created quite a strawman here. Most of the milbloggers I read questioned the accounts, not his existence.

  40. 40
    jg says:

    Have either been convicted of a crime yet?

    Was Scooter Libby convicted of a crime?

  41. 41
    jg says:

    TomB Says:

    What, exactly, is there left to say?

    Beauchamp is a fabulist. His stories have been discredited.

    And the process of dismissing uncomfortable information is well under way. He hasn’t even beeb proven to have lied anout anything and he’s already dismissed as not credible. Wingnut reflex. Label and attack the credibility. unless its an established trusted rigth wing source. In that case the WORDS ARE SPOKEN AND THEY ARE HEARD AND IT IS SO.

  42. 42
    John Cole says:

    Beauchamp is a fabulist. His stories have been discredited. He is being investigated by his command. And TNR is “on vacation”.

    Like, for example, it was proven no one in his unit ever ran over a dog. Or that no one in his unit fondled bones at a grave. Or made disparaging remarks about a disfigured woman.

    Where that was disproven, I do not know, but Tom B. says it was, so that is all that matters. And if it has been proven he is a fabulist, why the need to investigate?

  43. 43
    TomB says:

    I ask again, what is there left to say?

    Apparently our silence is something of a surrender, yet I fail to see what’s left. Don’t you think that there would be at least ONE person to come forward to support at least ONE of his stories?

  44. 44
    over_educated says:

    “His stories have been discredited.”

    O RLY? These aren’t the droids we are looking for?

    Seriously though, beyond sandbox models and friends of bloggers in Iraq who have no first hand knowledge, where have they been discredited?

  45. 45
    John Cole says:

    Tomb- You are missing the point. Last week he was public enemy number one, the greatest threat to mankind, singlehandedly destroying morale and helping us to lose the war in Iraq.

    Now, nothing.

    What happened? Why is he no longer worthy of thousands of lines of blogposts?

    Because you all got everything you could out of it, and have moved on to something else. Plain and simple.

    Do you really expect us to swallow the notion that you are ‘sitting back and waiting for the results of the investigation?’

  46. 46
    TomB says:

    “And the process of dismissing uncomfortable information is well under way. He hasn’t even beeb proven to have lied anout anything and he’s already dismissed as not credible. Wingnut reflex.”

    OK, so what makes him credible? If I’m so willing to dismiss him as not credible on the word of his 1SG, a base Major, and numerous milbloggers (not to mention that nasty gay guy), on what basis do you find him credible?

    Doesn’t it bother you in the least bit that there is nobody that remembers the horribly disfugured woman?

  47. 47
    Formerly Wu says:

    Don’t you think that there would be at least ONE person to come forward to support at least ONE of his stories?

    “Yes, I’m the guy who ran over dogs and wore a skull under his helmet all day; please bust me several ranks for discipline violations and kill any hope of my career advancement so I can appease the keyboard warriors back at home.”

    That sounds like a smart move.

  48. 48
    over_educated says:

    “Don’t you think that there would be at least ONE person to come forward to support at least ONE of his stories?”

    Well, observing how wingnuts are trying to destroy this guys life, I can’t imagine why someone wouldn’t want to come forward and back up his story. Who wouldn’t want to jump feat first inot that meatgrinder, and have all of their personal information posted ad nauseum on every crazy right wing fuckheads website?

  49. 49
    Paul L. says:

    Post your IM address and I am sure many members of this board would be more than happy to e[n]lighten you.

    I was under the impression that “verbally” means spoken. However it may be unwise for me to argue grammar with Zifnab.

    ver’bal·ly adv.

    Usage Note: Verbal has been used since the 16th century to refer to spoken, as opposed to written, communication, and the usage cannot be considered incorrect. But because verbal may also mean “by linguistic means,” it may be ambiguous in some contexts. Thus the phrase modern technologies for verbal communication may refer only to devices such as radio, the telephone, and the loudspeaker, or it may refer to devices such as the telegraph, the teletype, and the fax machine. In such contexts it may be clearer to use the word oral to convey the narrower sense of communication by spoken means.

  50. 50
    TomB says:

    “What happened? Why is he no longer worthy of thousands of lines of blogposts?”

    Because the story has been thoroughly discredited. Each and every incident has been dissected into nothingness. TNR’s “re-research” is AWOL. And Beauchamp is able to write something new. The story is written.

    I ask AGAIN, what is it you want us to write?

  51. 51
    Benedick says:

    Professor Cole, I’ve been out of the academic world for some years now — at what point did professors at respected universities begin to punctuate their public writings with ad hominem references to opponents’ sexuality, ALL CAPS EMPHASES, and profanity? Did this sort of thing become acceptable during the last decade? Because nobody I associated with at several major universities ever would have published such a juvenile sneer. I expect better of my adolescent children. And they manage to write persuasively and rationally . . . sans tantrum.

  52. 52
    John Cole says:

    Professor Cole, I’ve been out of the academic world for some years now—at what point did professors at respected universities begin to punctuate their public writings with ad hominem references to opponents’ sexuality, ALL CAPS EMPHASES, and profanity? Did this sort of thing become acceptable during the last decade? Because nobody I associated with at several major universities ever would have published such a juvenile sneer. I expect better of my adolescent children. And they manage to write persuasively and rationally . . . sans tantrum.

    When we are mocking people who spent the better part of last week trying to ruin someone’s life.

    Additionally, what I do on this blog has nothing to do with what I do in the classroom, or vice versa. I don’t speak about my job, I don’t think I even have ever written about my job, and I try to keep it that way. I am sure I am due a good “Beauchampesque” investigation now that the assholes at Protein Wisdom are after me.

  53. 53
    TomB says:

    “Well, observing how wingnuts are trying to destroy this guys life, I can’t imagine why someone wouldn’t want to come forward and back up his story. Who wouldn’t want to jump feat first inot that meatgrinder, and have all of their personal information posted ad nauseum on every crazy right wing fuckheads website?”

    What about, “yea, I remember that woman, her name was “…” and she was a contractor for “…”.

    Yep, that would really put someone into a meatgrinder.

  54. 54
    over_educated says:

    “Did this sort of thing become acceptable during the last decade?”

    Welcome to the Interweb.

  55. 55
    Pb says:

    Why no mention of this?

    Because if we mentioned that, then we’d have to mention this… Keep smiling, Tom!

  56. 56
    over_educated says:

    “What about, “yea, I remember that woman, her name was “…” and she was a contractor for “…”.

    Yep, that would really put someone into a meatgrinder.”

    Well considering how apeshit you guys went over running over a dog and rude jokes in the lunchroom I don’t think its a stretch to think someone supporting Beauhamp wouldn’t get a little extry-special right wing scrutiny.

  57. 57
    Pablo says:

    Manic screeching and homophobic slurs!

    You’ve arrived, John. You’ll be on the Townhouse list in no time, I’m sure.

  58. 58
    TomB says:

    ” I don’t think its a stretch to think someone supporting Beauhamp wouldn’t get a little extry-special right wing scrutiny.”

    If this woman ate in the DFAC, there would be more than one person to support the story.

    But we are again getting away from my question. What is it that we are supposed to write about? The story has been told, refuted (in my mind), and is now being investigated. What else is there left to say?

    You can’t answer the question. All I get are links to “Tom DeLay?!”

  59. 59
    John Cole says:

    Pablo-

    I am perfectly fine with all of the following:

    1.) Being gay.
    2.) Being gay and married.
    3.) Being gay and married and adopting children.
    4.) Being gay and married with adopted children while serving in the military.
    5.) Being gay and married with adopted children while serving in the military and having been in gay porn films while a younger man.

    Are you? Is the Weekly Standard?

  60. 60
    John Cole says:

    But we are again getting away from my question. What is it that we are supposed to write about? The story has been told, refuted (in my mind), and is now being investigated. What else is there left to say?

    You mean that is it- last week he was the greatest threat to the Western World, and now you are just speechless?

  61. 61
    Dave says:

    John, give the Shack a break. He used supercilious in a sentence correctly, I’m sure that he’s still recovering from expending an extraordinary amount of mental energy to craft that sentence. When he recovers in a few weeks, the “investigation” can continue.

  62. 62
    Dave says:

    Oh wait…I never got to do this.

    Damn you Scott Beauchamp!

    There I feel better.

  63. 63
    TomB says:

    “You mean that is it- last week he was the greatest threat to the Western World,”

    I never said that. Or is that just another strawman?

    “and now you are just speechless?”

    No, there is just nothing left to say.

    I’ll ask AGAIN, what is it you want us to write about.

    Please answer the question.

  64. 64
    cleek says:

    The story has been told, refuted (in my mind), and is now being investigated.

    since when does “refute” come before “investigate” ?

  65. 65
    TomB says:

    “since when does “refute” come before “investigate” ?”

    When there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the allegations. And loads of evidence to support the opposite.

    See: Lacrosse, Duke.

  66. 66
    Education Guy says:

    9mm with Square cartridges that are exclusively used by the Iraqi Police, but of course his claims are unimpeachable, especially since he has now been proven to exist.

    I can see why your worried about this poor mans reputation, just as you seem to be for Mr. Sanchez. Tell me, does your concern for reputation boil down to who is telling the story you want told?

  67. 67
    cleek says:

    When there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the allegations. And loads of evidence to support the opposite.

    so the investigation has already been done… by wingnut bloggers who weren’t there, i presume ?

    See: Lacrosse, Duke.

    See: Iraq, War.

    y’all had no trouble back in 2003. why the sudden devotion to hard facts and evidence ?

  68. 68
    Pablo says:

    I am perfectly fine with all of the following:

    And yet you’re all to happy to use homophobia to impeach Sanchez’ reporting.

    You’re a joke, John. A cartoon, really. You are exactly what you rail against, and the sad part is that you’ll never recognize it.

    So be it.

  69. 69
    Xanthippas says:

    I’ll ask AGAIN, what is it you want us to write about.

    There’s plenty more soldiers to slander where Beauchamp came from. We’ve linked to a couple of them in this post alone. Get to work making fools out of yourselves again, so I can enjoy reading Cole trash you.

  70. 70
    myiq2xu says:

    Regarding the sexual orientation of Matt Sanchez, I believe it was J.C Christian Patriot who said it best:

    “If you’ve ever had another man’s testicles resting on your chin, you’re probably not fully committed to the heterosexual lifestyle.”

  71. 71
    Formerly Wu says:

    When there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the allegations. And loads of evidence to support the opposite.

    So you determined that he was guilty, and then began to investigate.

    Do you really not see the disconnect here?

  72. 72
    TomB says:

    “so the investigation has already been done… by wingnut bloggers who weren’t there, i presume ?”

    I believe the milbloggers I’ve been reading for years over Beauchamp.

    And there’s STILL the little problem of nobody remembering the difigured woman.

    Why is everybody ignoring my question?

  73. 73
    Pb says:

    No, there is just nothing left to say.

    I’ll ask AGAIN, what is it you want us to write about.

    Please answer the question.

    There was nothing to say in the first place–so why let it stop you now? Is it because he really is a soldier? I mean, I realize these inane smear campaigns have a somewhat fixed life-cycle, but usually it’s longer than this. See also, Michael Schiavo, Cindy Sheehan, Richard Clarke, Ward Churchill, Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, apparently now (still) Mike Nifong, and always-and-forever Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, anyone else with a (D) next to their name, and of course the rest of the 70% or so of the entire nation that doesn’t currently approve of President George W. Bush.

  74. 74
    cleek says:

    And yet you’re all to happy to use homophobia to impeach Sanchez’ reporting.

    actually, he’s using the GOP’s own homophobia against them.

    I believe the milbloggers I’ve been reading for years over Beauchamp.

    yes, we know that. investigation or no.

  75. 75
    TomB says:

    “So you determined that he was guilty, and then began to investigate.”

    No, I read the story, then read all the refutation from bloggers, read Beachamp’s writings on his webpages and decided he was making things up.

    And I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.

  76. 76
    TomB says:

    “There was nothing to say in the first place—so why let it stop you now? Is it because he really is a soldier? ”

    What do you mean? He wrote stories for TNR, and there was a lot to say about those. So people went about dissecting his allegations and presenting reasons why he shouldn’t be believed. How in God’s name can you say that there was “nothing to say in the first place”?

  77. 77
    TomB says:

    I guess my simple question must go unanswered.

    TOM DELAY!!!

  78. 78
    Formerly Wu says:

    No, I read the story, then read all the refutation from bloggers, read Beachamp’s writings on his webpages and decided he was making things up.

    In other words, you determined he was guilty, and then began the investigation!

    Come on, you can’t be this obtuse. It’s just not physically possible.

    And I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.

    The answer is that it doesn’t matter at the moment, because the lack of support neither proves nor disproves the story. Until someone can come out and say “she wasn’t there,” and back it up somehow, it remains a neutral point.

  79. 79
    Reality Based Snark says:

    Am I the only one reading TomB as basically saying:

    I choose to ignore the fact the right went totally f’ing frothing at the mouth over the fact _nothing_ this guy said was real and that he himself wasn’t real.

    I choose to ignore all that was verified because that verification blew away the core of the right-wings arguments. So now I’m going to ignore my colleagues face saving silence and cling to something that looks like it may or may not be verifiable by anyone who wasn’t there themselves at that time and place and save my intellectually dishonest ass with misdirection.

    Then I’ll go on someone else’s Blog and cling to this as a reason I should ignore what the entire blog post was freaking about and whine like a kid when no one falls for my bullshit argument and keeps pointing to the core of the topic of the conversation.

    Do I get a cookie?

  80. 80
    cleek says:

    Come on, you can’t be this obtuse. It’s just not physically possible.

    extreme obtuseness is one of the many tragic symptoms of BDS (Beauchamp Derangement Syndrome)

  81. 81
    Dug Jay says:

    Mr. Cole apparently has lots of fans out there in the blogosphere, like this one.

  82. 82
    myiq2xu says:

    “Not a shred of evidence?” What about Beauchamp’s statements?

    Hmmm. When I was in law school, they taught us that “evidence” consists of both tangible items and testimony; including observations, opinion and hearsay. Evidence can be direct or circumstantial.

    Any type of evidence may or may not be admissible.

    Credibility of evidence goes to it’s weight. The testimony of a single witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a verdict.

  83. 83
    Pb says:

    So people went about dissecting his allegations and presenting reasons why he shouldn’t be believed.

    Right… because we can’t let it get out that a soldier might somehow have intentionally hit a dog with a vehicle in a war zone–that’s unpossible! Please.

    How […] can you say that there was “nothing to say in the first place”?

    Let me rephrase–if you drew up a list of all possible political events, news stories, and items of discussion on any given day, this would rank somewhere below collecting pocket lint. Feel free to cover it after you go over both your pocket lint collection, and what’s actually happening on the ground in Iraq. For instance, yesterday, another American soldier was blown up in Basra by an IED–not to be confused with the British soldier who was blown up on the day before in Basra by an IED. Or the deadly bombs that have been going off in Baghdad, today, yesterday, etc…. So cover that. And then maybe mention Beauchamp and his deadly dog allegations. Not the other way around.

  84. 84
    John Cole says:

    Mr. Cole apparently has lots of fans out there in the blogosphere, like this one.

    Yeah, it is killing me. I am dying to hear what Dan Riehl has to say.

  85. 85
    myiq2xu says:

    To answer your question TomB, we would expect you (by which I mean all of wingnuttia, of which you apparently consider yourself a citizen) to write (by which I mean to blather endlessly) about the same things you always do:

    “Sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  86. 86
    Tim F. says:

    What do you mean? He wrote stories for TNR, and there was a lot to say about those. So people went about dissecting his allegations and presenting reasons why he shouldn’t be believed.

    Apparently this required digging up dirt on his girlfriend.

  87. 87
    Pb says:

    heh, Ace is so full of crap. Not only has Ace’s current site had more readers than Balloon Juice, over the past two plus years or so, the traffic on Balloon Juice isn’t much different than it was three years ago, either. I’m sure John Cole has lost quite a few conservative readers (like Ace), and gained some other moderate or liberal ones, but as far as orders of magnitude go, his stats haven’t changed that much–they haven’t skyrocketed, and they haven’t tanked. And of course there’s always the Darrell Effect to consider.

  88. 88
    timb says:

    PW posters like Tom B are never as obtuse as they pretend to be. “ANSWER THE QUESTION” is their favorite rejoinder to any post.

    Tom B, try writing this. After investigating Scott Beauchamp last week and determining he is evil and lying, I am awaiting an investigation that will prove it. Ignoring that Franklin Foer indicated that the previous article WERE fact-checked and now were going to be re-examined because of my concerns, I remain angered at the pro-war magazine which has aligned itself with “the terrorists.”

    Now, I must go back to Jeff G to see what further observations he can have, so I can call them mine. I will continue to monitor the Beauchamp story unless it proves true, then I will let it quietly die (see why awesome erudition with regard to Jamil Hussein).

    By the way, Tom, here’s another link to that lying video of US soldiers tormenting a crippled dog….the videographer must be in league with the terrorists http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6445f9fdd7
    Man, soldiers would never be cruel to a dog….

  89. 89
    Nick says:

    Bushies take on Beauchamp because he’s just the right size for them to pick on. An isolated PFC in a foreign country.

    It’s much easier to flame Beauchamp and burn covert operatives like Plame, then to actually enlist and fight or even come up with a coherent strategy for occupying Iraq.

    The real question is why do the wingers hate the troops so much?

  90. 90
    capelza says:

    Pb, so I don’t have to actually link to Ace and thus give him more hits, is he saying that, in essence John has less hits than him and hence less popular and hence, he must be wrong?

    Or is he just making shit up? Perish the thought.

    I really will not link to it.

  91. 91

    Jeff Goldstein. Ha!! Everytime I hear/read his name I laugh. I do the same for Joey Buttafuoco.

  92. 92
    cleek says:

    a hit count war? is Ace twelve?

  93. 93
    Zifnab says:

    Pb, so I don’t have to actually link to Ace and thus give him more hits, is he saying that, in essence John has less hits than him and hence less popular and hence, he must be wrong?

    Nah, just that if this were High School and we had a vote for Prom King, John wouldn’t make the cut, while Ace would have the entire ROTC core voting for him. Also, every 10000 hits your site gets adds an inch to your penis. This proves that Ace has a bigger penis than John, and that Kos is a giant freak.

  94. 94
    cleek says:

    Jeff Goldstein. Ha!! Everytime I hear/read his name I laugh.

    careful. he’ll come-a-knockin, for to give you a slappin.

  95. 95
    over_educated says:

    Well, now that I know Ace’s hit count his higher, this changes everything.

    DAMN YOU SCOTT BEAUCHAMP!!!!!!

    And TomB… No one is answering your question because thats not the point John was making.

    The point is there was NEVER anything worthwhile to write on Scott Beauchamp, yet you managed to spend a week of your life going apeshit over the logistics of dog running-over and such and all of a sudden we heard nothing. If it was such an ENORMOUS deal last week you think there would be at least some follow up… A mean after all, this guy is practically in Al Quaeda… Why haven’t we clamped elctrodes on his nipples, Jack Bauer style?

  96. 96
    capelza says:

    Oh, thanks. The “I have more friends than you” school of political discourse. Was that Socrates or Pericles? Or Ashley, the Head Cheerleader school. They were really big in the stoa at Athens.

  97. 97
    Reality Based Snark says:

    So….

    What I read from that Ace post was pretty much the underlying “I’m more right then he is because I get more hits.” So does that mean CNN is always right compared to Ace?

  98. 98
    Tsulagi says:

    This is hilarious.

    The Chihuahua Warriors are in full bug-eyed barking mode with the Ace among them fixated on boys. How many times did he write “Johnny Boy” in that lame ass post? What, did Malkin let them borrow her pink strapped body armor and now they’re feeling really feisty.

    Oh, and I beg to differ about that one Goldstein post being “impenetrable” gibberish. It was penetrable. But still boring gibberish. It was his written equivalent of KY Jelly. He must have a lot of hair on his palms.

  99. 99

    […] beauchamp’s revenge Much like “culture warrior“, it seems as if another someone else is unhappy with the conservative blogosphere for their reaction to the Scott Thomas controversy. Jeff Goldstein comments: Well, what remains to be said, John? If the “nutters” continue to harp on the significance of reporting fiction as truth, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they move on to the next outrage, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write on the surge strategy and its successes, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write about Paris Hilton, or take on Barack Obama’s bluster about invading Pakistan, one wonders why they aren’t taking on the mess that is Iraq. […]

  100. 100
    over_educated says:

    Also check Aces comments section where the mouthbreathers are proud that they stopped reading John after he “blew a gasket” on Schiavo and started writing against the war.

    Yeah, Schiavo and more war in Iraq. I can’t think of two more well-reasoned, generally supported propositions. Basically I translated it as: “we stopped reading John as soon as we realized he was no longer willing to follow us into batshit-crazy land! Mumble Glfar BEAUCHAMP!!! SQUARE CASINGS!!!!”

  101. 101
    Zifnab says:

    The “I have more friends than you” school of political discourse. Was that Socrates or Pericles? Or Ashley, the Head Cheerleader school. They were really big in the stoa at Athens.

    Ashley was only big in the stoa because she had a nice rack.

  102. 102
    Zifnab says:

    The “I have more friends than you” school of political discourse. Was that Socrates or Pericles? Or Ashley, the Head Cheerleader school. They were really big in the stoa at Athens.

    Ashley was only big in the stoa because she had a nice rack. But she’ll never be remembered like Socrates, who will always be remembered for the time he gave it up to three other guys behind the bleachers.

  103. 103
    John Cole says:

    The point is there was NEVER anything worthwhile to write on Scott Beauchamp, yet you managed to spend a week of your life going apeshit over the logistics of dog running-over and such and all of a sudden we heard nothing. If it was such an ENORMOUS deal last week you think there would be at least some follow up… A mean after all, this guy is practically in Al Quaeda… Why haven’t we clamped elctrodes on his nipples, Jack Bauer style?

    Pretty much. Add to it that I have always maintained it is entirely possible that he is a fabulist- it would not be the first time. What I disagree with is the notion that everything has been proven false- everything he has written is entirely plausible, and more than likely, the military will have no way of proving things one way or another, and this whole story will disappear.

  104. 104
    John Cole says:

    Also check Aces comments section where the mouthbreathers are proud that they stopped reading John after he “blew a gasket” on Schiavo and started writing against the war.

    Just ignore Ace. I do.

    Pretty soon he will be back to talking about celebrity women who turn him on and forget about me, and we will all be better off.

    I only responded to Jimmy and Jeff because I know they will both get hysterical and make asses out of themselves.

  105. 105
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    What I read from that Ace post was pretty much the underlying “I’m more right then he is because I get more hits.” So does that mean CNN is always right compared to Ace?

    Not only that, it means Daily Kos is way, way more right than Ace could ever be. I’m sure Ace would agree–after all, it’s his “logic.”

  106. 106
    loyal to humanity says:

    there’s no hint of the “hipocrisy” qualification in his mention of matt’s sexuality. the clear implication is, “yea, so now they’ve got this guy over there actually interviewing people at the location where Buchamp’s stories are set, and he’s turned up nothing, while we maintain unqualified credulousness from our basement offices, BUT DON”T YOU REMEMBER? THIS IS THE GUY WHO TURNED OUT TO BE A F@G HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!”

    if i might remind you all how matt sanchez came to be known as a gay man, it wasn’t motivated by a desire to “expose hipocrisy”, nor did it have that effect (once known, it wasn’t as if cpac recinded the kirkpatric award).

    no, progressives embarked on digging up personal dirt from sanchez’s personal life in reaction to his telling of a narrative which was politically inconvenient for progressives’ narrative about the war. sanchez came forward about abuse, alienation and being called things like “babykiller” by progressive activists on columbia campus. progressives hate him for it.

    ironic, huh?

    not really. the dissimilarities are notable and wear poorly on jon cole and similar. because progressives, for starters, never questioned whether sanchez was telling the truth. they knew as well as anyone else that this is the standard rhetoric of campus anti-war protestors. so they directed their investigation into his personal affairs primarily.

    disgusting people, they.

  107. 107
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    The New Republic has just announced the results of its own investigation. Yep, Beauchamp’s stories check out (with corroboration by five other military witnesses), except that they say he got the precise location of the joke session about the disfigured woman wrong — it was in Kuwait rather than Iraq. (Beauchamp now says he agrees.) Three witnesses to the Disfigured Woman incident; two to the Skull-Fragment Skullcap incident; and one to the Run-Over Dog incident (complete with a description of an ingenious technique that Bradley drivers have devised to do it regularly).

    Of course, now that the Army has launched its own Official Investigation Ha-Ha and cut off all of Beauchamp’s contact even with his own family, it shouldn’t be hard for them to Room 101 him into changing his story.

  108. 108
    capelza says:

    Zifnab,

    “Sure, that what YOU say, cause yur just jealous and stuff. Socrates was gross, and nobody liked him anyway, his blog had less hits than Ashley’s. He asked questions, ewwwww.”

    Socrates responds, “I drank WHAT?”.

  109. 109
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Of course, we must never forget how outrageous it was for Beauchamp to imply that our troops might ever be capable of such vulgarities. I mean, look how well they behaved at Abu Ghraib.

  110. 110
    Army Lawyer says:

    Best part about all this, is that if Beauchamp is telling the truth, he’s committed some serious (likely criminal) misconduct.

    If he’s lying, ditto.

    Guess it’s a question of what preconceptions his supporters want to bolster when they defend him.

  111. 111
    cleek says:

    here’s a link to what Bruce W describes, above.

  112. 112
    cleek says:

    Bruce M. M.

  113. 113
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Correction: that’s SIX military witnesses who collaborate his story. One of them, however, wasn’t in his own company.

  114. 114
    Brian says:

    Building on what Bruce Moomaw said:

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i.....rial080207

    From it:

    “In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)”

    So now they have supposedly backed up the claims with affirmations from other soldiers.

  115. 115
    cleek says:

    because progressives, for starters, never questioned whether sanchez was telling the truth.

    maybe progressives didn’t, maybe they did. i can’t say. but since the Marine Corps is a little unsure of his veracity, maybe you shouldn’t put too much faith in the guy.

  116. 116
    Thomas says:

    The only trustworthy memory is the forgotten

    Conservative American credo, attributed to Lewis Libby, Alberto Gonzales, and Richard Cheney

  117. 117
    Davebo says:

    So it’s OK to laugh at Jeffy on BJ again?

    Cool!

    But seriously, given Jeffie’s love of slapping people with his private parts, don’t you think he gets a little insecure writing about Matt Sanchez?

  118. 118
    Tsulagi says:

    So how long before the short bus brigades begin demanding the names of the corroborating soldiers, and then recommending blanket parties for them too if they get those names? The message keepers support the troops like that.

  119. 119
    timb says:

    They’re all writing replies as we speak. Well-written, succinct mea culpas about how they believe the best about America and her soldiers and they wanted to believe that couldn’t happen….

    Oh, hold on, there’s just silence.

  120. 120
    John Cole says:

    So how long before the short bus brigades begin demanding the names of the corroborating soldiers, and then recommending blanket parties for them too if they get those names? The message keepers support the troops like that.

    They don’t need to- they have an out:

    The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

    See! It was all lies!

  121. 121

    Anyway, there is a clear lesson to be learned here, and that is the right-wing is always willing to believe the worst about people, especially our fine soldiers.

    LOL!

  122. 122
    Xanthippas says:

    Best part about all this, is that if Beauchamp is telling the truth, he’s committed some serious (likely criminal) misconduct.

    If he’s lying, ditto.

    Guess it’s a question of what preconceptions his supporters want to bolster when they defend him.

    More like it’s about conservatives intimidating soldiers into not writing honestly about the war. Because God forbid the American people should know what our soldiers actually do in Iraq besides heroically battling insurgents (according to the DOD) and getting blown up by IEDs (according to the media.) After all, it’s more important to show some loyalty to your comardes in arms by keeping quiet about some of the nastier things they do, instead of writing about it and undermining the war effort by daring to keep the public informed.

    Of course, if your writing gets the official right-wing stamp of approval (morale is high, schools are being built, insurgents are being killed, etc.) then write away…

  123. 123
    Xanthippas says:

    By the way:

    Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.

    So congrats to you right-wingers on that. It’s not quite a blanket party, but you’ve gotten your revenge and now can sleep at night knowing you’ve done your part to support the Iraq war on Islamofascism by exercising revenge on one of the people whose actually over there risking his life to fight the war you adore so much. I applaud you.

  124. 124
    Army Lawyer says:

    Xanthippas:

    You show loyalty by reporting misconduct. Not by writing factually challenged pieces (Kuwait, Iraq, what’s the diff?)for national publication.

    Some pompous PFC writing his ‘mindthoughts’ about how and his dumbass little buddies engage in potentially criminal misconduct doesn’t “inform the public” of anything beyond the fact that they, and they alone, are assholes.

  125. 125
    John Cole says:

    That didn’t take long:

    They don’t need to- they have an out:

    The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

    See! It was all lies!

    Fourteen minutes, in fact:

    Army Lawyer Says:

    Xanthippas:

    You show loyalty by reporting misconduct. Not by writing factually challenged pieces (Kuwait, Iraq, what’s the diff?)for national publication.

    I was going to give them at least a half day before that got trotted out.

  126. 126
    timb says:

    From PW’s Tom B. John, if you could win money for predicting their stupidity, you could retire right now. tom B goes on to report this means Beauchamp lied. To quote George Costanza: It’s not a lie, if you believe it.” All over the righty blogosphere, Kool-aid is being poured into cups and simpletons are lining up to drink.

    Comment by TomB on 8/2 @ 2:20 pm #

    From the TNR…[quotes paragraph from above]
    So Beauchamp is a fabulist. And for timmy this somehow vindcates his hero.

    Further, this kid who can’t write is my hero because they are wrong yet again. A strange twisted world they inhabit

  127. 127

    You show loyalty by reporting misconduct. Not by writing factually challenged pieces (Kuwait, Iraq, what’s the diff?)for national publication.

    You mean like Abu Ghraib?

    Doesn’t the WingNet go after those reporting misconduct too?

    Some pompous PFC writing his ‘mindthoughts’ about how and his dumbass little buddies engage in potentially criminal misconduct doesn’t “inform the public” of anything beyond the fact that they, and they alone, are assholes.

    It’s interesting… Torturing prisoners is ok, and is not misconduct. Killing dogs is.

    Shows where your priorites are I guess.

  128. 128
    Army Lawyer says:

    John:

    Did I deny that substantive portions of the piece? No I did not. In fact, I implicitly accepted them as true in noting Beauchamp’s misconduct.

    That he got the COUNTRY wrong makes his piece “factually challenged” on that point. Nothing more.

    He is still a prig who has (by his own admission) engaged in serious misconduct. And you feel the need to defend him.

    Do me (hell, all of us in uniform) a favor, support those soldiers that are able to do their jobs WITHOUT mocking victims of IEDs, intentionally running over stray dogs, or dancing around with human remains on their heads.

    There are far more of us than there are the PFC Beauchamps in the Army.

  129. 129
    timb says:

    But, we all knew this is how they would spin it. They would find some discrepancy (not like missing physicals for National Guard duty, something really minor) declare it material and say he was a liar.

    Hey, Army lawyer, were you one of the ones hiding the facts about Pat Tillman’s death? You folks have a lot of credibility. I’d rather think enlisted men are running over dogs than Army lawyers (safe from any of those nagging combat missions) are covering up the death of American hero.

    But, that’s just me

  130. 130
    John Cole says:

    John:

    Did I deny that substantive portions of the piece? No I did not. In fact, I implicitly accepted them as true in noting Beauchamp’s misconduct.

    That he got the COUNTRY wrong makes his piece “factually challenged” on that point. Nothing more.

    He is still a prig who has (by his own admission) engaged in serious misconduct. And you feel the need to defend him.

    Do me (hell, all of us in uniform) a favor, support those soldiers that are able to do their jobs WITHOUT mocking victims of IEDs, intentionally running over stray dogs, or dancing around with human remains on their heads.

    There are far more of us than there are the PFC Beauchamps in the Army.

    You called it a factually challenged piece, as if the entire thing was invalidated.

    Additionally, I only feel the need to ‘defend’ him to the extent thatI think people are overreaching to attack him. Running over dogs, insulting IED victims, and the like makes someone a dick in my book.

  131. 131
    brock o.baum says:

    Well…I did read it all…and it looks like nothing really has been corroborated.

    Iraq is now Kuwait (yeah, yeah…that’s the ticket)

    Mass grave is now “some bones”

    Dogs run over by a Bradley…could happen if about three dozen different events happen simultaneously..

    I smell a big ol’ stinky rat

  132. 132
    Xanthippas says:

    You show loyalty by reporting misconduct. Not by writing factually challenged pieces (Kuwait, Iraq, what’s the diff?)for national publication.

    Right. Because Beauchamp’s comrades would regard him as extremely “loyal” for reporting them. And the right would praise his willingness to go to his superiors with such misconduct, just as they praised those soldiers who helped to expose the misconduct at Abu Ghraib, and his superiors would reward him for doing the right thing, because nobody in Iraq wants to see our soldiers mistreating the Iraqis.

    Some pompous PFC writing his ‘mindthoughts’ about how and his dumbass little buddies engage in potentially criminal misconduct doesn’t “inform the public” of anything beyond the fact that they, and they alone, are assholes.

    Because of course it’s merely coincidence that this “pompous” soldier would be part of the only unit stationed in all of Iraq that’s been some, eh, insensitive towards the Iraqis.

    Look, the fact of the matter is people on the right don’t like Beauchamp because he wrote that soldiers have done bad things in Iraq. They don’t want some kind of “honest” account of what it’s like for some soldiers on the ground. They want to hear about all the “success” we’re enjoying as a result of the surge (Anbar Awakening and all that), and they’re perfectly okay with trying to destroy someone who doesn’t give them what they want, even if he happens to be a soldier who is putting his life on the line. Seriously, just be frank about it, okay?

  133. 133
    Formerly Wu says:

    He is still a prig who has (by his own admission) engaged in serious misconduct. And you feel the need to defend him.

    Do me (hell, all of us in uniform) a favor, support those soldiers that are able to do their jobs WITHOUT mocking victims of IEDs, intentionally running over stray dogs, or dancing around with human remains on their heads.

    Nobody here is defending his actions. We are defending his right to report those actions honestly without being smeared as a liar, fraud, traitor or worse, without having his personal life invaded, and without having his career ruined.

  134. 134
    Andrew says:

    But seriously, given Jeffie’s love of slapping people with his private parts, don’t you think he gets a little insecure writing about Matt Sanchez?

    Wait, is Matt Sanchez a dog AND a gay pornstar marine?

  135. 135
    Army Lawyer says:

    The Other Steve:

    **You mean like Abu Ghraib?**

    Yes, I do. Google the following and tell me what you find:

    SPC Charles Graner
    CPL Joshua Lee Betts,
    SSG Ivan Frederick
    SGT Javal Davis
    SPC Jeremy Sivits
    SPC Armin Cruz
    SPC Sabrina Harman
    SPC Megan Ambuhl
    PFC Lynndie England
    SGT Santos Cardona
    SPC Roman Krol
    SGT Michael Smith

    **Doesn’t the WingNet go after those reporting misconduct too?**

    I can’t speak to the “WingNet” or whatever it is you’re talking about.

    **It’s interesting… Torturing prisoners is ok, and is not misconduct. Killing dogs is.**

    See above.

  136. 136
    capelza says:

    timb Says:

    But, we all knew this is how they would spin it. They would find some discrepancy (not like missing physicals for National Guard duty, something really minor) declare it material and say he was a liar.

    Hey, Army lawyer, were you one of the ones hiding the facts about Pat Tillman’s death? You folks have a lot of credibility. I’d rather think enlisted men are running over dogs than Army lawyers (safe from any of those nagging combat missions) are covering up the death of American hero.

    But, that’s just me

    There ya go!

  137. 137
    Xanthippas says:

    Do me (hell, all of us in uniform) a favor, support those soldiers that are able to do their jobs WITHOUT mocking victims of IEDs, intentionally running over stray dogs, or dancing around with human remains on their heads.

    I didn’t realize defending Beauchamp from charges that he’s a liar is supporting soldiers who have issues. Nor did I realize that defending Beauchamp is the same as lumping the majority of decent and honorable soldiers with guys who have issues with corpses, dogs and the disfigured.

    Let’s be clear. Nobody on the left was going around blogging “Oh God, soldiers are insensitive, dog-killing louts this proves the war was wrong and the military is full of indoctrinated nuts just like ANSWER says!” when Beauchamp wrote this stuff. It wasn’t until the right started frothing at the mouth in an effort to discredit his stories and then intimidate him that anybody on the left started “defending” him, correctly as it turns out.

  138. 138
    Wilfred says:

    Army Lawyer says:

    There are far more of us than there are the PFC Beauchamps in the Army.

    I don’t doubt that, so maybe you can shed some light on what happened to the whistle blowers in this case

  139. 139
    Army Lawyer says:

    John:

    I cited specifically to the part which was “factually challenged.” Tossed it in a parenthetical and everything.

    **Additionally, I only feel the need to ‘defend’ him to the extent thatI think people are overreaching to attack him**

    Attacks on him from the milblog community have been limited to (i.e. mostly active and former active duty guys) (1) the veracity of his individual claims and (2) that he is not at all representative of the Army. You say something happened at FOB Falcon, let’s talk to people at FOB Falcon. Etc.

    The “threat to the republic” strawman you invoke is just that.

    Regardless, sufficient doubt was raised to cause TNR to issue a “clarification” of the original story in certain, ultimately noncritical, respects. I think the Iraq/Kuwait distinction is substantive only insofar as it speaks to the general ignorance of those defending him when they talk about the HELL he was going through in a non-combat zone.

  140. 140
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Hey, Army lawyer, were you one of the ones hiding the facts about Pat Tillman’s death? You folks have a lot of credibility. I’d rather think enlisted men are running over dogs than Army lawyers (safe from any of those nagging combat missions) are covering up the death of American hero.**

    I’ve read the DOD IG report re same. Guessing you haven’t.

    But hey, while we’re feeling saucy, tell me what’s on your DD214? Until then, spare me.

  141. 141
    Army Lawyer says:

    **I don’t doubt that, so maybe you can shed some light on what happened to the whistle blowers in this case**

    From that article, nothing happened to the whistleblowers. Allegations were raised, we investigated. To thoroughly investigate, we need to talk to those making the allegations. Relying on Human Rights Watch reports won’t cut it (it’s that whole “hearsay” thing)

  142. 142
    Andrew says:

    But hey, while we’re feeling saucy, tell me what’s on your DD214? Until then, spare me.

    Hey, Cassidy, you’re no longer the biggest dickface asshole around here anymore!

  143. 143
    over_educated says:

    “Attacks on him from the milblog community have been limited to (i.e. mostly active and former active duty guys) (1) the veracity of his individual claims and (2) that he is not at all representative of the Army. You say something happened at FOB Falcon, let’s talk to people at FOB Falcon. Etc.”

    Wait… What?

    Didn’t uncle jimbo etc. say this guy should be beaten with bars of soap wrapped in towels. Didn’t Ace and all say that his release of movement details threatened operational security?

    LOL now all of a sudden its not a big deal? After spending a week trashing this guy you can’t even balls up to admit it?

    I guess I can’t say anything beyond this: you are just a horrible person. When I curse at you its in jest, when I don’t I’m being serious.

  144. 144
    jg says:

    Do me (hell, all of us in uniform) a favor, support those soldiers that are able to do their jobs WITHOUT mocking victims of IEDs, intentionally running over stray dogs, or dancing around with human remains on their heads.

    What does that even mean? How do I ‘support the troops’?

  145. 145
    Army Lawyer says:

    **I didn’t realize defending Beauchamp from charges that he’s a liar is supporting soldiers who have issues.**

    I’ll take it as a victory that you’ve come down from “brave warrior telling truth to power through the internets” to “he’s got issues.”

    **Nor did I realize that defending Beauchamp is the same as lumping the majority of decent and honorable soldiers with guys who have issues with corpses, dogs and the disfigured.**

    You chastise those that don’t much like Beauchamp because we seek to DENY that soldiers do bad things? Sure. Maybe it’s that he’s engaged in some major misconduct and when called on it, those doing the calling get attacked as attempting to “silence” this young Hemmingway? Ok.

    **Let’s be clear. Nobody on the left was going around blogging “Oh God, soldiers are insensitive, dog-killing louts this proves the war was wrong and the military is full of indoctrinated nuts just like ANSWER says!” when Beauchamp wrote this stuff. It wasn’t until the right started frothing at the mouth in an effort to discredit his stories and then intimidate him that anybody on the left started “defending” him, correctly as it turns out.**

    (“killitary” aside) See my comment above re preexisting perceptions. Why proactively defend that which one already agrees with?

  146. 146
    John Cole says:

    I fundamentally disagree with comparisons of Beauchamp and his buddies to the folks at Abu Ghraib.

    It simply is not the same thing, and repeating it (by whichever side is currently repeating it as proof of their argument) does not change anything. As to Beauchamp, if all the events he described are true (somethign that looks increasingly to be the case), then they may be guilty of violating army regs, but at worst, really, it makes them assholes. The folks at Abu Ghraib are a whole different level of wrong, even if they were acting on orders.

    While I do not condone running over dogs with track vehicles or wearing skull frgaments as a yarmulke, I file it under the “shit happens/these things happen in war zones” category. Systemic torture does not fit in that category.

  147. 147
    Tim F. says:

    I’ll take it as a victory that you’ve come down from “brave warrior telling truth to power through the internets” to “he’s got issues.”

    I must have missed the person who said that. Do you have a link?

  148. 148
    jg says:

    But hey, while we’re feeling saucy, tell me what’s on your DD214? Until then, spare me.

    What’s a DD214? Is this some kind of ‘if you haven’t worn a uniform you don’t have any business speaking’ kind of thing?

  149. 149
    tBone says:

    Wow. TallDave, Sherard, BumperStickerist, cordially Rick . . . that AoS thread is like a retirement home for failed BJ spoofs.

    That thread also informed me that the cesspool of DU-like moonbat lunatic commenters here are notoriously anti-Semitic. And since John is a self-righteous partisan asshole who panders to/was brainwashed by said commenters, I can only conclude that John hates Jewish people, and really, really hates conservative Jewish Marines who happened to make a few gay porn films in their youth. And that, my friends, is why Balloon Juice doesn’t get any traffic.

    Take that, Cole!

  150. 150
    John Cole says:

    DD Form 214 is the document that chronicles your service that you are given when you are discharged.

  151. 151
    Army Lawyer says:

    By all accounts, Beauchamp and his friends engaged in potentially criminal misconduct. (Article 92 violations galore at first blush)

    My reference to Abu Grahib was in response to the implicit allegation that the Army cares about investigating/prosecuting the Beauchamps but not those responsible for Abu Grahib.

    That is patently false and my post above indicates such.

  152. 152
    Pug says:

    ..so they directed their investigation into his personal affairs primarily

    Making gay porn films is a private matter? Did he intend for them to be shown only to a few close friends?

    I wonder if Leo DiCaprio believed “Blood Diamonds” was just a private matter when it was released. I would assume the same standard would apply to “Tijuana Toilet Tramps” starring Rod Majors.

  153. 153
    jg says:

    jg Says:

    What’s a DD214? Is this some kind of ‘if you haven’t worn a uniform you don’t have any business speaking’ kind of thing?

    John Cole Says:

    DD Form 214 is the document that chronicles your service that you are given when you are discharged.

    So then it is a ‘not in uniform then bite me’ type of blowoff. Is it ironic if I quote Dick Cheney and tell him to go fuck himself?

  154. 154
    Army Lawyer says:

    **What’s a DD214? Is this some kind of ‘if you haven’t worn a uniform you don’t have any business speaking’ kind of thing?**

    No, timb can speak all he wants, but his statements of what what my (and like officers) duties entail should be given the weight they deserve.

  155. 155
    Army Lawyer says:

    Tim F:

    See Xanthippas’ reply regarding “loyalty.”

  156. 156
    John Cole says:

    Wow. TallDave, Sherard, BumperStickerist, cordially Rick . . . that AoS thread is like a retirement home for failed BJ spoofs.

    That thread also informed me that the cesspool of DU-like moonbat lunatic commenters here are notoriously anti-Semitic. And since John is a self-righteous partisan asshole who panders to/was brainwashed by said commenters, I can only conclude that John hates Jewish people, and really, really hates conservative Jewish Marines who happened to make a few gay porn films in their youth. And that, my friends, is why Balloon Juice doesn’t get any traffic.

    I haven’t read the comments (I read about half the post and thought ‘he has nothing to say’ and moved on), because really, I don’t need to. Let me guess- each one of them used to read me back when I was sane, and each own had one personal event in which it was proven I was too far gone to be rescued.

    At some point, several people will claim I am just pandering to the left for traffic, and someone will claim I was converted by the commenters here, and inevitably, at some point, someone will claim I am just trying to curry favor with the Kos Kids (five approving links from Kos and you get a backpack!).

    Speaking of which, those ungrateful bastards- all this favor currying and I didn’t get a free ticket to the Yearly Kos.

  157. 157
    Army Lawyer says:

    **What does that even mean? How do I ‘support the troops’?**

    I don’t know you so I can’t say whether you do or not. But start by not defending those that commit misconduct.

  158. 158
    that dude from welcome back kotter says:

    He said, “Cheney is a Chickenhawk”!

  159. 159
    capelza says:

    But hey, while we’re feeling saucy, tell me what’s on your DD214? Until then, spare me.

    [quote]
    You can’t handle the truth!
    [/quote]

    Though on reconsideration it’s more like this.

    [quote]
    Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…
    [/quote]

  160. 160
    jg says:

    Army Lawyer Says:

    What’s a DD214? Is this some kind of ‘if you haven’t worn a uniform you don’t have any business speaking’ kind of thing?

    No, timb can speak all he wants, but his statements of what what my (and like officers) duties entail should be given the weight they deserve.

    And what weight is that? Is it inconceivable that a civilian would have a clue what your duties are or should be?

  161. 161
    Formerly Wu says:

    I don’t know you so I can’t say whether you do or not. But start by not defending those that commit misconduct.

    Ok, if you agree not to attack soldiers as liars in the absence of corroborating evidence, then we’ve got a deal.

  162. 162
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Didn’t uncle jimbo etc. say this guy should be beaten with bars of soap wrapped in towels.**

    Maybe. I didn’t see it. Regardless, that’s not an attack on Beauchamp (to be flippant, it’s a recommendation of an attack on him). It’s an opinion of the man. The attack would be “he should be beaten with hoses BECAUSE of [xyz]”

    **Didn’t Ace and all say that his release of movement details threatened operational security?**

    Ace is not a milblogger. That being said, are you contending OPSEC is somehow an invalid concern?

    **LOL now all of a sudden its not a big deal? After spending a week trashing this guy you can’t even balls up to admit it?**

    Admit which part? Beauchamp alleged that he and his buddies engaged in some serious misconduct. The lines of contention were (1) this is not likely true, and (2) if true, is not representative of the Army and only makes him a shitbag.

    **I guess I can’t say anything beyond this: you are just a horrible person. When I curse at you its in jest, when I don’t I’m being serious.**

    Maybe I can laugh at an IED victim and you’ll forgive me?

  163. 163
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Ok, if you agree not to attack soldiers as liars in the absence of corroborating evidence, then we’ve got a deal.**

    In the absence of corraborating evidence is PRECISELY when I’ll attack them as a liar.

    But as I never accused Beauchamp of lying, I’ve fulfilled my end of this bargain.

  164. 164
    Tim F. says:

    See Xanthippas’ reply regarding “loyalty.”

    Assuming that you mean this comment, it does not sound to me as though he particularly interested Beauchamp at all. Rather the topic seems to be the motivations of you and others like you who reacted to his stories hysterically out of proportion to what they actually contain.

    In fact I find it highly amusing that you bring up abu Ghraib as an illustrative case. Do you know how much good proper-channel complaints did in that case? Zilch. Complaints were summarily dumped in the circular file until someone got a CD with pictures to the media. The military had to be shamed into acting.

    So actually, if you want to say that Beauchamp should have learned the lessons of abu Ghraib, well, I would say that he did.

  165. 165
    Army Lawyer says:

    **And what weight is that?**

    Weight commensurate with their knowledge and experience.

    **Is it inconceivable that a civilian would have a clue what your duties are or should be?**

    No, it’s not. It is less likely, however. And having seen timb’s comments, I’m fairly confident in ascribing to him an appropriate degree of knowledge and experience to know what a JAG officer does.

  166. 166
    capelza says:

    Maybe I can laugh at an IED victim and you’ll forgive me?

    No, I’d smack you upside the head, but act like it is representative of the military, no. Or demand action because some kids were being stupid in a war zone? No.

    Now if he wrote about rape and murder of said IED victim, if they physically assaulted her, or cornered her and hazed her then yes, but laughing at her, wherever they were. No, as a mother, I’d, again give ’em a good thunking with my thumb and forefinger and tell them to cut that shit out.

    But I would not spens days saying the guy didn’t exist, then that he was a liar, then tracking down his fiancee/wife… publishing their wedding registry, etc.

    Or moving the goalposts whenever the last “theory was proven wrong. You may not have been part of any of this, but THAT is the point Cole has been making. Pay attention!

  167. 167
    jg says:

    Army Lawyer Says:

    What does that even mean? How do I ‘support the troops’?

    I don’t know you so I can’t say whether you do or not. But start by not defending those that commit misconduct.

    That’s supporting the troops? Crimestop?

    Would you consider it an act of supporting the troops if one were to write a letter to Pollack and O’Hanlon asking why they write obvious bullshit about the situation in Iraq? Take this from the perspective of someone who wants the war to end so the troops can come home and who feels that glowing puff pieces will just prolong the war. Would that be an example of supporting the troops in your opinion?

  168. 168
    RSA says:

    But start by not defending those that commit misconduct.

    Was Rush Limbaugh excoriated on rightwing or military blogs for describing Abu Ghraib as fraternity pranks? I seem to recall there was a lot of dismissive talk on the right about that situation.

  169. 169
    MAX HATS says:

    Army Lawyer said:

    Some pompous PFC writing his ‘mindthoughts’ about how and his dumbass little buddies engage in potentially criminal misconduct doesn’t “inform the public” of anything beyond the fact that they, and they alone, are assholes.

    Sir, if you are really an army lawyer, I must comment that I find it somewhat disturbing the esteem you seem to hold enlisted men in. Respectfully, sir, it seems you are as offended by the act of a PFC writing as you are by the “potentially criminal behavior.” Perhaps I misread the quoted passage above.

  170. 170
    jg says:

    Army Lawyer Says:

    Didn’t Ace and all say that his release of movement details threatened operational security?

    Ace is not a milblogger. That being said, are you contending OPSEC is somehow an invalid concern?

    I used to think it was until the SURGE was conceived at a Kagan family reunion. Now it seems we can discuss troop levels, movements, locations and tactics, all on cable tv. Just not if its regarding a withdrawal though. If we talked about that the enemy might find the info useful. Surge info is of course completley ignored buy our enemies, whoever they may be this week. (Are we mad at the Iran-backed Shia or the Saudi-backed Sunni right now?)

  171. 171
    Pb says:

    But hey, while we’re feeling saucy, tell me what’s on your DD214? Until then, spare me.

    Can someone tell me what’s on George W. Bush’s DD214? No? Then I guess we don’t have to pay attention to him anymore either…

  172. 172
    Formerly Wu says:

    In the absence of corraborating evidence is PRECISELY when I’ll attack them as a liar.

    Unfortunately for your position, we do not function under British libel laws, where the burden of proof is on the victim to prove that they’re not lying. Beauchamp’s account was fact-checked and published in a national magazine; thus it is on the accuser’s head to prove that it is fraudulent.

    But as I never accused Beauchamp of lying, I’ve fulfilled my end of this bargain.

    But you are defending people who did. Which, according to your own logic regarding our defense of Beauchamp, is the same thing.

  173. 173
    Army Lawyer says:

    I did not raise Abu Grahib. Someone else did in an lame attempt to suggest that the Army gives a pass to such misconduct.

    **Do you know how much good proper-channel complaints did in that case? Zilch. Complaints were summarily dumped in the circular file until someone got a CD with pictures to the media. The military had to be shamed into acting.**

    100% Wrong.

    On 13 JAN 2004, an MP gave CID a CD of the pictures/videos. On 19 JAN 2004 a request to appoint an IO was made to CENTCOM. On 24 JAN, CFLCC was ordered to appoint an IO. On 31 JAN 2004 MG Taguba was appointed investigating officer.

    A whole 18 days after disclosure of the CD.

  174. 174
    over_educated says:

    “AThe lines of contention were (1) this is not likely true, and (2) if true, is not representative of the Army and only makes him a shitbag.”

    No, they weren’t. Maybe on your minor circulation blog (whee!!! look at me I’m Ace of Spades!!!) but practically every other blog out there were calling for this dudes head, digging into his personal life, calling for actual physical attacks.

    Don’t come on here acting like your pissant blog was representative of the vitriol most of the larger wingnut bloggers and milbloggers were spewing at Beauchamp. YOU may have made those assertions, but they were certainly not representative of the right side of the blogosphere as a whole.

  175. 175
    Pb says:

    all this favor currying and I didn’t get a free ticket to the Yearly Kos

    Not to mention the plane tickets, hotel costs, etc., etc. Incidentally, YKSL is way cheaper, and far dorkier!

  176. 176
    Army Lawyer says:

    MAX HATS:

    **Sir, if you are really an army lawyer, I must comment that I find it somewhat disturbing the esteem you seem to hold enlisted men in. Respectfully, sir, it seems you are as offended by the act of a PFC writing as you are by the “potentially criminal behavior.” Perhaps I misread the quoted passage above.**

    No, it’s the misconduct.

  177. 177
    over_educated says:

    “No, it’s the misconduct.”

    Thank god a man of your character and moral rectitude has decided to take a stand against inappropriate jokes and dog-slaying everywhere. Perhaps you should spend your time in theater, prosecuting poor behavior all throughout the military. You could be the Dolores Umbridge of the ARMY. Go now! For the good of the country!

  178. 178
    Army Lawyer says:

    **but practically every other blog out there were calling for this dudes head, digging into his personal life, calling for actual physical attacks**

    “Practically every other blog…”

    Number of milblogs to which you’ve cited to in support of that contention: 1

    Is the fact that he was married to a TNR staffer relevant? Only insofar as it suggests why TNR was willing to print his particular pieces. It’s of tangential relevance at best.

  179. 179
    cleek says:

    No, it’s the misconduct.

    when did you complete your investigation ?

  180. 180
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Unfortunately for your position, we do not function under British libel laws, where the burden of proof is on the victim to prove that they’re not lying. Beauchamp’s account was fact-checked and published in a national magazine; thus it is on the accuser’s head to prove that it is fraudulent.**

    As soon as we enter a civil court, this will matter. Until then, not so much.

    **But you are defending people who did. Which, according to your own logic regarding our defense of Beauchamp, is the same thing.**

    Might wanna try that logic again.

  181. 181
    Army Lawyer says:

    **when did you complete your investigation ?**

    I have not investigated a thing. Merely taking him at his word. Based on what he says, it’s certainly misconduct and in my opinion, “potentially criminal behavior.” But the determination of disposition is not mine to make.

  182. 182
    cleek says:

    I have not investigated a thing.

    get back to us when you have.

  183. 183
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Perhaps you should spend your time in theater, prosecuting poor behavior all throughout the military.**

    Ummm…that is what I do. Why you seem to think that this is merely some sort of Emily Post question of etiquette is, at the least, odd.

  184. 184
    over_educated says:

    “Number of milblogs to which you’ve cited to in support of that contention: 1”

    Well lets see shall we:

    Confederate Yankee
    Blackfive
    Ace of Spades

    How many exactly do you want me to find? Those were the most quoted…

    And don’t even get me started on the right wing malkin blogs etc…

    And let me also add that I don’t think folks were going after milblogs so much as the right wing milblogs and right wing blogs.

    You can come here and make your cute Clinton “it depends on what the definition of a milblog is” defense, but the fact of the matter is the right wing blogosphere (and right wing milblogs) went apeshit on this story and Scott Beauchamp last week and stating as fact that his story “could not be true.” (Hell scroll up you will find folks doing that IN THIS THREAD JACKASS!!!)

    To suggest otherwise indicates you are either a liar or a fool.

  185. 185
    Army Lawyer says:

    **get back to us when you have.**

    What an odd statement. I presume you want me to believe Beauchamp. Ok, I do. Now you want to somehow argue that cornering a Bradley to intentionally kill stray dogs is proper? Or that parading around with a fragment of a child’s skull is something OTHER than misconduct?

  186. 186
    over_educated says:

    “Ummm…that is what I do. Why you seem to think that this is merely some sort of Emily Post question of etiquette is, at the least, odd.’

    And your contention that this rises to the level of Abu Graib like abuses isn’t?

  187. 187
    grh says:

    I must say, I’m not too impressed with military lawyers who muse wistfully about what it would be like if members of congress he doesn’t like could be “punished by death.”

    I’m also not impressed with ANY lawyer who can’t actually understand what laws say.

  188. 188
    Tim F. says:

    I did not raise Abu Grahib.

    Ah, I stand corrected. Long thread.

    100% Wrong.

    On 13 JAN 2004, an MP gave CID a CD of the pictures/videos. On 19 JAN 2004 a request to appoint an IO was made to CENTCOM. On 24 JAN, CFLCC was ordered to appoint an IO. On 31 JAN 2004 MG Taguba was appointed investigating officer.

    A whole 18 days after disclosure of the CD.

    You have correctly laid out the process that led to Taguba writing his famous report. So what happened after Taguba wrote his report? Why not ask Taguba. His report disappeared into the aether until the pics embarrassed the military into acting. Rumsfeld’s defense, you’ll recall, was that he never read the report and had no idea what was going on in his prisons. When did the first prosecutions over abu Ghraib begin? Honestly, I forget. Tell me that they got underway before the media made it politically impossible not to.

  189. 189
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Confederate Yankee
    Blackfive
    Ace of Spades**

    Again, only Blackfive is a milblog (active or former active duty). Merely writing about the war doesn’t make it a milblog. Hell, head on over to Mudville or Milbogs or OPFOR to get an idea of how the bulk of mibloggers think on this issue.

    From this very post:

    **He was such a threat that every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set phasers on smear, and hysteria reached a fevered pitch in no time.**

    Every kind of means all…not much distinction there…

  190. 190
    over_educated says:

    “Now you want to somehow argue that cornering a Bradley to intentionally kill stray dogs is proper? Or that parading around with a fragment of a child’s skull is something OTHER than misconduct?”

    No one is saying it isn’t. is it bad? yes. Is it as bad as Abu Graib? No. Does it have a thing to do with the personal attacks on Scott Beauchamp hurled at him from the right wing blogosphere? No. Is this sudden concern about skull-wearing and dog-slaying from a bunch of folks who think Abu ghraib was perfectly acceptable (i.e. many right wing bloggers)and who support a more lenient torture policy totally disingenuous? Hmm… survey says yes.

  191. 191
    Marine Corps Proctologist says:

    Well, this has certainly gotten silly.

    But I have a question for our Army Lawyer.

    Name and rank. Or are you really a lawyer? In the Army?

    Should I ask Mr. Sanchez to confirm this?

  192. 192
    over_educated says:

    “Merely writing about the war doesn’t make it a milblog.”

    Hmmm.. no

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warblog

    “A warblog or milblog is a weblog devoted mostly or wholly to covering news events concerning an ongoing war. Sometimes the use of the term “warblog” implies that the blog concerned has a pro-war slant.”

  193. 193
    Army Lawyer says:

    Tim F:

    Again, you’re wrong. The report was finished on 3 MAR 2004. The first media reports came a month later in April 2004. The first courts-martial began in May 2004.

  194. 194
    over_educated says:

    Oops,wait…

    “These blogs are written by serving or retired military personnel, or have members on their team blog that fit this description.’

    I’m sorry, we should have been using the term Warblogs. Well, I guess that semantic difference shows that Scott Beauchamp is, indeed in Al Quaeda.

  195. 195
    Army Lawyer says:

    **Does it have a thing to do with the personal attacks on Scott Beauchamp hurled at him from the right wing blogosphere? No. Is this sudden concern about skull-wearing and dog-slaying from a bunch of folks who think Abu ghraib was perfectly acceptable (i.e. many right wing bloggers)and who support a more lenient torture policy totally disingenuous? Hmm… survey says yes.**

    Not talking about “many right wing bloggers.” Talking about military bloggers. I.E. soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines. Active or former.

    And yes, those that engage in misconduct DESERVE ridicule and personal attacks. This isn’t a policy dispute whereby ad hominem attacks are unjustified rhetorical techniques.

    If he’s a liar, he deserves condemnation for being a liar.

    If he would mock a victim of an IED and condone desecration of human remains, then he deserves derision and attacks on his character for that.

    Attacks against the person are appropriate because someone that commits such misconduct is quite simply, a BAD person.

  196. 196
    cleek says:

    I presume you want me to believe Beauchamp.

    believe what you like. whatever goes on in your head is your own business. but, it’d be nice if you could at least put up a facade of honoring the idea that Investigation Precedes Judgment, and not the other way around – especially since you’re in a position where you could potentially end up representing someone like Beauchamp.

    Now you want to somehow argue that cornering a Bradley to intentionally kill stray dogs is proper? Or that parading around with a fragment of a child’s skull is something OTHER than misconduct?

    as soon as you stop pretending like this is all about Beauchamp, since he wasn’t the only person there, i’ll consider the possibility that you’re interested in The Rules and not out for partisan sniping.

  197. 197
    John Cole says:

    Could you please start blockquoting things, army lawyer?

    At any rate, as a former NCO, I probably would have slapped him upside the head and had him knock off the behavior had I seen him or his buddies doing this shit, but the notion that I would prosecute them for warcrimes or elevate this crap up the chain of command is absurd.

  198. 198
    tBone says:

    Let me guess- each one of them used to read me back when I was sane, and each own had one personal event in which it was proven I was too far gone to be rescued.

    At some point, several people will claim I am just pandering to the left for traffic, and someone will claim I was converted by the commenters here, and inevitably, at some point, someone will claim I am just trying to curry favor with the Kos Kids (five approving links from Kos and you get a backpack!).

    Very, very close, but you missed the part where Jimmie said:

    I’d rather take one up the wahoo from a syphlitic Rottweiler than linkwhore from him

    What is it with these guys and dogs, anyway?

  199. 199
    Tsulagi says:

    Max Hats questions the esteem Army Lawyer may have for enlisted infantrymen by block quoting this…

    Some pompous PFC writing his ‘mindthoughts’ about how and his dumbass little buddies engage in potentially criminal misconduct doesn’t “inform the public” of anything beyond the fact that they, and they alone, are assholes.

    To which Army Lawyer responds Max got it wrong, he’s only speaking to the misconduct.

    Don’t doubt that at all. So let’s try this…

    Some pompous pogue with bars or oak leafs on his collars writing his ‘mindthoughts’ about how he and his dumbass little pogue buddies in air conditioned splendor stateside should engage in seeking prosecution of infantrymen’s monumental sins in a war zone like running over dogs and un-PC behavior doesn’t “inform the public” of anything beyond the fact that they, and they alone, are assholes.

    See Max? Army Lawyer gets plenty of esteem in that passage.

  200. 200
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Regarding the extent to which the military has been frantically choking off investigations of the culpability of any higher-ups in Abu Ghraib, or in other (frequent) similar atrocities: just check Andrew Sullivan’s entries on the subject over the last 3 years. He has a very, very impressive file on the subject, I assure you.

    How many of you remember “Captain Nice”, a very funny superhero spoof (created by Buck Henry) that lasted only 13 episodes back in 1967? In one episode, the city’s new bridge is about to be christened by the city’s oldest inhabitant with a bottle of champagne. After being forcibly dissuaded from taking a swig out of the bottle, she breaks it over the railing — whereupon a 6-foot section of railing immediately breaks off and falls into the river (because, as it later turns out, the crooked contractors had mixed their concrete with oatmeal). Captain Nice (in his secret identity as municipal employee Carter Nash): “Your honor, this is outrageous! You’ve got to apprehend whoever is responsible for this!” Mayor, puffing himself up: “Nash, you’re right. Officers, arrest that little old lady!”

    One runs into Arrest That Little Old Lady situations very frequently, but Abu Ghraib is definitely one of the more spectacular ones.

  201. 201
    Army Lawyer says:

    Please, this is FG NJP at least.

    But that you as an NCO would have done this is what made his stories all the more incredible. Because it is so clearly improper behavior. Presumably SOMEONE would have seen it and SOMEONE would have “slapped him upside the head and had him knock off the behavior.”

    That that didn’t happen rendered the reports suspect.

  202. 202
    grh says:

    Army Lawyer:

    And yes, those that engage in misconduct DESERVE ridicule and personal attacks. This isn’t a policy dispute whereby ad hominem attacks are unjustified rhetorical techniques.

    Huh. That sounds to me like Finnish moralizing.

  203. 203
    Army Lawyer says:

    Tsulagi:

    I actually argue for harsher sentences for NCOs and Officers than I ever do for junior enlisted.

    That doesn’t make the conduct any less of what it is.

  204. 204
    jg says:

    Army Lawyer Says:

    Please, this is FG NJP at least.

    But that you as an NCO would have done this is what made his stories all the more incredible. Because it is so clearly improper behavior. Presumably SOMEONE would have seen it and SOMEONE would have “slapped him upside the head and had him knock off the behavior.”

    That that didn’t happen rendered the reports suspect.

    You can’t be serious. How do you know that didn’t happen? Did your investigation uncover that his NCO is just like John? Is it possible the NCO, after years of fun in the Iraqi sun, just didn’t give a shit anymore and let his charges blow off some steam?

  205. 205
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    “But that you as an NCO would have done this is what made his stories all the more incredible. Because it is so clearly improper behavior. Presumably SOMEONE would have seen it and SOMEONE would have ‘slapped him upside the head and had him knock off the behavior.’ That that didn’t happen rendered the reports suspect.”

    Abu Ghraib…

  206. 206
    Wilfred says:

    What’s a DD214? Is this some kind of ‘if you haven’t worn a uniform you don’t have any business speaking’ kind of thing?

    No, timb can speak all he wants, but his statements of what what my (and like officers) duties entail should be given the weight they deserve.

    I’ve got my 214 right in front of me. Minus a few blocks, ask me any questions you want (can’t make out the numbers or lettering in some), Army lawyer, as long you let me ask you some. BTW John Cole, I’ve been up Fulda way, but some years before you.

  207. 207
    Oregon Guy says:

    Army Lawyer:

    I too, am a member of our fine service, on the enlisted side of the house. And I too, know a thing or three about the UCMJ.

    You say this, which by my reading has gone thus far unexamined:

    He is still a prig who has (by his own admission) engaged in serious misconduct. And you feel the need to defend him.

    Stand and deliver, Sir.

    What articles has PFC Beauchamp violated? (and if you have to jump straight to the general article then you suck)

    What I see are the following:

    PFC Beauchamp said some dickish things about a woman in the DFAC in Kuwait. That makes him a dick. No UCMJ there.

    PFC Beauchamp witnessed another soldier manuver his Bradley in such a way that he sideswiped and killed some dogs. You might be able to stretch and get him for failure to report or ROE or some such crap, but it would be a major-league stretch and you would be a serious jerk if you did.

    PFC Beauchamp witnessed another soldier remove body parts from a grave site. Again, failure to report (what Article is that again, Sir?) I know how you *could* prosecute it, do you? But I don’t really see PFC Beauchamp having any legal liability therefrom.

    PFC Beauchamp witnessed another soldier (let’s use the worst terms possible) desecrating the body of a dead person who may or may not have been a combatant. Specifically, he used his MRE spoon to pretend he was eating brains from the dead person’s skull. So PFC Beauchamp’s UCMJ liability is… exactly?

    (starting to sense a pattern here, Sir?)

    Oh, but PFC Beauchamp wrote a blog – and he also wrote for the TNR blog – most likely without the permission of his S2 in violation of the CENTCOM directive regarding blogging in theater. Article 92. I’d be real interested to see a Joe refuse an Article 15 based on AR 530-1, wouldn’t you? Especially one who was blogging for a major magazine in DC. You know, where the Washington Post might eventually find out. That case would have “Military Court of Appeals” written all over it, donchathink?

    Do me (hell, all of us in uniform) a favor, support those soldiers that are able to do their jobs WITHOUT mocking victims of IEDs, intentionally running over stray dogs, or dancing around with human remains on their heads.

    Do me a favor, Sir. Unless you were a Joe yourself at some point, please don’t lecture ANYONE about what it means to be a soldier. If you’re a typical JAGC captain, that means you went to law school, dropped a JAGC application in the hopper like you were applying to grad school, and they said “sure.” Then you went to what, Fort Lee for a week or two so you knew who to salute and whom to return salutes to… and maybe they showed you a rusty M16. Then you went to that citadel of soldiers – The University of Virginia at Charlottesville where they taught you the rudiments of Military Justice. Then maybe a little real-live field training (6 weeks) if you came in recently.

    BAMMO! 8 months and you were a 1LT! Never even had to wear the butter-bar! Good stuff, Sir… good stuff. 6 months in a Claims office or a Legal Assistance office somewhere and you get to pin on O-3… even better.

    Then you got to start screwing over Joe. Because a solid 50% of UCMJ violations result from NCO’s with power trips and grudges.

    90% of the Army exists at squad level or below – and unless you were ever enlisted that is a world you simply do not understand. I don’t care if you’ve been to Iraq or Afghanistan – the typical JAGC CPT experience is a lot of helo trips and fairly comfortable living.

    PFC Beauchamp’s biggest sin was ratting out his buddies if they didn’t know he was blogging. Fact is -stupid shit happens in war zones all the time. And yes, we hit dogs, I’ve heard of guys hitting hajjis (I’ve seen them ram their cars when they didn’t need to – just to, you know, “make a point”), fuck around, and have a generally sick sense of humor that is a little beyond twisted.

    I’m not defending what happened (allegedly) in Beauchamp’s unit. But none of that behavior was “beyond the pale,” and if he went to higher to bitch about that crap he would be the biggest bitch of all.

    Besides, most likely the idiot PL probably knew about the crap and was too scared of his Joes to say anything, or he said something to his CO and was told that it just showed “good motvation” or some other dumbass O3-speak.

    And if you were ever a Joe, you sure as fuck wouldn’t talk like that.

  208. 208
  209. 209
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    What’s really fascinating about this whole case (as numerous people besides me have pointed out, including Cole) is its Tempest In A Teacup nature. It really is true that not one word in Beauchamp’s story does anything whatsoever to hint that this war isn’t completely justified. Such incidents have surely also taken place in every single war the US (or any other nation) has ever been involved in, including WW II and the Civil War.

    So: just because the 101st Fighting Keyboarders decided to act like a bunch of Victorian maiden aunts confronted with a mouse at the Very Idea that any of Our Boys could EVER do such disreputable things (see: Abu Ghraib…), the whole affair has gotten tremendously more coverage than it otherwise would have. (Granted that this also leaves the question of why TNR thought the story was worth publishing in the first place — but then, as Matt Yglesias has pointed out, TNR’s status as an “anti-Iraq War” publication is, er, somewhat questionable.)

  210. 210
    brock o. baum says:

    Hey…just a minute here…didn’t Foer say over a week ago that he “had confirmed the woman”?

    Was that a lie, or obfuscation?

  211. 211
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    In response to Oregon Guy: See “Left Rudder’s” exclusive (linked to a few entries before yours) on “Army Lawyer’s” background. You got the state wrong. Otherwise, you’re bang on target.

  212. 212

    The guy who turned in the cd with the pictures from Abu Ghraib was not able to return to his hometown when he came back from Iraq. Why? The Army determined it was too dangerous for him and his wife to live there.

    They live in anonimity — even from some family members — because so many have threatened to kill them. Why? Because he turned the CD in to the authorities.

    Can any of the army people here explain that to me?

  213. 213
    brock o. baum says:

    Hmmm…ain’t it curious that the melty-face woman incident NOW appears to have happened in Kuwait, not Iraq, after Matt Sanchez’ looked into it?

    Just coincidence… right John Cole?

    (I know..Sanchez is a liar cuz he did some gay stuff about 15 years ago)

  214. 214
    Oregon Guy says:

    “Stop Snitching” – Its not just for the hip-hop crowd.

  215. 215
    cleek says:

    ain’t it curious that the melty-face woman incident NOW appears to have happened in Kuwait, not Iraq, after Matt Sanchez’ looked into it?

    not really. and what does it matter anyway ? how is it relevant ?

    Sanchez is a liar cuz he did some gay stuff about 15 years ago

    no, he’s a liar because he lied to the Marine Corps.

  216. 216
    John Cole says:

    Hmmm…ain’t it curious that the melty-face woman incident NOW appears to have happened in Kuwait, not Iraq, after Matt Sanchez’ looked into it?

    post hoc ergo propter hoc – the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation

  217. 217
    Tsulagi says:

    In response to Oregon Guy: See “Left Rudder’s” exclusive (linked to a few entries before yours) on “Army Lawyer’s” background.

    I just saw that. A 2LT? In JAGC? LOL. Seems someone hasn’t mastered wiping their ass.

  218. 218
    Oregon Guy says:

    There are no 2LT’s in JAG. They pin on 1LT when they get their direct commissions. So I’m not sure Left Rudder is correct.

  219. 219
    brock o. baum says:

    not really. and what does it matter anyway ? how is it relevant ?

    It’s the beginning of the unraveling

    no, he’s a liar because he lied to the Marine Corps.

    Is that right? Show me where that has been decided. The atricle says the investigation is wrapping up, let’s wait and see, shall we?

  220. 220
    John Cole says:

    There are no 2LT’s in JAG. They pin on 1LT when they get their direct commissions. So I’m not sure Left Rudder is correct.

    I don’t care if it is correct or not, he wants to blog anonymously, and I think it is wrong to try to “out” him. just because his side of the debate likes outing people and smearing them doesn’t make it right or acceptable to do the same to him. I have deleted the offending trackback.

  221. 221
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Actually, the relevant fact in the Disfigured Woman Incident is that TNR got corroborative testimony from three other (non-anonymous) soldiers who claimed to have witnessed and even taken part in the same business, and said that Beauchamp got every detail right EXCEPT that it happened in Kuwait. Only then did they contact Beauchamp, who agreed that he’d been wrong about the location.

  222. 222
    Tsulagi says:

    There are no 2LT’s in JAG. They pin on 1LT when they get their direct commissions.

    That’s what I thought. That 1LT was the lowest rank for a JAG officer. Unless it’s changed. Or, if Left Rudder is correct, maybe Army Lawyer committed a faux pas?

  223. 223
    binzinerator says:

    No, timb can speak all he wants, but his statements of what what my (and like officers) duties entail should be given the weight they deserve.

    Yup, jg, it’s a ‘if you’re not in uniform then bite me’ type of blowoff. It’s just been rephrased in a fuckin’ lawyer-ese version of ‘bite me again’.

    Say, Army Lawyer, are you in fact serving and furthering a preemptive war that Bush and Cheney and his neocon criminals started based on a pretext of lies?

    Tell me why the US invasion of Iraq is different from that of Poland in 1939, or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Why is Bush’s strategy regarding Iraq different from that of imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor?

    Explain to us non-DD214s the reason to invade Iraq. Please account as well for the ever-evolving ever-evaporating casus belli for Iraq: WMD’s, mushroom clouds and drone planes, 9/11 sponsor, Al Qaeda base, harboring terrorists, Saddam is sooo evil therefore we must Do The Right Thing, democracy brought to the ragheads on the end of a gun barrel for their own stinkin’ good, and recently in a bid for the gullible and the knee-jerkers — and my own personal fave for demonstrating circular wingnut logic — more blood must be sacrificed so that it won’t cheapen that already sacrificed.

    Wait, I forgot now that your commander in chief insists Al Qaeda of Iraq is the same guys as who flew into the trade center, and we finally at long last have our justification. Well shucks. We just had to wait long enough for the Saudi Arabian bin Laden to slip in from Pakistan by way of Tora Bora Afganistan, that’s all.

    Also, please explain to me and other know-nothing DD214s exactly what your duties entail.

    Explain to me as a lawyer what ‘duty’ entails — and the extent of your own personal responsibility — if you are ordered to do something or be a part of something illegal.

    I’d say being part of a preemptive war (the greatest war crime) is far worse than the misconduct of running over a few dogs. Explain to me why such duty is deserving of being given the respect (the ‘weight’) you think it should be given.

    I don’t support the troops. Why the hell would I want to offer support to people who insist on furthering a war crime? Get our troops the fuck home.

    Screw this ‘support the troops’ sentiment. Because it really means ‘support the Iraq war’. Fuck the war. Our troops belong out of Iraq.

    Which ironically is the best support anyone can give the troops. Even if you don’t want it, Army Lawyer.

    Bite me, indeed.

    ps. So sorry. I believe I said ‘military stupidity’ earlier. That was redundant of me.

  224. 224
    Oregon Guy says:

    John – Agreed. Hell… I’ll probably be “outed” now too.

    ;P

  225. 225
    binzinerator says:

    Gosh, I guess I didn’t say ‘military stupidity’ in my previous comment. So no redundancy, no need to apologize.

  226. 226
    Tsulagi says:

    I don’t care if it is correct or not, he wants to blog anonymously, and I think it is wrong to try to “out” him.

    I’d go with that.

  227. 227

    I’m not defending what happened (allegedly) in Beauchamp’s unit. But none of that behavior was “beyond the pale,” and if he went to higher to bitch about that crap he would be the biggest bitch of all.

    That’s still the oddest aspect of this whole thing. Nobody really paid attention to the article until a bunch of whiners started bitching about it.

    Upon reading it, it wasn’t that startling. I didn’t quite understand the point of writing it. Actually I thought the zombie dogs one was a better story.

    But it also didn’t make a whole lot of sense to attack it.

    I mean hell, I just watched Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima last night, and the US soldiers were potrayed shooting prisoners.

    Is the “milblog” world going to claim these movies are anti-American?

  228. 228

    Hmmm…ain’t it curious that the melty-face woman incident NOW appears to have happened in Kuwait, not Iraq, after Matt Sanchez’ looked into it?

    Just coincidence… right John Cole?

    I’m curious. What were you guys trying to prove with that?

  229. 229
    cleek says:

    Is that right? Show me where that has been decided.

    he was prostituting himself as late as 2004. he joined the Marine Reserve in 2003.

    let’s wait and see, shall we?

    mm k.

    and shall we apply the same philosophy to Beauchamp, yes ?

  230. 230
    brock o. baum says:

    post hoc ergo propter hoc – the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation

    Did I read somewhere that you teach rhetoric at the university level? That would be surprising if true, because you are claiming a logical fallacy where one does not exist.

    Post hoc implies an interrelationship of two disparate events. This situation is none of the sort.

    The story was that the melty-face woman incident ocurred in Iraq. This was fact-checked by Foer. He had spoke with STB several times. He dug deep. Foer, indeed, said that he had “confirmed the woman”.

    Only after it had been established through campusing surveys by outside sources that no other individual had seen this woman at FOB Falcon that the stage had shifted to Kuwait…and nine months earlier.

    Yeah, there’s causation there.

    Your argument is almost a Straw Man…i said almost

  231. 231
    brock o. baum says:

    post hoc ergo propter hoc – the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation

    Did I read somewhere that you teach rhetoric at the university level? That would be surprising if true, because you are claiming a logical fallacy where one does not exist.

    Post hoc implies an interrelationship of two disparate events. This situation is none of the sort.

    The story was that the melty-face woman incident ocurred in Iraq. This was fact-checked by Foer. He had spoke with STB several times. He dug deep. Foer, indeed, said that he had “confirmed the woman”.

    Only after it had been established through campusing surveys by outside sources that no other individual had seen this woman at FOB Falcon that the stage had shifted to Kuwait…and nine months earlier.

    Yeah, there’s causation there.

    Your argument is almost a Straw Man…i said almost

  232. 232
    HyperIon says:

    so i guess John Cole will not be defending his good buddy Goldstein anymore. chalk up ANOTHER case of the commenters being way ahead of him. the good news is that he eventually catches up.

  233. 233
    Oregon Guy says:

    IOKIYAR.

    Oddly enough, I was like the only Dem in the Army when I joined, but its getting to be about 50-50. And most of the guys who still admit to being Repubs say they like Ron Paul.

  234. 234
    John Cole says:

    Did I read somewhere that you teach rhetoric at the university level? That would be surprising if true, because you are claiming a logical fallacy where one does not exist.

    Post hoc implies an interrelationship of two disparate events. This situation is none of the sort.

    The story was that the melty-face woman incident ocurred in Iraq. This was fact-checked by Foer. He had spoke with STB several times. He dug deep. Foer, indeed, said that he had “confirmed the woman”.

    Only after it had been established through campusing surveys by outside sources that no other individual had seen this woman at FOB Falcon that the stage had shifted to Kuwait…and nine months earlier.

    Yeah, there’s causation there.

    Your argument is almost a Straw Man…i said almost

    You are a fool.

    You stated the following:

    Hmmm…ain’t it curious that the melty-face woman incident NOW appears to have happened in Kuwait, not Iraq, after Matt Sanchez’ looked into it?

    The post hoc fallacy applies not to when the event actually happened, but to your attributing the correction to Matt Sanchez’s intrepid reporting. In other words, no, none of us find it curious that the correction to the story came after Sanchez investigated.

    And why are you jackasses so concerned with what I do for a living? I don’t write about it, and it is irrelevant. Am I in for a good old fashioned smearing at the hands of the wingnut brigade?

  235. 235
    brock o. baum says:

    You are a fool.

    That’s “Personal Attack”

    The post hoc fallacy applies not to when the event actually happened, but to your attributing the correction to Matt Sanchez’s intrepid reporting. In other words, no, none of us find it curious that the correction to the story came after Sanchez investigated

    Willful indifference does not an argument make.

  236. 236
    Rod Majors says:

    Why do all you “Libruls” have such a hard-on for me?

  237. 237
    cleek says:

    Yeah, there’s causation there.

    nope. there’s correlation there.

  238. 238
    Oregon Guy says:

    Brock-

    do you seriously not get what John said?

  239. 239
    Army Lawyer says:

    Is it possible the NCO, after years of fun in the Iraqi sun, just didn’t give a shit anymore and let his charges blow off some steam?

    Yes that’s entirely possible. And would be evidence of a poor NCO.

  240. 240
    Oregon Guy says:

    What the fuck do you know about NCO’s?

  241. 241
    John Cole says:

    Brock-

    do you seriously not get what John said?

    No. He didn’t. And I wouldn’t waste my time with him.

  242. 242
    Army Lawyer says:

    Oregon Guy:

    If you are aware of any other way for one to become a JAG officer other than going to law school, passing a bar exam, receiving a commission, and attending TJAGLCS, please let me know. Otherwise, sneeringly citing to each of those as evidence of…something…is odd.

    As to the more semi-substantive portions:

    What articles has PFC Beauchamp violated? (and if you have to jump straight to the general article then you suck)

    Why can’t I jump straight to 134? We prosecute child porn and child molestation under 134. You saying only because it’d be a 134 offense that it’s somehow lacking sufficient gravitas? Piffle.

    W/R/T the DFAC woman–assume she was an NCO. Assume she was an officer (we don’t know from his telling). Art’s 91 and 89, respectively. If “just a civilian”–depending on the tenor/tone/volume of the mocking, that could be sufficient for a Clause 1 or Cl 2 violation. For the others, a 92 violation would most likely be appropriate depending on what his specific role in each of these incidents were. Perhaps accomplice liability for the failure to report the offenses.

    Will go through every permutation or possible charging decision? No. There’s enough there to establish punishable conduct. That I might be a jerk for prosecuting doesn’t mean I couldn’t do it–which means that I could, in good faith, bring such a charge. Would I take such things to a CM? No.

    As to the rest of your “real Army” rant–meh. Yours is the same mentality that leads to shit like Ghraib and Hamandiya because damn it, heaven forbid you get us JAs involved. After all, most of us were never Joes, so we just don’t see the funny in naked man-ass pyramids.

  243. 243
    Army Lawyer says:

    What the fuck do you know about NCO’s?

    That most are good, some are not.

  244. 244
    srv says:

    I didn’t realize defending Beauchamp from charges that he’s a liar is supporting soldiers who have issues.

    It’s a legal concept.

  245. 245
    the dryyyyyyy cracker says:

    Little late, but screw it–

    Binzinerator, that joke worked better the last eighty billion times someone told it, when “military intelligence” was cited as an oxymoron.

    We don’t get to call these people stupid. Not after what we let our government do to them. For sheer stupidity, may I refer you to EVERY SINGLE DECISION made by their civilian leadership.

    Except for the ones who wrote graffiti about 9/11 on ordnance bound for Iraqi targets–those guys are shitheads. I still hope we can get some of ’em home intact, though.

    Saw two guys at a cafe today, just one set of arms between ’em. Handsome as hell and younger than I ever was. Holy jumping fuckalope I hate myself for not opposing this stupid war harder than I did.

    In my defense, I risked votive burn on more than one occasion. Those li’l bastards’re hot when they get down to the bottom.

  246. 246
    John Cole says:

    Why can’t I jump straight to 134? We prosecute child porn and child molestation under 134. You saying only because it’d be a 134 offense that it’s somehow lacking sufficient gravitas? Piffle.

    W/R/T the DFAC woman—assume she was an NCO. Assume she was an officer (we don’t know from his telling). Art’s 91 and 89, respectively. If “just a civilian”—depending on the tenor/tone/volume of the mocking, that could be sufficient for a Clause 1 or Cl 2 violation. For the others, a 92 violation would most likely be appropriate depending on what his specific role in each of these incidents were. Perhaps accomplice liability for the failure to report the offenses.

    Will go through every permutation or possible charging decision? No. There’s enough there to establish punishable conduct. That I might be a jerk for prosecuting doesn’t mean I couldn’t do it—which means that I could, in good faith, bring such a charge. Would I take such things to a CM? No.

    I think we might have a job for Mike Nifong. Seriously, any JAG who would prosecute someone for mocking someone as was described in this case has entirely to much time on his hands or is certifiable.

  247. 247
    Army Lawyer says:

    I expressly stated that I would not prosecute him.

    Would I take such things to a CM? No.

    Right there.

  248. 248
    BKT says:

    So here is my question for Army Lawyer – Are you committing an act of misconduct by labeling yourself and your website with the handle “army lawyer?”

    From your statements it appears you have a political agenda underpinning some of your comments etc… Using the handle “army lawyer” would seem to imply that your comments represent not just your own views but are somehow endorsed by (or at least are representative of) the Army.

    Of course, as a good JAG you are probably aware that using your status as a commissioned officer as a means of bolstering your personal political / philosophic views in public debate is not exactly considered the kind of thing a good officer does. I’m not sure if its an out and out UCMJ violation (though Art 133 might be tailor made for you), but it does seem like the kind of thing an officer with some personal integrity might reconsider.

    Perhaps before you get on line and start touting your status as a JAG officer as a reason you are somehow more credible on matters of public debate, you should a) get a different handle; and, b) lay off using the uniform a tool to advance your argument. If you want to thump your chest about how your vast experience as a staff officer makes your opinions so worthwhile, get your own DD214 and PCS to Ft LivingRoom. Until then, at least try to be a little discreet.

    Just a thought.

  249. 249
    Army Lawyer says:

    John:

    That being said, I appreciate the deletion of the earlier trackback.

  250. 250

    […] In related news, I found myself in the curious position of having to argue, on a lefty blog, just why mocking an IED victim, desecrating human remains and ‘cornering’ a Bradley to intentionally kill stray dogs might be a bad thing, possibly warranting some action. […]

  251. 251
    John Cole says:

    I expressly stated that I would not prosecute him.

    Then why are you agreeing with Greater Wingnuttia that beauchamp has committed some sort of onerous offense and arguing with us that what he is describing is really quite tame. At his worst, Beauchamp is an asshole for the things he has described.

    The world is littered with actions that could be prosecuted for one thing or another, but thankfully for us there is a thing called prosecutorial discretion. Likewise, in the military, at least when I was in, I was pretty much under the impression that virtually anything I did could in one way or another be construed as against one regulation or another.

    That something COULD be prosecuted does not mean it should. Claiming Beauchamp is public enemy number one because he could be prosecuted is particularly hacktacular. His real crime (other than being an asshole) is going against the pipe dream that is rampant in the right blogosphere.

  252. 252
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Let me see if I understand Brock O. Baum properly: Although we now have three corroborative witnesses to Beauchamp’s story (which is presumably what Foer meant by “confirming the woman”), TNR’s case for its accuracy has actually been DECREASED because they did say he was mistaken about the precise location of the event. Uh, right. Monty Python, thou shouldst be with us at this hour.

  253. 253
    MilBlogs says:

    He May Be a Criminal, But He’s Our Criminal

    Best part about all this Beauchamp nonsense: If Beauchamp is telling the truth, he’s committed some serious (possibly criminal) misconduct. If he’s lying, ditto. Guess it’s a question of what preconceptions his supporters want to bolster when they d…

  254. 254
    srv says:

    I don’t know you so I can’t say whether you do or not. But start by not defending those that commit misconduct.

    Boy, you are a real legal mind there. Nobody defended the misconduct. Y’all denied that it even happened, and proceeded to attack the messenger not on grounds of misconduct, but that any of it was true. At that point, y’all got called out for it and then you start whining about your honor and integrity and hide behind your DD214.

    You’re wrong about one thing Army Lawyer, you aren’t a reflection of the men and women serving in Iraq. You’re just as bad as Beauchamp.

    But at least he isn’t lying about it.

  255. 255
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    “Only after it had been established through campusing surveys by outside sources that no other individual had seen this woman at FOB Falcon that the stage had shifted to Kuwait…and nine months earlier.”

    So, Brock, you’re now saying flatly that either all three witnesses are lying through their teeth (including the one who said he also took part in the same disgusting activity), or that TNR is lying through its teeth when it says that the three witnesses exist at all? Isn’t that a bit risky?

  256. 256

    Just as an FYI John, there was a comment on Ace’s stupud thread that identified your boss (?) by name, the university where you teach and hinted at your employment status.

    When I checked back there later, it had been deleted.

  257. 257
    jg says:

    Army Lawyer Says:

    Is it possible the NCO, after years of fun in the Iraqi sun, just didn’t give a shit anymore and let his charges blow off some steam?

    Yes that’s entirely possible. And would be evidence of a poor NCO.

    No shit. CAn I now fix your previous post?

    Army Lawyer Says:

    Please, this is FG NJP at least.

    But that you as an NCO would have done this is what made his stories all the more incredible. Because it is so clearly improper behavior. Presumably SOMEONE would have seen it and SOMEONE would have “slapped him upside the head and had him knock off the behavior.”

    That that didn’t happen rendered the reports suspect…or simply indicates the presence of a poor NCO.

    Since we’re pointing out logical fallacies tonight, isn’t there one about saying something couldn’t have happened but it would be so incredible?

  258. 258
    Army Lawyer says:

    BKT:

    A fair question. My website has a clearly marked disclaimer that the views are my own and mine alone. But I’ll repeat it here.

    My screen name is descriptive, nothing more. I’m a lawyer, in the Army. What I say stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of what moniker I use. But if it makes you happy, add “An” to my screenname. So I’ll be just one of many…

    And I don’t think my job provides me with per se authority on any matter. Nor does having or not having a DD214 validate or invalidate anyone’s opinion (I’ve said precisely that).

    It is (or can be) relevant. In talking about whether we should/should not have gone to Iraq, prior service is IMO, irrelevant. If talking about what the daily activities of a staff officer generally (or a JAG specifically), then yeah, prior service is relevant to establish a base of knowledge on which to credit the opinion.

    My reference to a DD214 was when timb asked if I was part of a Tillman coverup (among other things) and how dare I question good PFC Beauchamp. So I mentioned it in the context of being, as I said, ‘saucy.’

  259. 259
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Cole: Beauchamp’s “real crime (other than being an asshole) is going against the pipe dream that is rampant in the right blogosphere.”

    Yes, indeedy — and they’re now frantically trying to distract attention from the fact that we now have solid evidence that he was accurate in saying that quite a few of Our Boys besides him have engaged in such (relatively minor-league) naughtiness, which (gasp) proves that not all US soldiers have haloes. Shocking, isn’t it?

  260. 260
    Army Lawyer says:

    jg:

    That’s a fair edit.

    John:

    I said I thought nonjudicial punishment was appropriate

  261. 261
    John Cole says:

    Just as an FYI John, there was a comment on Ace’s stupud thread that identified your boss (?) by name, the university where you teach and hinted at your employment status.

    When I checked back there later, it had been deleted.

    Good for Ace. I would do the same for him. Although my boss has been reading and commenting on this blog for five years now, so contacting him will accomplish very little.

  262. 262
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    So: Can we sum up? Beauchamp’s original story established virtually nothing of any importance (including that the Iraq War was wrong). The reaction of the Kook-Right Blogosphere to it, however, established conclusively that they’re a bunch of screechingly hysterical and unrealistic nitwits.

  263. 263
    srv says:

    Shocking, isn’t it?

    Yes. And why is it that those of us who understand that are continually surprised by how these wingnuts react to the truth? Why do we still give them (and Beauchamp) the benefit of the doubt and think they might have any semblance of integrity left?

    I guess because it’s in our nature. We aren’t celebrating what Beauchamp wrote, but we accept that’s what happens and are nevertheless appalled. The Army Lawyers, JeffG’s and others of the Fluffersphere can’t allow for that. Their worldview really is that fragile.

  264. 264
    srv says:

    Good for Ace. I would do the same for him. Although my boss has been reading and commenting on this blog for five years now, so contacting him will accomplish very little.

    OMG. Does John work for Darrell?

  265. 265
    Oregon Guy says:

    Army lawyer:

    That’s funny. Cos’ I know more than a few JA’s who are ex-Deltas or, God Forbid, ex-Soldiers. It matters. Because you say things like “Piffle.” Its “sneering” b/c you aren’t really a soldier. You provide a necessary service to soliders, and you wear the uniform more or less out of convenience to the service. You recieve little to no military training, and if you’re smart you’ll listen to your smarter Deltas (some of whom are college grads or even actual lawyers themselves who enlisted to get the student loan repayment) who will help you to be a much more effective JA.

    Its “sneering” because in your earlier post you talk about wearing the uniform like it means anything in and of itself.

    Ultimately you earn respect in the military the same you way you do anywhere else – by doing your job and doing the right thing.

    You’ll notice I never said that what Beauchamp’s buddies did was okay – it wasn’t. But the point was that, based on his blog postings – HE ISN’T GUILTY OF A DAMN THING.

    Why can’t I jump straight to 134? We prosecute child porn and child molestation under 134. You saying only because it’d be a 134 offense that it’s somehow lacking sufficient gravitas?

    You reveal your ignorance of the Mighty Red Book now.

    Article 120 covers both rape and “carnal knowledge,” and is generally the right way to go for molestation cases. If you can’t prove penetration – you go to Article 125.

    You should also note that I said “general article,” not 134. There are specific crimes which are addressed in the subparagraphs of 134. But you can’t get to any of those based on the conduct described. You would have to make a “good order and discipline” general article case, and that is, frankly, chickenshit. And yes, I *do* think those cases lack gravitas because I’ve seen them abused.

    And jumping to chickenshit 134 specifications shows me two things: (1) that Beauchamp isn’t, in fact, guilty of “serious misconduct,” like you stated upthread, and (2) that you are one of those JA’s who will push any case against any Joe because we’re all scum to you and our lives, rank, accomplishments and careers don’t matter for shit. All you have to do is give some out-of-control company commander one smooch on the butt-cheek and some E4 SPC is an E-nothing buck private. Never mind that it takes guys in plenty of MOS’s longer to get to E5 that it takes for the company commander to get to CPT b/c of promotion points and what-not.

    According to the story the woman was a contractor. So why would I assume she was an NCO? And what part of Planet Army do you come from where a female NCO would drop her tray and run away crying when a bunch of dumbass privates mouthed off? Most female NCO’s I know would have dropped those boys and had them push a while, then had a little talk with their 1SG. Who would have taken care of the problem in house. See, Sir, in the Army the way to resolve issues is to resolve them at the lowest level, not run off to the CoC like a nancy-boy.

    Oh, and I like the accomplice liability. Nice touch. You must be in a *serious* pogue outfit if you have to reach that far to get Joe. Hey, Joe “aided and abetted PVT Smith when he put that hajji scalp under his Kevlar!” Doesn’t really pass the giggle test, and you could get the whole company on the same charge. Why not hit the squad leader, team leader, or company commander for dereliction? Aren’t they really more responsible than a PFC? And 92(3) is a real specification – not something a dayho in an air-conditioned conex pulled out of his 4th pt. of contact.

    I also like how the JA’s are the magic figures of responsibility… more likely the JA will hemina-hemina and do whatever the colonel tells him to do, unless he has the balls to say “No, Sir. That isn’t the right thing to do.”
    Almost none of them do.

    The problem is that the JA’s are at the BCT level or higher, and have no relationship to what is actually happening. It reduces their effectiveness in the battlefield sense b/c they don’t understand how the ROE and LOW actually play out in that space, but its even worse in the UCMJ side of things when they fail to understand how a squad, platoon, or company functions in practice.

    Go ahead and look at that fucking Abu Ghraib case. Who’s in jail? I think you listed the convictions. PV2’s, SPC’s, PFC’s. But higher had nothing to do with that, huh? No dereliction of duty there, right? No unclear memos from JTFMNC-I regarding aggressive interrogation techniques, no pissed off interrogators, no out-of-control OGA/SF community types, right?

    Just a bunch of wacky privates.

    Unh-huh.

    The reason I’m being so hard on you is that you need to get over yourself. Just because you went to college and law school doesn’t mean shit to me or most other Joes and NCO’s. One thing I see very consistently from the O-grades is this tendency to deride any Joe who shoots too high “above his station,” which you are very guilty of in this very thread:

    Some pompous PFC writing his ‘mindthoughts’

    After all, most of us were never Joes, so we just don’t see the funny in naked man-ass pyramids.

    Or maybe the JA’s failed to pursue the cases indicated by the testimony in the courts-martial where the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners testfied that they were told do outlandish things to the detainees. But only the night crew. There’s lots of corroborating testimony. But since it did not fit the preferred narrative (ie. it implicated higher) it was ignored.

    You hate on Joe. And you’ll destroy him when he doesn’t suit your purpose. Do you understand the meaning of the bars you wear? What they are supposed to connote?

    I know the system’s fucked up, but you’re still young enough to be idealistic. Higher should be held to *at least* the same standard as Joe. But that isn’t what happens. That isn’t what you’re doing to this PFC. You’ve got him halfway to Mannheim or FT Sill (“serious misconduct”) for what would be a DA 4856 or a company-level Article 15 in a sane world. Because he pissed you off. Problem is, Beauchamp probably has a bunch of dayhos in the FOB ready to nuke his ass right now who feel the same way.

    He doesn’t deserve that.

  266. 266
    John Cole says:

    Yes, indeedy—and they’re now frantically trying to distract attention from the fact that we now have solid evidence that he was accurate in saying that quite a few of Our Boys besides him have engaged in such (relatively minor-league) naughtiness, which (gasp) proves that not all US soldiers have haloes. Shocking, isn’t it?

    The whole reaction is particularly absurd. Basically, some guy wrote some piece that said sometimes soldiers can be cruel, particularly in wartime. This comes as no shock to anyone who ever spent an hour in a BDU. The response was a resounding “*YAWN*” from those who read it, and most of us had not until the right wing got their freak on.

    Then, in the course of pointing out how stupid the over-reaction was from the same right wingers, we somehow became labelled as “defenders” of Beauchamp. I’m not defending Beauchamp’s behavior, I am attacking their idiocy.

    The rest has just been comical- the myriad of hamhanded and stupid debunkings (my personal favorite is the model of the Bradley used to prove you can not run over a dog), the calls for violence against the guy, the calls for prosecution to include war crimes and damaging OPSEC, etc.

    At any rate, against my better judgement, I went and checked out the Ace thread- it is exactly as I suspected- “I read John when he was sane, but…” or “John is catering to the Kos kids” or “John got co-opted by Tim and his commenters.”

    I swear to god I don’t remember all these guys being this batshit crazy. I just know I chose to turn the car around and not drive into Greater Wingnuttia during the Schiavo affair, and am appalled at the things they excuse or condone all because the Dhimmocrats are worse. I don’t know how I will ever reconcile agreeing with these folks on issues when the Democrats finally are in charge and I run into some seriuos substantive problems with Democratic policy and legislative positions. Seeing how unhinged they are is going to make me think twice before ever agreeing with them on anything again- I might agree with them about lower taxes and oppose the Democrats on a bunch of issues, but I know in the back of my mind I will be thinking-

    “Remember, you are agreeing with certifiables. Are you sure you are right?”

  267. 267
    John Cole says:

    So: Can we sum up? Beauchamp’s original story established virtually nothing of any importance (including that the Iraq War was wrong). The reaction of the Kook-Right Blogosphere to it, however, established conclusively that they’re a bunch of screechingly hysterical and unrealistic nitwits.

    One of the first posts I made on this topic ended with the following statement:

    The funniest thing in all of this is that there is no way to prove one way or another Beauchamp is lying, but now, even if Beauchamp is lying, he comes out looking better than the asshole armchair commandos attacking him.

    Except now it looks like he wasn’t lying.

  268. 268
    John Cole says:

    OMG. Does John work for Darrell?

    If I do, I will be as surprised as you are.

  269. 269
    Tsulagi says:

    Army Lawyer,

    I just read your Mudvillegazette piece. Not only are you clueless, you are a pompous little shit. You give officers a bad rap.

  270. 270
    srv says:

    I swear to god I don’t remember all these guys being this batshit crazy

    The difference is, at some point, you realized you’d been wrong about some stuff and made some corrections.

    These guys can’t admit that they’re wrong about anything. They’re like 0 for 300 at this point, and are still shrieking.

    How that can be maintained without drugs is something Tim should be researching.

  271. 271
    Army Lawyer says:

    Article 120 covers both rape and “carnal knowledge,” and is generally the right way to go for molestation cases. If you can’t prove penetration – you go to Article 125.

    And which of those covers kiddie diddling? How about neither? Child molestation is more than penetration or sodomy, regrettably.

    You should also note that I said “general article,” not 134.

    The title of Article 134 is “General Article.” You are not limited to only charging one of the enumerated 134 offenses. Which is how we prosecute child porn, for example.

    You would have to make a “good order and discipline” general article case, and that is, frankly, chickenshit. And yes, I do think those cases lack gravitas because I’ve seen them abused

    All 134 offenses, enumerated or otherwise, must either be prejudicial to good order & discipline or service discrediting. Says so right in the big red book you claim I ain’t reading.

    And jumping to chickenshit 134 specifications shows me two things: (1) that Beauchamp isn’t, in fact, guilty of “serious misconduct,” like you stated upthread, and (2) that you are one of those JA’s who will push any case against any Joe because we’re all scum to you and our lives, rank, accomplishments and careers don’t matter for shit.

    You caught me, so that’s why I recommended today that when a co cdr wanted to attempt a third Art 15 for a lying to an NCO, after withdrawing the first two, my advice was to drop it completely and that it never should’ve happened in the first place. But you caught me.

    The story says the Beauchamp didn’t know what she was.

    And what part of Planet Army do you come from where a female NCO would drop her tray and run away crying when a bunch of dumbass privates mouthed off?

    On the same planet Army where said dumbass privates would mock an IED victim.

    The reason I’m being so hard on you is that you need to get over yourself. Just because you went to college and law school doesn’t mean shit to me or most other Joes and NCO’s.

    Ditto. You think that you can quote 670-1 from memory means two shits to me? You think that, y’know, if I REALLY need somebody to quote me the wrong article, I’ll come to you. If I really need somebody to prep that staff action, you’re my man. You have your job, I have mine. I can’t do your job, don’t want to, wouldn’t be good at it. You sure as shit can’t do mine.

    Unless you want to write a motion for me? Or maybe jump up there in front of a panel and present a case. I’m game.

    He doesn’t deserve that.

    No, you deserve each other.

  272. 272

    I swear to god I don’t remember all these guys being this batshit crazy. I just know I chose to turn the car around and not drive into Greater Wingnuttia during the Schiavo affair, and am appalled at the things they excuse or condone all because the Dhimmocrats are worse.

    If you’re not with us, you are against us.

  273. 273

    At any rate, against my better judgement, I went and checked out the Ace thread . . .

    Gees, John, I said I CHECKED. :)

    Anyway, Beth still thinks you have her on your blogroll.

    I guess she hasn’t been here since that reconstruction started.

  274. 274
    tBone says:

    “Remember, you are agreeing with certifiables. Are you sure you are right?”

    You’ll get over it. I’ve found myself agreeing with Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan numerous times over the past few years. I keep watching for the flying pigs . . .

  275. 275

    No, you deserve each other.

    and that takes us back to square one, I think.

    Army Lawyer pushes and gives an inch or two and then takes it all back.

    Oregon Guy, good work.

  276. 276
    Xanthippas says:

    “Remember, you are agreeing with certifiables. Are you sure you are right?”

    Don’t tell anybody this, but that’s kinda what I think about the people on my side sometimes (present company excluded.) I’ll be honest: I’m a dyed in the wool liberal (and NOT the “moderate” kind either) but sometimes I like to go over to Dkos and argue with some of those deranged bozos just for the hell of it.

    Just remember, if you can bring yourself to agree with so many people on so many thing so much of the time…then something’s probably wrong.

  277. 277
    Pelikan says:

    Army Lawyer:

    Even if I had the Rhetorical skill to string together a sentence filled with such impressive jargon as you do, I rather think I wouldn’t. I come from a folk that speak plainly sir, and seeing writing such as your’s only serves to remind me why.

    You’re nothing more than a bully, as so many that seek out your profession, (lawyer, not army) Not all, or even most aree like you, but you and yours are where the bad reputation of lawyers comes from.

    I didn’t always think this way, but once upon a time, back in college, my friend parked in front of the law building. In doing so, he bumped into a cherry red BMW parked in front of him. The law student coming out of the building cornered him, called the police, had report filled out and brow-beat my friend with legalese much like yours into agreeing to pay for the damage with his insurance.

    Fair enough, right? Except for the bill that arrived at our house later for a complete redetailing of the car. What’s that? my friend should have known his rights? Har. This sort of thing happens every day. Normal people act like gentlemen, sometimes lawyers just act like lawyers.

    Six months later we went to his home in the dead of night and threw a cinderblock through his windshield. I’m mostly not proud of that.

    The point being, fancy words and a law degree don’t make you right or less of an asshole.

    -Pelikan

  278. 278
    TCinLA says:

    Having just read the TNR editorial in full, I can see Beauchamp getting in lots of trouble with the Army for telling the truth, while they’ll probably give the little white trash psychopath who was killing the dogs a frikin’ medal and promote him for demonstrating his knowledge of how maneuverable a Bradley is. That’s the sort of thing the lifer morons used to do 40 years ago in Vietnam as I recall, and the only thing that’s changed is today’s lifer morons mostly weren’t alive back when my lifer morons were being idiots.

  279. 279
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Andrew Sullivan ain’t amused either:

    “No one doubts that most of the troops are doing an amazing job in near-impossible conditions. Describing some bad apples and occasional crudeness – especially when you are criticizing yourself as well – is utterly banal…

    “I truly have no explanation why the rightwing blogosphere has managed to largely ignore and deny actual claims and cases of torture and abuse by US soldiers but have gone batshit over some trivial, unshocking, now-verified soldier stories by a man who, unlike Barnett and Malkin, is actually serving his country. But this is my best shot: Their president and their Congress and their movement have lost a war, wounded America’s moral standing in the world and caused tens of thousands of deaths and a greater risk of terrorism across the globe.

    “After four and a half years of this nightmare, who are you going to blame but The New Republic? “

  280. 280
    Antonio Manetti says:

    I read the TNR reports. None of it was surprising and all of it struck me as the stuff you’d see happening in a combat zone after people get desensitized to the violence. For example, running over dogs is just the kind of casual cruelty that bored, angry and scared soldiers are apt to do for fun. “Apocalypse Now” anyone.

    Anyone who doubts these stories ought to try reading “With the Old Breed on Peleliu and Okinawa”, by Eugene Sledge, a graphic description of the incredible savagery perpetrated by both sides in “the good war”.

  281. 281
    Andrew says:

    Good for Ace. I would do the same for him. Although my boss has been reading and commenting on this blog for five years now, so contacting him will accomplish very little.

    I bet Cole works for DougJ, a multi-site public/private research project devoted to developing AI software to comment semi-anonymously on rigtt-to-left conversion blogs.

    ThymeZone is a feature/bug. Darrell is just a bug, but one that added mad flavor to the hizzole of love.

  282. 282
    binzinerator says:

    dryyyyyyy cracker:

    Binzinerator, that joke worked better the last eighty billion times someone told it

    And eighty billion times later, it’s still true.

    But above all:

    We don’t get to call these people stupid.

    Says who? And for what reason?

    This is 2007, dumbass. After everything we now know about Iraq, about the so-called intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion, about the bogus claims of WMDs, fake yellow cake, mushroom clouds, anthrax, drone planes, fabricated Al Qaeda connection, no intelligent person — no un-STUPID person — can claim “we don’t know.”

    Don’t blame it all on the civilian leadership. Last I checked, it was an all-volunteer force and our servicepeople were still entitled to vote.

    It’s 2007, and like the Wizard of Oz, anyone who still insists on the chimera of Oz as reality after the curtain has been pulled aside numerous times can be justifiable called stupid. I refuse to refrain from calling someone stupid who insists on continually suspending one’s disbelief, especially in face of constant reminders to the contrary.

    You aren’t obligated to check in your brain or your critical faculties when you volunteer. Unless you want to.

    You tell me if you can win any war without understanding who your enemy really is, and what they want.

    Yes I get to call stupid people stupid. That’s part of what these people are dying for, remember? That’s the worst and best part of real democracy. Which I don’t think you really understand. Example Iraq: it’s not at all a democracy if it’s implemented at the end of a gun barrel.

    This “support the troops” bullshit, it is no different from the Viet Nam era’s mentality of “my country, right or wrong.”

    I will answer your stupid “you don’t get to do that” response in detail later, but for now, dipstick, I consider your knee-jerk response as part of the explanation why we are still in Iraq after almost 5 years.

    This is really what’s wrong with America right now. What’s going on in Iraq — the legality, the justification, the morality, the purpose — is apparently off the table. It’s just not discussed. Or it’s dismissed with a shrug — “It’s just politics” as one Iraq-bound reservist told me today. Or it’s like you: We don’t get to call these people stupid. Or anything other than heroes or with respect, deserved or not.

    I guarantee you, stupid or not, that reservist’s family won’t really believe it was for “just politics” when she comes home in a box.

    I’ve got a helluva lot more to say about this, but it’s very late and I have to work in the moring.

    Bring these people home. And that is the kind of ‘support our troops’ I can back.

  283. 283
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Paul Fussell — the English professor who himself fought on the front lines in the European front — has a very high opinion of Eugene Sledge’s writings. (Indeed, Fussell’s cynicism about the “good war” is so strong that at times he seems to come perilously close to saying it wasn’t worth fighting — but he certainly serves as an antidote to silly sentimentality about that war.)

    As for the activities described by Beauchamp, let me also quote Harlan Ellison: “There is no humor sicker than cop humor.” On that point, he’s wrong; military humor is even sicker — in both cases, for an obvious reason: to try to keep from cutting your own throat as a side effect of the job.

  284. 284
    the dryyyyyyy cracker says:

    Gee, Binz, you called me “dumbass” and “dipstick” and yet there’s more detail forthcoming? Bated breath, that’s what I’m awaitin’ your follow-up with.

    Here we go with the all-volunteer shit, which a self-proclaimed genius like you might’ve noticed is a dodge straight outta the war pigs’ handbook. ‘Cause if YOU were there, you’d uphold your principles, right? You’d refuse orders, get thrown in the brig, go AWOL, risk it all because of your opposition to unjust wars. Well, you’re clearly an awesome individual, but here’s the thing–most people aren’t. Most people are shot through with gaping fuckin’ flaws. Some of ’em even believe things that they’re, y’know, relentlessly conditioned to believe.

    But hey, these kids–and going back to your point, another reason not to call 20-year-olds stupid is that it’s fucking redundant–were naive enough to accept claims made by the people and institutions they’re trained to defer to, so they’ve got it coming. Subpar armor? Mission creep? Fuck ’em, they didn’t vote for the right guy.

    I may be a dipstick–in fact, I’m almost sure of it–but my sympathy for people who got dumped into unwinnable clusterfucks isn’t dependant on their ability to truth-squad their superiors, so I’m gonna have to settle for the silver medal.

    Spare me the proclamations from high horseback, too. People like me’re the reason we’re still in Iraq? Yeah, I conceded that point already (obliquely, but yours is a keen mind, as we’ve discussed), and I’m afraid I’m gonna have to see some evidence of your many run-ins with riot cops if I’m to believe you fought the fuckin’ power any more courageously than I did.

    There, I’m done. Feel free to resume schooling my dumb ass whenever’s convenient. Just so you don’t waste valuable keystrokes, though, I agree with your last line 100%, so don’t bother fleshing out that particular argument.

  285. 285
    the dryyyyyyy cracker says:

    Just to be clear, Binz, the excessive profanity isn’t really aimed at you. I’m so damn mad about what’s happened to my country that I swear when I hum.

  286. 286

    […] For some people none of this matters. The important thing is to realize that our troops are all doing awful things overseas, and it’s time to bring the sociopaths home. Ever last woman taunting, dog mauling, baby skull wearing one of ‘em. […]

  287. 287
    Pug says:

    You mean like Abu Ghraib?

    Yes, I do. Google the following and tell me what you find:

    SPC Charles Graner
    CPL Joshua Lee Betts,
    SSG Ivan Frederick
    SGT Javal Davis
    SPC Jeremy Sivits
    SPC Armin Cruz
    SPC Sabrina Harman
    SPC Megan Ambuhl
    PFC Lynndie England
    SGT Santos Cardona
    SPC Roman Krol
    SGT Michael Smith

    Army Lawyer,

    As Oregon Guy so aptly pointed out, what I find is nothing above the rank of sergeant.

    Did you notice a little resentment toward guys like you in his comments? Maybe that’s why. Shovel all the shit off on a bunch of privates and leave the guys in charge alone, right? Then brag about all the perps that got nailed. Good job.

  288. 288
    John S. says:

    Before anybody decides to trot out Confederate Yankee as proof of anything on this matter (cough, Army Lawyer), they should note the completely embarassing gibberish he posted on the subject the other day.

    It doesn’t get any more pathetic than that.

  289. 289
    over_educated says:

    For some real Comedy Check out Hugh Hewitt’s continued attack on TNR, which boils down (in my best Homer Simpson voice):

    “Facts? Facts are meaningless… You can use facts to prove things that are even remotely true!”

  290. 290
    Xanthippas says:

    Before anybody decides to trot out Confederate Yankee as proof of anything on this matter (cough, Army Lawyer), they should note the completely embarassing gibberish he posted on the subject the other day.

    Christ that guy is an utter moron. Is it really that hard for them to come out and say “Yeah okay, we blew it…AGAIN.”

  291. 291
    Tim F. says:

    Again, you’re wrong. The report was finished on 3 MAR 2004. The first media reports came a month later in April 2004. The first courts-martial began in May 2004.

    You have not disproved my point by showing that the courts martial began after the pics appeared in the news.

  292. 292
    timb says:

    Damn, I bet Army Lawyer left already, but I wanted to let him know that I appreciated his devotion to my Amendment rights. I wanted to add I didn’t think we had so much in common, i.e. we’ve both been to law school and neither of us has ever seen combat! I feel like his better, smarter brother now. Perhaps I have an insight into his legal duties and all…at least as much as he would know about a combat squad in Baghdad (at least I have a cousin who is an officer and HAS seen combat in Iraq).

    Still, I do admire his devotion to circle arguments. When he’s billing by the hour someday, those crappy arguments will make him a bundle.

  293. 293
    Sirkowski says:

    Oh shit, that’s some epic wingnut nerdrage in here.

  294. 294
    marc page says:

    Most people are shot through with gaping fuckin’ flaws.

    Contextually, that is, perhaps, a poor choice of phrase.

    And speaking of odd language, has anyone else noticed Ace’s growing propensity for dated British slang? (“Git,” “not bloody likely,” etc.) You don’t suppose he has the complete set of Charles & Diana commemorative wedding plates …

    Nah, that would be “teh gay.”

    [I have no reason to believe that my attempt at formatting this comment will work. Pray for the technologically-challenged.]

  295. 295
    jg says:

    marc page Says:

    [I have no reason to believe that my attempt at formatting this comment will work. Pray for the technologically-challenged.]

    Yes you do. This blog has a real time preview right below where you type.

    After watching this Beauchamp thing unfold and squaring it with other actions by the right over the years I can only conclude that the right will do anything and say anything to keep alive the illusion that the military is on their side, that the military is a republican institution. Everything is framed as they support the troops and the left doesn’t. And since ‘support the troops’ is an abstract concept which can’t exactly be quantified they can declare what is and what isn’t supporting of the troops with impunity.

    Maybe some of our former and current service members can spread the word around the bases that the right USES the troops, which is different from supporting them.

  296. 296
    Oregon Guy says:

    Okay – I’ve confimed it.

    Army Lawyer is a pogue *AND* a dick.

    Let’s roll the tape.

    You think that you can quote 670-1 from memory means two shits to me? You think that, y’know, if I REALLY need somebody to quote me the wrong article, I’ll come to you. If I really need somebody to prep that staff action, you’re my man. You have your job, I have mine. I can’t do your job, don’t want to, wouldn’t be good at it. You sure as shit can’t do mine.

    (For the uninitiated, AR 670-1 is the Army’s uniform regulation. Not sure why he brings it up here. But, just sayin’.)

    But here Army-fancypants-dayho-Lawyer drops trou and shows us his ass.

    He’s damn right in that he can’t do my job. He also can’t do the two other jobs I’m qualified to do. And he’s also damn wrong that I can’t do his. I can do his job in my sleep. You see, *I am one of those guys with a law degree who joined the Army to pay back his student loans.*

    I make more money with the LRP than I would as a 1LT. Take your E5 salary, add $23,000 per year, and stir.

    But I wanted to change careers out of the legal profession, and I wanted to serve my country post 9/11. So I kinda did a little Pat Tillman thing, only exchange appellate law practice at a boutique West Coast firm for the Arizona Cardinals, and exchange explosives school for Ranger school, and add in a linguist identifier, and you’ve got the idea. My bachelor’s is from Claremont McKenna, and my law degree is from Boalt. Do you really think I can’t do your job, pinhead?

    Oh, and nobody shot me three times in the head from ten meters.

  297. 297
    Oregon Guy says:

    Oh, one more thing. My job pays incentive pay, hazardous duty pay, jump pay, and a big-ass bonus. I had over $100,000 in loans that I will wipe out at the end of my 5-year hitch.

    Army Lawyer fucked up the Article 125 (Sodomy) analysis too. The article reads thusly:

    Article 125—Sodomy
    Text.

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
    to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    Elements.

    (1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

    (2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

    (3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

    Explanation.

    It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

    Me, I’ve never seen a child molestation case where the molester didn’t put his peepee in or on an orifice. “However slight.” The Benchbook goes on state that clitoral stimulation counts.

    Now, maybe you’ve got more molesters in your neck of the woods than I do (real Army vs. pogue Army again… ie. “standards” v. “pressed ACU’s”) but that’s just what I’ve seen. A very wise JA I’m friends with (and one who has ACTUALLY represented one of the people named in that list above, and got that person a much lighter sentence than was expected coz’ he’s about the best damn trial lawyer TDS has ever had) told me once that if you’re writing your own “good order and discipline” articles you had better be either (1) in total terra incognita, legally speaking; or (2) out of your mind.

    Military judges don’t like it when commanders write their own articles, which is what the “general article” amounts to. Real prosecutors don’t like it either. Both kiddie porn and simple molestation (without penile or tongue penetration) have their own specific sub-134 articles which have been vetted extensively in Charlottesville.

    At rock bottom the general article is subject to abuse and is used in a very limited fashion. The sub-134’s like 134(26) “Indecent Acts with a Child” are written up just like the separately numbered Articles with their discrete elements, punishments, and lesser-included offenses.

    I didn’t think I was being obscure when I spoke of the “general article” versus the sub-headings above – I’m pretty sure they differentiate the two at Charlottesville – you’d have to tell me.

    Anyhoo- I’m pretty sure I could do your job. And there’s of plenty of Deltas out there (I’m not a Delta, at least not a 27-series Delta) who could as well. It isn’t hard.

    So quit hatin’ when Joe talks back.

  298. 298
    binzinerator says:

    My apologies, dryyyyyyy cracker, for the name-calling. It was uncalled for. I am sincerely sorry.

    I’m so damn mad about what’s happened to my country that I swear when I hum.

    Me too. I go to bed mad. I wake up mad (often less so, fortunately). I write my congresspeople letters, over the past 4 years the letters have gone from respectful to forceful to disresctful because I’ve grown that much madder over that time. (I’m insulting, not threatening but sometimes I wonder if I will yet end up in a brig. Strapped to a waterboard. I know there’s nothing to say it can’t happen. And then I get mad again)

    ‘Cause if YOU were there, you’d uphold your principles, right? You’d refuse orders, get thrown in the brig, go AWOL, risk it all because of your opposition to unjust wars

    Yes. I would. And it would not be a choice easily made, and I know I and my family would suffer greatly after, and in the deciding too.

    Iraq being an unwinnable c.f. has nothing to do with it. Yes it’s unjust, it is also illegal as hell. If one concludes that this war was ginned up based on zip — and there’s lots of evidence for that — it’s also a war crime. Choice: Brig, AWOL, or further a war crime? It depends on what one is loath to risk: job, home, social acceptance or one’s own conscience. Being told to shoot someone when I know it’s wrong and illegal is not something I will ever agree to do.

    Yes, if I were forced to go, I’d decide I’d rather face the end of my days knowing I was made a convict or became a fugitive for crimes I refused to commit than go free and be respected for ones I actually did commit. Why does that make me an awesome individual?

    It comes down to how much that matters to oneself.

    The thing here is, once one actually knows, one has a choice to make.

    About 20-year-olds: The service people I have met are mostly National Guard in their 30’s. Some were older. I consider the National Guard to be regular service. Because it is now.

    Also, I don’t understand why because “20-year-olds” and “stupid” are redundant that somehow makes a reason to never call them stupid.

    There’s a huge mountain of evidence that says we’re in Iraq for no reason at all, but because neocons wanted us there from before Bush even took office. It was an invasion waiting for a Pearl Harbor moment to launch it. Even their commander-in-chief admits 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, and yet those 30-ish service people insisted any debate about the Iraq war was just politics, and they just tuned it out.

    I’m shot through with flaws just like everyone else (would I need to apologize if otherwise?) And I think a sizeable number of people would choose as I would if they understood the choice in the same terms as I described it. So what keeps them from doing it? I’d say it’s something to do with insisting the issues about the war are only politics — either because they never bothered to look around at what was behind the war or because they insist on not looking. I call that stupid.

    My furious objection to your ‘can’t call them stupid’ is that no one gets immunity simply because they serve. It is not an unmentionable, and should not be made taboo.

    This isn’t 2003, where all this Iraq business seemed truthful and solid. We know differently now, and anyone can easily found out if they don’t yet know. Perhaps that’s not so much as stupidity as going AWOL on making that choice that would “risk it all”.

    Mission creep? Fuck ‘em, they didn’t vote for the right guy.

    Most of them and half this nation. But understand it’s not like they and everyone else in this country can’t still do something about it — If Bush and Cheney were impeached tomorrow, I think everyone would be leaving Iraq soon.

    It’s been said we get the government we deserve. And I say we got the war we deserve. And yes, only half of us really did deserve it, but now — what is it, some 70percent want out of Iraq? We seem to really not want this war (or this government). So why isn’t it happening?

    No one needs to fight riot cops to fight the power. But those who still shrug and say Iraq’s just politics won’t ever write, call, demand their congressperson to impeach the crooked bastards who are still sending them over there.

    Why talk of riot cops if you’ve not yet picked up a pen or phone? If every Iraq-bound serviceperson called on their congressperson — jeez, not even for impeachment just a ‘get us out now’ demand — I would suspect they’d end up coming home quick. They don’t even have to go into the brig for that.

    But obviously a lot of them don’t do it. Why then can’t I call those ones stupid?

    Is this still too high a horseback?

    Just so you don’t waste valuable keystrokes, though, I agree with your last line 100%, so don’t bother fleshing out that particular argument.

    I’m glad we can agree on at least one thing here.

  299. 299
    John Cole says:

    By the way- why does the Army Lawyer feel the need to smear all of our troops as child molestors? By relaying his personal and unsubstantiated anecdotes of child molestors in the military, is he not guilty of exactly what he is accusing Beauchamp?

    So what are their names? Why are you hiding behind anonymity? When did this “alleged” molestation take place? Where? Who was molested? Can you produce the scarred woman molested child?

    And if not, why are you smearing ALL of our troops as child molestors?

  300. 300
    Oregon Guy says:

    John-

    The Army is a big place (~2,000,000) with a slightly higher crime rate than the real world. I think he just pulled out the molestor bit b/c its an Art. 134 issue. Its really kind of “inside baseball,” and if I hadn’t been drafted to do a lot of military justice-related crap during some interrogation-related courts-martial I never would have made friends with a lot of folks in the JAG Corps to know what he’s blathering about.

    Funnily enough, I’ve probably been drinking with this guy’s boss.

  301. 301
    binzinerator says:

    dryyyyyyy cracker

    By the way, I am not intending to ‘blame the troops.’ Nor do I accept that it’s all because of the civilian leadership’s dumb decisions. Because that leaves out the rest of America.

    My intention here was to say ‘no exceptions’ if there’s any blame to be handed out.

    That chunk of America that doesn’t want to hear about the bogus claims for war I’m calling stupid and if it happens to include someone who is serving, I’m not making an exception.

    Same with that 70percent of America that wants out of Iraq when talking to pollsters but says nothing to the people who actually have the power to do that. I’m calling ’em stupid. And if a serviceperson is among that group stupid still applies.

    The stupidity of the civilian leadership is a given, but they had (and still have) help.

  302. 302
    Cain says:

    Oregon guy wins best thread. A good postings!

    cain

  303. 303
    Antonio Manetti says:

    Paul Fussel, in relating how he was once interviewed by a New York lawyer about the way language was sanitized in so-called after-action reports, had this to say about the average non-combatants perception of war:

    [T]he lawyer, a very representative human being, suffered from an extreme naivete about the facts of war. One would expect a lawyer, in New York City especially, to be quite sophisticated about the facts of life, but here is one who imagined that the conduct of combat was rational. … Those who find it hard to understand how often soldiers kill their own comrades during friendly fire episodes are victims of the same intellectual and emotional error. The culture of war, in short, is not like the culture of ordinary peace-time life. It is a culture dominated by fear, blood, and sadism, by irrational actions and preposterous (and often ironic) results. It has more relation to science fiction or to absurdist theater than to actual life, and that makes it hard to describe.

  304. 304
    An Army Lawyer says:

    Me, I’ve never seen a child molestation case where the molester didn’t put his peepee in or on an orifice. “However slight.” The Benchbook goes on state that clitoral stimulation counts.

    Benchbook says licking the clitoris is sufficient. Not digital stimulation. Hence the reference to “diddling.”

    Re the rest of your post. Again, meh. The question is not whether this conduct warrants a CM. I’ve said it doesn’t. What it warrants, if anything, is NJP. So commentary about judges’s not liking cdrs writing their own is misplaced as we’re not there yet (and likely wouldn’t be). Nor was I hanging my hat solely on a 134 cl 1 or 2 offense. Can the conduct be described as violating cl 1 or 2? Yes. That ends the debate re whether it falls under the UCMJ.

    You asked under what articles is his conduct punishable. You can argue the prudence of bringing such charges to a CM all you want. I don’t care. I’m not making that argument. Never have.

    Incidentally, kiddie porn does not have an enumerated specification under 134.

    At rock bottom the general article is subject to abuse and is used in a very limited fashion.

    That’s an argument re the general prudence of bringing such a charge, not whether such a charge can be reasonably brought/proved.

  305. 305
    An Army Lawyer says:

    Oregon Guy:

    I withdraw my charge that you could not “do my job.” I challenged, you responded. I now have no reason now to doubt you on that front.

    That being said, you remain wrong on whether the conduct in question alleges an offense under the UCMJ. It does.

  306. 306
    the dryyyyyyy cracker says:

    Binzinerator, sorry about the slag & run job. As soon as I hit submit, I realized that my little wrath cocktail up there was one part you pissing me off, three parts me eating yesterday’s lunch one booth over from a couple of guys who lost limbs for Bush’s re-election. I had every intention of coming back to de-escalate but I got swamped at work.

    I’m also sorry I went after you so hard, someone who’s obviously on “my side”–oh how I long to retire that term–but frankly, only fellow BDS sufferers have the power to get my hackles up these days. Kinda like how the Dems’ blame-the-Iraqis talking points infuriate me more than everything the RNC ever put out combined.

    Peace, brother. I think this was a spat worth having, and I wish I could’ve been around to actually have it the right way, but judging by what you’ve said since this morning, we’re on the same page, probably the same paragraph. And don’t worry about the insults–you’re not wrong, they just didn’t apply in this particular instance. When next we meet, chances are they’ll fit like a glove.

    Speaking of which, I just got my “Oregon Guy #1” giant foam hand, so that’ll put an end to my typing. Now I just gotta figure out where that dude’s doling out the next ass-kicking.

  307. 307

    […] And again: […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] And again: […]

  2. […] For some people none of this matters. The important thing is to realize that our troops are all doing awful things overseas, and it’s time to bring the sociopaths home. Ever last woman taunting, dog mauling, baby skull wearing one of ‘em. […]

  3. MilBlogs says:

    He May Be a Criminal, But He’s Our Criminal

    Best part about all this Beauchamp nonsense: If Beauchamp is telling the truth, he’s committed some serious (possibly criminal) misconduct. If he’s lying, ditto. Guess it’s a question of what preconceptions his supporters want to bolster when they d…

  4. […] In related news, I found myself in the curious position of having to argue, on a lefty blog, just why mocking an IED victim, desecrating human remains and ‘cornering’ a Bradley to intentionally kill stray dogs might be a bad thing, possibly warranting some action. […]

  5. […] beauchamp’s revenge Much like “culture warrior“, it seems as if another someone else is unhappy with the conservative blogosphere for their reaction to the Scott Thomas controversy. Jeff Goldstein comments: Well, what remains to be said, John? If the “nutters” continue to harp on the significance of reporting fiction as truth, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they move on to the next outrage, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write on the surge strategy and its successes, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write about Paris Hilton, or take on Barack Obama’s bluster about invading Pakistan, one wonders why they aren’t taking on the mess that is Iraq. […]

  6. […] On matters Beauchamp: [Dean Barnett’s post] consists of basically an excuse to link to this intrepid report by Matt “Yes I appeared in Gay porn but that does not mean I am gay and even if I am for some reason the Right-wing gives me a pass anyway” Sanchez (obligatory Onion link), in which his investigation has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman (PROOF BEAUCHAMP IS A LIAR!). […]

  7. […] John Cole, hate-filled wretch, asks why the right-side bloggers aren’t still dogpiling Scott Beauchamp. Beauchamp is the soldier who wrote several anonymous pieces for the New Republic alleging firsthand witness accounts of our soldiers engaging in rank cruelty and corpse desecration. Righty bloggers immediately jumped on the story, found out Beauchamp’s real identity and that his stories don’t appear to have actually happened. […]

Comments are closed.