I have a full day tomorrow and won’t be able to blog, so I better get this in before I am accused of avoiding the controversy. Via the Memeorandum, the Weekly Standard is reporting that Beauchamp recanted and has signed a statement recanting:
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
There is nothing official, yet, but I think I speak for everyone when I state that I think this definitively proves that our troops are, to a man and woman, angels, there never have been any jerks in the military, and we can all expect a decrease in violence in theatre now that the Jihadi’s who were worked up into an America hating-frenzy after reading Beauchamp’s pieces in the TNR read that the Weekly Standard has debunked them. Hallelujah.
As I have stated all along, it would not surprise me if Beauchamp was a liar or if everything he said was not true:
And this is all besides the point- I have never really been very invested in whether he did or did not do these things, I have been focussing on the idiocy of those who have been insisting he didn’t, that it is all a lie designed to smear the troops, and that they can prove it because the Powerline has a scale model of a Bradley.
That is where the real story is- the depths of stupidity in a certain segment of the blogosphere.
And again:
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.
And, as it certainly seems at this point, he is a fabulist, something that was not uncovered by scale models of Bradley’s determinging it is impossible to run over a dog, or the other pitched and heated ‘debunkings,’ but by his own word (which, apparently, they now seem quite eager to accept).
And yet again, in Uncle Jimbo’s call to arms:
My position on Beauchamp has been clear- who cares? Really, while you all are trying to excuse your chest-thumping groupthink by claiming “TERRIBLE CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED” and whipping yourself into a lather screaming about how much this hurts the troops and it just can’t be true, the rest of us are looking at you and wondering what the hell is wrong with you. First, the enemy doesn’t read TNR. They really don’t. Al Qaeda in Iraq is not going to justify their next IED because Beauchamp reported that some GI’s made fun of a woman in a mess hall. Saying otherwise is absurd.
Second, I don’t know how many people read TNR, but I never even heard of Beauchamp until I saw the hysterics brigade massively linking the issue on memeorandum.com. Your childish and goonish antics and response have given this story 100 times the play it ever would have received. Seriously- try this at a bar tonight- ask if anyone knows who Scott Beauchamp is. Then, enjoy yourself trying to explain to the people who just looked at you quizzically and shrugged their shoulders that IT IS A SUPER BIG DEAL AND THE TROOPS ARE IN DANGER AND THAT MICHELLE MALKIN THINKS IT MEANS THE LEFT HATES AMERIKKA. Seriously, have fun with that. The absurd response has given this stupid story far more legs than anything the TNR PR department could dream up.
Finally, is it possible that Beauchamp is just the company shitbird and many of these claims, while rooted in truth, are exaggerated? Absolutely. Are you telling me that you have no faith in his NCO’s taking care of this, and that unless you keyboard comandos go crazy and make sure Beauchamp is publicly executed, he is going to get off scot free for lying? Sheesh- as a former NCO, I am a little miffed you all have so little faith in our current Army’s non-coms.
I still maintain one of the first things I wrote about this absurd story:
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.
An upside to this whole charade is that I am now, more than ever, convinced that a certain segment of the Republican party and the right wing blogosphere is certifiably insane. And one really funny thing about this is that a diary that very few people ever read in the first place will now gain immortality. Now what the hell is Michael Moore up to?
*** Update ***
One last thing- in the comments, someone suggested his Officers coerced him into signing the statement (if, in fact, there is one). I reject that. I don’t think that is fair- there is no evidence that his Officers would do something like that, and that is a smear, unlike Beauchamp’s writings of various minor misdeeds done by anonymous people. We can easily find out who his officers are, and claiming they would do something like that is a direct attack on their honor. I think if he signed a sworn statement, you have to take him at his word.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
No, it certainly seems his superiors got him to say exactly what they wanted.
Stankleberry
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
Jake
What a shocker, you were completely wrong, but– somehow — you’re right after all.
What a complete freaking joke this site has become.
A shame.
John Cole
I don’t think that is fair- there is no evidence that his Officers would do something like that, and that is a smear, unlike Beauchamp’s writings of various minor misdeeds done by anonymous people. We can easily find out who his officers are, and claiming they would do something like that is a direct attack on their honor. I think if he signed a sworn statement, you have to take him at his word.
Additionally, I maintain that most of the people working at the PAO and in his chain of command just want this stupid non-story can go away, so they can get about their jobs. they don’t have an easy go of things over there right now.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
And what better way for this story to go away than to have its author retract every single word?
C’mon, John. You can’t really believe the brass didn’t threaten to break Beauchamp’s balls over this.
SP
Well I dunno about you, but now that this guy Beauchamp (or Beachump which undoubtedly he will be called soon enough) has been exposed as a liar, finally our troops will be greeted as liberators, and we’ll find those WMD’s too!
Hooray! Home by Xmas!
John Cole
What exactly was I wrong about? That the reaction to this was overblown? Nope, not that. That he could have been lying or could be telling the truth, but that it really doesn’t matter? Nope, not that. That none of the alleged debunkings actually debunked the story? Nope, not that. That this is going to have ZERO impact on our success in Iraq? Nope, not that either.
So what exactly was I wrong about?
Otto Man
Conservatives decrying “chest-thumping groupthink”? I thought they still liked the Bush administration?
Marc
Well, when has Bill Kristol and his Weakly Standard crew ever been wrong before?
KC
What’s so funny about this is that I’ve been on vacation, listening sometimes to the news in the car (I was on a road trip through Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington), and I heard exactly nothing about this issue. Come home from vacation, turn on the computer, and it’s like the world turned upside down though. I would have never ever heard of Beauchamp or his story if not for the rightwing nutball brigade.
mesablue
John,
Amazing how large an asshole you can once again prove yourself to be.
Mommy wasn’t very nice to you, was she?
Purple Avenger
there is no way to prove one way or another Beauchamp is lying…
I think if he signed a sworn statement, you have to take him at his word.
Wouldn’t that pretty much “prove” he was lying then? (stipulating no duress of course)
Andrew
Beauchamp just needs to solicit some gay prostitutes and the right wing will never talk about him again.
Ryan
It doesn’t matter. You were wrong because they say so.
Now go pray and ask Dear Leader for his forgiveness. The Church of the 25 Percenters commands you!
Cain
Sorry offtopic (and because I’m sick of the whole Beauchump thing)
John, I like to
demandrequest open thread. There’s an interesting thread on Sullivan regarding supply side economics that would make a refreshing change from crappy democrats, useless republicans, and ornery posters. :-) Before you go off and not post all day tomorrow. Ya bum.Or not..
cain
SP
I’m sure the Malkings and the rest of those types will scream very loudly, hoping to drown out the story about almost 200,000 missing AK’s that were given to the Iraq cough Army.
Gee, wonder where all those weapons went?
Butbutbutbut TNR publishes lies so therefore blah blah blah Bush is kewl!
Mr. Schadenfreude
“…even if Beauchamp is lying, he comes out looking better than the asshole armchair commandos attacking him.”
How’s the weather in Bizzaro world? Maybe you’ll take your head out of your ass long enough to look. An admitted liar looks better than the people who claimed he was a liar? Ooookay.
I’d argue this logically with you but you’re clearly not capable of that so I’ll stick with the crude insults.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Mr. Schadenfreude,
We’re not winning in Iraq.
Now what?
Terry Ott
I’m not sure WHY I actually paid much attention to this little swirl of controversy, considering it IS baseball season and NFL camps are underway, except it seemed from the get-go like this was kind of obviously fishy and far fetched. I found it strange that people would hang on this, as if it showed/proved anything about anything. And I wondered how it would pan out.
“Time out” on the commenters here referencing WMDs, a conflict dreadfully botched, brain dead policy-makers, dead and wounded soldiers, broken Iraqi government and all of that. That’s not what this was about at all. In fact, in the end it was about very little in terms of substance, as I suspected (top of the head) right away.
Don’t we ALL know enough of the people who are doing their time in Iraq and elsewhere to conclude that they’re not ogres. They grew up on our block, they went to school with us, we dated their siblings.
What it’s primarily about, I think, is how a publication could let this get past its “smell detector” (assuming they at TNR were not an accessory to the writer’s creative output), and then go through some kind of “we’ve checked and it’s all cool” assertion. That’s astounding. To get one’s head around THAT, relative to TNR, is just very, very disconcerting.
ChenZhen
Something I can’t figure out…
Why the heck did this guy (Beauchamp) step forward and reveal his identity in the first place? I mean, if he knew he was lying and that the WS and righty blogs had caught him, why not just remain anonymous and/or stop penning diaries? Why expose himself like this?
Maybe I’m missing something here, but the logic doesn’t seem to flow right. In fact, even over at Hot Air they’re trying to figure out how this all makes sense.
RSA
Not that I think TNR has unimpeachable credibility, especially post-Glass, but I wonder what’s the story with the five other soldiers in Beauchamp’s company who corroborated his anecdotes? I wonder whether the Weekly Standard has all the details right. If so, Beauchamp comes out looking like even more of a jerk (and fabulist) than he appeared to be before, either having lied to investigators or to TNR.
SP
Why are the wingnuts so mad? You think they would be happy about this. But they aren’t, they still seethe. It’s your fault somehow, John.
ConservativelyLiberal
I never cared a whit about what STB said, and I have not read it to this day. But I do know what was reported, and I believe that there is some truth in what he said.
Sorry, but as honorable as you know people in the military are, I know people can be otherwise. Especially when their interests are at hand and depend on the outcome. STB knew that his writings would raise hell, and he would be a fool to think otherwise. Knowing this, I can only surmise that he felt pressure to ‘do the right thing’, and he did it.
Either way, STB is a cooked goose. Stick a fork in him, he is done. Another casualty of this stupid war…
capelza
John, I think that you are most likely right that Beauchamp’s superior’s wouldn’t do that, though again the shade of Pat Tillman and the living words of Jessica Lynch lingers over this military, sad to say. And the tragedy there is that there will a suspicion that touches upon earnest and sincere officers for a long time to come.
Why isn’t there anything official yet? This is what bugs me more than anything. So far it’s all come the wingnutosphere. Why not just publish it for the public? Release a public statement already!
The whole thing has been ridiculous from day one. As KC said, we would never have heard about this guy at all if wingnuttia hadn’t gone spastically fubar about it.
It’s the need for such a tiny “victory”, though it never really made the press, however, those rape and murder convictions have. Guess what, even those rape and murder convictions do not reflect on the rest of the good men and women who serve, even ones who might have run over a dog with a Bradley. :)
Yeah, about those guns, huh? Though honestly, it should not come as a suprise, given the situation over there. They can “misplace” billions of dollars of cold hard American cash, pallets of the stuff, what’s some guns?
Jim Treacher
Because he was close to being discovered anyway? Better to jump than be pushed, maybe.
Tom
THE GAY PORN COCK OF LIES grinds slow, but it grinds exceedingly fine…
ThymeZone
Can’t we just get back to Paris Hilton?
neil
And now, total protonic reversal, with the war-cheerleaders claiming that this good and honorable man’s signed statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a big fat liar.
Jones
You purposely miss the point: the reason for those stories was to undermine American support for the war and the soldiers fighting it by smearing them. You liked the stories for that reason, and defended the guy for the same. You covered your ass by saying ‘maybe he’s lying’ and called the rightblogs hysterical for doubting the story- now that they are proven right you are calling them hysterical for being right. How about your hysteria, defending implausible stories that did indeed turn out to be lies, then trying to ridicule those who got it right all along.
Another victory for the right against the liberal media. The best the left has been able to do is Jeff Gannon, that’s why you see such sour grapes as Cole is serving up.
Nancy Irving
“eppur si muove” – Galileo.
Jinchi
Excuse me, but doesn’t this story sound even less credible than his diary entries?
Why did he write a sworn statement? Who did he write it to? Does the military typically take signed confessions from soldiers who tell battle stories? And if he wrote a sworn statement to exculpate his platoon, why wouldn’t it be made public rather than leaked to a partisan website?
The Weekly Standard’s description is of a soldier being investigated and under threat of disciplinary action for talking out of turn. Just signing a confession makes it go away? That sounds like a typical Soviet tactic to me.
Nancy Irving
P.S. They burnt Tillman’s diary.
Nancy Irving
And his uniform.
Lupin
I can’t tell you how relieved I am!
Now I only need to worry about:
At US base, Iraqis must use separate latrine.
Without proof, military targets man assumed to be gay.
and my perennial favorite:
Sexual assault of women soldiers on rise in US military.
Bubblegum Tate
Because the Malkintents and various wingnuts BLARGH!ed about it so much.
Aaron
Clearly this proves that the war is going well, and its the fault of the MSM for failing to report all the good news coming out of Iraq.
/sarcasm
Person of Choler
“I think this definitively proves that our troops are, to a man and woman, angels….”
I wouldn’t go that far. The incident is merely another demonstration that the anti-war crowd will believe anything that demeans our military or their mission in Iraq.
I know, I know the wingnuts believed the stuff about WMD, and ____ and ____(fill in the blanks) but remember, the anti-war folks are members of the Reality Based Community (right?) and their powers of logic, observation, and critical thinking should make them immune to lies and propaganda.
The yodelling of Mr. Cole and others notwithstanding: you’ve been had. Heh.
Wilfred
We managed to get 9 more Names Not Released Yet in the past 2 days, at the same time that 5 more Sunnis Ministers left al-Maliki’s cabinet, leaving the political reconciliation (the objective of the surge) at its nadir. But Beauchamp recanted. Heh.
jake
Because said officials know that no one besides a few people with their heads tucked up their arses gives a fuck.
Because they’re afraid that if they release an official statement on one disciplinary matter some jackass will expect them to release information on all disciplinary matters.
Because they don’t want morons scouring through blogs like The Sandbox looking for something that suggests a soldier doesn’t SupportTheTroopz (TM) and flipping out about that.
Because they’re a little busy right now.
Those are my guesses.
NSC
I see the three expected responses from liberals here:
1. Fake but accurate.
2. Army coverup.
3. The strawman “so I guess we are winning the war too, huh, wingnuts?”
Can you guys GET any more pathetic and predictable?
Person of Choler
Wilfred, yes Beauchamp lied and his lies were gobbled hook, line, sinker, fishing license, and bass boat by a serious national publication.
It is funny to watch impartial, fact checking, critical thinking Reality Based media folks get flimflammed by a cheapjack poseur.
Dales
So you are going the full “fake-but-accurate” route.
I am really disappointed in you.
JGabriel
John Cole @ Top:
The Weekly Standard, John?
The Standard has a reputation for smear jobs. Since this story is Beauchamp’s first, he has no reputation at all. On that score alone, Beauchamp still gets the benefit of the doubt. It wouldn’t be surprising to discover that there was no such recantation at all.
Until this story is reported by a more trustworthy source, independently verified (i.e., not containing the words “The Weekly Standard reports…”), I’ll withhold judgement.
Wilfred
I actually gasped when I read that. You’re right, of course, but that will not lead to the deaths of tens of thousands as happened when ‘serious’ national pubs like the NYT, WSJ and WP bought Bushco’s rap about WMD and building a new Middle East. I retract that gasp, btw, on the remote chance that you were being ironic.
It’s the sense of scale that is warped here. At the same time the right wing was bleating about Beauchamp, military courts were convicting and sentencing marines and soldiers for the murder of Iraqi civilians, in two well documented trials. Now, forgive me, but I remain a bit suspicious of the timing of the Beauchamp thing, coinciding as it did with the culmination of two trials that actually might have forced a bit more reflection than running, or not, over a dog.
Education Guy
This is funny. It turns out that those “attacking” the poor fabulist were correct to be concerned, and yet they still somehow are to be considered loathe in your eyes?
Tell me how that math works John? How is questioning the veracity of this man’s claims to be considered “attacking him”? You’re slipping farther down the rabbit hole, and I think you should take a breath and get some perspective before you are so far gone that you actually start believing this crap.
John Cole
Heya- Did you spend one second refuting Jeff Emmanual’s full-throated piece in Kool Aid Central (Red State) accusing me of all manners of things, including being a bigot and a homophobe? A place where you are an editor?
Oh. No. You didn’t.
Blow it out your ass, Daly. What you think of me means nothing.
John Cole
Oh, I see. They were just questioning the veracity of his claims. My bad.
Too bad they never do that when Frank Gaffney makes shit up or Cheney gets on national television and lies through his teeth.
Cassidy
In response to the various questions of this nature, a little explanation of what most likely happenned. Once all this became public knowledge, including to his Chain of command who most likely found out after you all did, an investigation was initiated into the allegations of misconduct by Beauchamp. Any allegations are taken seriously enough to warrant a thorough investigation. The first step is to interview Beauchamp. He had two choices to make: 1) Continue on with his story and face charges of not reporting a criminal act, or 2) Recant the accusations.
Signing a sworn statement is not a disciplinary action. It’s a simple form stating the facts. The same form is used in any investigation whether it’s a fender-bender on post or a lost piece of equipment, etc. All this does is close out the investigation with official documentation that the allegations were false or in some way embellished.
Secondly, just based on the scenario, there is nothing that would justify any official disciplinary action. Most likely he achieved a well-deserved ass-chewing from the Brigade Commander/ CSM on down to his Squad Leader and Team Leader. If any disciplinary action was taken, it was at a local level, Company or Field Grade Article 15, and as the accused he has a right to privacy to not have his punishment broadcasted to the whole world. If he only lost one pay grade, which I recall being said somewhere, then in all likelihood, all he recieved was 14 days of Extra Duty and some lost pay. But, the disciplinary action was more than likely related to OPSEC violations or some other such activity. Or possibly, he was lying and got caught in it before he recanted, warranting an Article 15.
Heh…typical Soviet tactics were to shoot people to enforce fear and discipline.
Why? Either the allegations were true and they threatened him with charges for not reporting it, as he should have, instead of sensationalizing it, or he got an ass-chewing for embarassing the unit over things that didn’t happen. The professionalism of the Chain of Command is sturdier than you imply.
Nikki
I’m going with Wilfred on this. Much noise in the blogosphere about Beauchamp; very, very little about the 2 convictions. And those soldiers committed all helluva lot worse atrocities than what Beauchamp did. Yet all eyes were on him. Smokescreen?
jenniebee
When can we expect signed retractions from the people who corroborated Beauchamp’s accounts?
Also, does this mean that Beauchamp can talk to his wife again? It would be nice if he could. Maybe Bill Kristol’s anonymous source can let us in on that, as well.
pharniel
yo, education guy
most of the blogs did not merly say ‘i don’t belive that’
they were calling for violent attacks upon his person and some were attempting to publish details about his personal life such as his girlf reind’s name and address and inciting people to contact her and express sympathy for him being gay.
the jackassery of the 28%’s was aperent.
seriously, it’s like someone wrote a news article about hazing at a popular college and the almni association went batshit because that never happens.
Punchy
Because our military under General Petreaus (sp?) has been nothing but a model of honesty, realistic and accurate statements, and non-partisianship.
John S.
Thanks for summing up the retardation of the right.
The vast majority of posters here had only one opinion in common (with John) on this issue:
The right-wing blogosphere is a joke that prefers to dwell on sensational bullshit rather than address important issues.
Most of us didn’t care if the story was accurate or fake. Nobody really pushed the idea that the Army would spend any time covering up something so insignificant. As for the state of the war, we are fucking LOSING, and it has nothing to do with this Beauchamp asshole – a point you pinheads cannot seem to grasp.
What is pathetic and predictable is the stream of “conservatives” we’ve seen over here that don’t even bother to read the comments and just attack the liberal strawman position they have created out of whole cloth that doesn’t even exist. If there is one thing I’e learned through all this, it’s that you 28%ers need to learn some reading comprehension, and spend a little less time espousing your fantastic theories and a little more time actually listening to what other people have to say.
Education Guy
Actually it is your bad. Stop with the whole personal investment in being correct to the nth degree and you might see this. What proof do you have that it was done for some other reason?
This is your response? Honestly? Seriously man, remember the old saw about 2 wrongs? Or better yet, remember that an argument that bases itself on falsehoods or rhetorical sleight of hand does not serve a good purpose.
Step back from the edge. Take a break, do whatever you need to stop yourself, because as it stands now you are doing no one any good by helping with the outrage that a liar was caught. Which is the ONLY thing that happened here.
Why are you so angry that the truth won out?
MAX HATS
There is no way this is the end of this. I predict either the confession is left dubious, or he’ll say he signed it under duress, and this story will go on forever, each side believing what it wants.
The right wing does come out looking insane in this. It wasn’t even a fucking “smear.” It was just talk. AND IT HAD TO BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS. Anyone who thinks Beauchamp’s stories represent some unimaginable, reprehensible behavior has never been within 1000 yards of the military. I still don’t understand what was so important about the story in the first place.
cleek
and then the football fan club joined in because, you know, nobody is supposed to question the alumni.
Education Guy
Ok, I know about the gf’s name being released and while I find it worrisome, it IS related to the story because she works for the magazine who published his stories. I am unfamiliar with her address being printed. Can you provide a link to this?
Also, I would ask for proof (via links) to the “calling for violent attacks upon his person”, because I am unaware of it.
Wilfred
Ah, so it’s spoof.
R. Stanton Scott
I agree with Cassidy. Once his superiors realized the implications of what he wrote, they checked things out and found some things they could hang him on (e.g., not reporting a crime, violating opsec by publishing movement dates on his blog). They presented him with a choice: make this go away and your first sergeant gets you for two weeks. Push it and you see a court martial and sunny southern Kansas.
I must emphatically disagree with John: there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that some officers in his unit would use whatever tactics necessary to make this potential drag on their careers come to an end. Still, it is unfair to impugn the honor of specific officers without evidence–a view some on the right should share, but don’t.
I think the funniest thing about this whole episode is that the “state’s rights, drown the government in a bathtub” crowd is very happy to take the word of a federal government agency at face value, even as they rant about black helicopters and media conspiracy.
Pablo
August 6:
August 2:
What Happened to Beauchamp?
Brilliant!
Even diarrhea has a certain consistency.
Blue Neponset
Regardless of the wingnut victory parade, I think we should all be pissed at TNR for doing such a shitty job on this. If Beauchamp’s recant turns out to be real then the TNR got played by a 24 year old private and some of his buddies. As much as I can’t stand the fucking asshole wingnuts among us they do have a point about this being shitty journalism. I hope lazy ass reporters and editors learn a lesson from all of this. I doubt it but one can hope.
John Cole
It wasn’t journalism. It was some kids diary. Hence, the name ‘The Baghdad Diarist.’
There was no reporter on the ground, pounding the beat, pressing palms and quizzing sources to report war crimes from the region.
pharniel
education guy – I’ll dig it up later, hower there was calls for a ‘soap’ or ‘blanket’ party, half of the links stating he should get a DD or prison time, and that’s the more rational stuff.
to say that the comments especially were ‘shrill’ would be an understatement. for some reason some guy making shit up about his unit, beliveiable shit (because soldiers in an unpopular occupation working extended tours of duty are not going to be the most subtle or balanced individuals after awhile) is somehow “smearing” american troops. Yes, it’s insulting to the platoon if not true, however, seriously, soldiers have been doing horrible things for as long as there have been soldiers.
to suggest that he’s smearing the good name of the army is like saying that somone calling ted kennedy a fomer lush is smearing all senetors.
David
2 wrongs… except that the fallout from Beauchamp was the outrage of a few seething Fluffernutters, while the fallout from Cheney and Bush were the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands innocent Iraqi civilians and the displacement of millions of other innocent lives.
That whole “scale of consequence” thing, y’know?
Jim Treacher
Blaspheme!
Blue Neponset
I hate to disagree with you on this John, but when you publish something you are practicing journalism. Even if you don’t think publishing a diary is journalism what do you call TNR’s fact checking of the story?
Nash
The Best of EG:
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. In EG world, “it IS related to the story” means it’s justified to go after and attack her. Because the sky is blue, “blue” has four letters in it, and her name just happens to have more than four letters in it, it is justified to turn her into an object of savaging.
Tell me, Master Hypocrite, if one disagrees with Mr. Bush, is it justified to go after his daughters, because they are, you know, his daughters and his daughters support and campaign for him and well, it IS related?
I have always thought that sort of attack was unjustified, but now you seem to be saying it is completely, morally justified. I mean, he is married to her, she works for the magazine, the magazine said things you don’t like. QED? In the immortal words of Mr. Rove, she’s “fair game” now?
So you play the link game…
Printing her name makes you a tad bit squeamish, but it isn’t as bad as printing her address. But you don’t have her address in front of you. Voila! No harm, no foul! Right EG? Wingnuts used to scream about moral relativism, EG. What’s up with yours? Perhaps you should take some moral instructions from the guy who said this:
And then there’s this, where not only do you prove yourself a liar, you play the time-tested wingnut game of “Prove With Links That We Said the Things You’ve Already Proven With Links We Said“. It’s a rollicking fun game!
You are a liar. Since you are obviously following closely on everything John is saying about this, you are just as obviously choosing to ignore the plain fact that John has laid out more than once the many ways in which this man has been threatened physically by the wingnut brigade you are a part of.
Oh, you want to play “word” games with whether the man was threatened or not. Ah yes, no relativism here, move on.
Oh, yes, “violent”. Ah well, as long as they don’t call for actions that are the “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure”. Then it’s not violence, right EG? Not a threat, so okay, right?
I beg you to reassure me that the “Education” part of your moniker doesn’t mean you are in any way involved with teaching. Because, oh the poor children, if that is the case. The poor, poor children!
Zifnab
Wow. Check out the wingnut invasion. We haven’t seen this much nutopia posting since Darrell and Stormy both took a day off work.
I think the nutters are confusing “F4|
John
Look, whether you call it a diary, essay, memoir, novella or whatever, it comes down to if you are the editors of The New Republic, it’s incumbent on you to fact-check everything that goes in your magazine, especially with something as controversial as this and with the ghost of Stephen Glass looming over your publication.
When you start letting your desire to want something to be true to cloud your editorial judgment, it’s time to leave the magazine, get a group of like-minded reporters and financial backers together, and see if you can revive the recently departed Weekly World News.
Steve
And yet they had no problem, a few days ago, announcing that they had interviewed the whole unit and concluded that the story wasn’t true.
This is a plausible scenario. What stuns me is that anyone could think about this system and conclude that it’s anything other than a convenient way to sweep things under the rug. Any time someone goes public with an incident report, they get presented with two choices: face discipline for not reporting it through channels, or sign a statement and make the whole thing go away. How the heck could anyone find credible a statement signed under those circumstances?
There’s still a complete lack of critical thinking skills on the pro-war side. They remain the most gullible group of people who ever lived.
Nash
See EG, you got pharniel to play the “Prove With Links That We Said the Things You’ve Already Proven With Links We Said“!
EG sez: “But none of those instances linked ever actually used the word ‘violence’, now did they, pharniel? Hmm. So, is that all you’ve got? I thought so.”
(No offense to pharniel intended.)
Zifnab
Wow. Check out the wingnut invasion. We haven’t seen this much nutopia posting since Darrell and Stormy both took a day off work.
I think the nutters are confusing “F4KE BUTT AKURITE!” with “I’ve heard worse”. When they get in a lather over someone talking about roadkill, having completely forgotten about Abu Garab, it’s laughable. Perhaps the Beauchamp story is easy to believe because we’ve got documented evidence of soldiers from every age of history – from the American Revolution to WWII to Desert Storm – committing similar sins. Is the headline “Soldiers laugh at ugly girl” so far outside the realm of reason that a Red Stater would adamantly oppose it on pure principle? Is someone who reads the headline and buys it a secret troop-hating individual? Heaven knows that in Vietnam, the entire US Army was composed of nothing but the most chaste and galant men that America could field. It’s a “known fact” that US soldiers have only the highest regard for women – which explains Lupin’s “Sexual assault of women soldiers on rise in US military” link up thread.
And the idea that the WMD brigade would accuse “liberals” of believing every printed word they read is simply hysterical. I don’t think any of John’s readers have suggested invading a 3rd world country on the evidence that TNR regularly presents. Few conservatives can make that claim.
Education Guy
Nash
I’m pretty sure it’s time to up your medication.
Jim Treacher
Fake but irrelevant.
Education Guy
David
So if you can find something that is MORE wrong, then it’s all ok. Nice morals there pal. But hey, since you are so concerned and all with that other thing, I guess you just have no time or reason to be concerned with this as well.
And yet, here you are talking to me about it. Odd that.
Neo
If you want to know just why so many blogger thought that “Tom Scott” needed to be be revealed conside this statement.
After reading that statement, you probably feel about the same way as these bloggers did about Beauchamp. I hope this aids in your understanding.
No dogs were harmed in the making of this posting
Nash
Yes, that would be a type of comment I would expect from someone who has been shown to be intellectually inconsistent and morally bankrupt. Good on you, EG.
Cassidy
This isn’t a pro-war stance…it’s the UCMJ. A couple of things to keep in mind when you consider this system; the Military’s system of justice and punishment. For one, it’s a very simple system that doesn’t exactly have the innocent until proven guilty stance of civilian law. If you are accused of something and face an Article 15, which is technically and administrative action, you have the option(s) of presenting evidence on your behalf, having people speak for you, and making a personal statement. But, the beginning of the Art 15 process means the chain of Command has allready decided your guilt. You can alos opt for a Court Martial, but that rarely happens.
Secondly, it’s sole purpose is to enforce discipline and good order amongst combat troops. There is not a lot of gray area in the UCMJ.
To be perfectly honest, you’re over-thinking it. The military process is simple: either the allegations of misconduct were true and Beauchamp is equally guilty of not reporting them, or they weren’t true and the investigation process requires documentation so that it can be closed out. No officer wants this kind of thing hanging over their head. It’s detrimental to morale and good order. It is entirely possible that Beauchamp was telling the truth and recanted to save his skin. It is less plausible that he was “threatened”, but it could have happenned.
All I can think of is that we had a guy who wrote home to his wife about being in firefights and killing people and whatnot (within our 1st month in country) and it got around to other wives whose husbands said otherwise. Eventually, it got back to the Chain of Command. He wasn’t punished for anything. he was called in front of the CDR who called him a jackass, amongst other names, and he was told to quit making stuff up, etc. I see that as the most likely scenario.
timb
Doesn’t matter, John. TNR staked its credibility on this “re-fact-checking” and confirmed it. Seems to me, they a) believed it (and thus were played) or b) made it all up. Either way, their optimistic hope now is that the public sees them as incompetents and not liars.
Personally, I relied on Foer and friends confirmation and made fun of Pablo. Now, I feel bad for Pablo and I feel badly for making fun of him when he was (for once) partially right.
It’s a black day when a partisan hacks like Goldfarb, Goldstein, Jimbo at Blackfive, and Pablo can be right, errr not wrong.
Nash
Someone who would justify identifying this man’s wife (and she’s his wife, EG, not gf, please keep up) with this wishy washy caveat
is in no ethical position to say this:
Textbook hypocrisy, EG.
Ryan
This is important because the Fighting 101st Keyboarders say it is! It’s really important! Really!
The rest of the war? Not so much.
MAX HATS
Counterpoint: There is a huge amount of gray area in the UCMJ.
Zifnab
Just out of curiosity, what evidence has the military released to suggest that Beauchamp made this all up? Seriously, I know the US Army is so close to sainthood that it would never force a soldier to recant his war story for simple PR purposes, but indulge me for a second. Why don’t we believe Beauchamp before be suddenly believe his refutation now?
And, while I’ll never suggest that TNR is the bastion of investigative journalism *cough* WMDs *cough*, I will suggest that if their reputation was in fact on the line, they might have actually done some follow-up work that supported Beauchamp’s claims. Otherwise, why stand behind him rather than just dumping him and apologizing for getting duped?
Education Guy
Nash
The funny thing is that it doesn’t even bother you a bit to partially quote me. Just keep repeating that his wife was “outed” and ignore the rest. It’ll really help with your honesty problems, I’m sure of it.
Nash
EG,
I should not have said what I did about the possibility of your being a teacher. And I apologize for that.
I did ask some questions that were non-rhetorical and would be interested to have your honest answers to them.
Nash
Ignore what “the rest”, EG? As much as you wish to, you aren’t allowed to pick my subjects for me.
I’m pointing out two things, EG. First, your convenient lapses from moral high dudgeon to moral relativism when it comes to this man’s wife and how she has been treated.
In addition, I’m calling everyone’s attention to the fact that the links you continue to demand have already been provided and more than once. In order to not acknowledge that this whole part of your point above is nonsense, you need to do one or both of:
(1) Pretend they never were given by John.
(2) Acknowledge them, then argue what the meaning of “is” is.
Two things, EG. This man’s wife as fair game for the people you are supporting, while maintaining you are on moral high ground about her treatment at their hands. And not admitting that the links you demand already exist and that they prove John’s case.
As for me, I am on poor ground in a moral sense due to my insult towards you. I apologized and I do so again.
You say I am ignoring “the rest”. Okay, those are my subjects. Care to engage them?
Warden
John, can you provide links to all these right wing bloggers asserting, as you claim, that “Al Qaeda in Iraq is going to justify their next IED because Beauchamp reported that some GI’s made fun of a woman in a mess hall”?
Cuz all this time I thought the outrage was over some cowardly little shit’s smear of honorable servicemen and a journalistic magazine’s self-serving decision to print it without fact-checking.
Education Guy
Nash
The really galling this is that I dissented from your carefully crafted narrative, and as such I was to be punished. I was identified as “the enemy”, and as such was to be accorded no respect. I suggest you go fuck yourself, and your “questions”
In case you have forgotten, here is how you introduced yourself to me.
Not that I expect you to care about honesty, but I stated that the REASON it was relevant was because she had a personal relationship with SB, that she was his girlfriend. That you chose to characterize this as being akin to the sky being blue only speaks to your mental processes.
Nowhere did I say it was OK to attack her, and in fact I asked for proof that it had happened. I notice you expended great effort to back up that assertion.
Keep fighting those dirty wingnuts buddy. I’m sure they deserve it for their “crimes”.
Cassidy
Not quite. The devil is in the details. There is not a lot of gray area in the UCMJ. There is a lot of gray area, commonly referred to as Commanders discretion, in the application of UCMJ.
EX.: I, as an NCO, have a Soldier who is underperforming, undisciplined, etc. I could, counsel him and create a paper trail building towards an ART 15 and possible separation. Or, I could take the Soldier out back for about 2 hours, make him PT until he’s about to fall over and kindly explain that his life will consist of nothing but that unless he straightens up. The end result: no UCMJ action and a Soldier with a new and different perspective.
He could have very easily been telling the truth and only recanted to save himself a Court Martial. From the other side, though, the Military, particularly the Army, has a fairly small concentration of personalities, so the truthfullness of his writings can be compared to other such people. I’ll explain more if you like, but I don’t want to get into “this kid is a shitbag” kind of character smear.
You’re still over-thinking it. The Army doesn’t have to force him to do anything. The allegations of misconduct and not reporting them are, alone, enough to send him to jail. If I recall correctly, in the rape trial involving the 101st, 1 or 2 of the Soldiers were tried for having knowledge of the incident, but not reporting it.
Steve
Right. The point is, it’s still duress, even if what they’re threatening him with is totally legit. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that he was waterboarded until he recanted. Under the UCMJ, they had him over a barrel already.
I’m not sure how much we actually disagree. The military wants to maintain good order, and part of that is keeping a lid on troublemakers. Either report things through the regular chain of command, the attitude goes, or else refrain from stirring the pot by going public with accusations you didn’t see fit to report.
That might be a very effective way of keeping discipline. But it still doesn’t mean you should attach any real significance to a statement signed under threat of prosecution. Given a choice between signing a statement and going through a world of discipline and legal hurt (and wasn’t Beauchamp previously busted a rank for something else?), almost everyone is going to pick the former option. So is his recantation reliable? Who the heck knows!
I still don’t get why anyone cares whether this clown and a couple of his buddies played a couple of cruel pranks. I really don’t.
TR
Me either, but I bet it has something to do with the kerning.
Yet another case where the wingnutosphere works itself into a circle jerk over a marginal issue, when no one else cares. One of the benefits of their echo chamber — they can fool themselves into thinking the issue’s important and, by extension, they are as well.
It would be sad, if they weren’t a group of flaming assholes.
Zifnab
That was phrased in a much more coherent and grammatically correct way than I could have said it. Thank you.
Either way, the point is that the wingers are grasping at the straw ends of victory once again.
Dan Collins
I’m not sure whether I think this is perverse, or perverted:
Are you arguing that one shouldn’t counter a libel, because it merely gives it more media exposure? This document would have entered the record as a true account of the behavior of American soldiers during the Iraq war. It would have been featured in dissertations by the Ward Churchills of the future. Somebody may have picked up the film rights.
You are careful to try and stipulate and protect the reasonableness and even-handedness of your treatment of the issue, even as you caricature other people’s positions regarding the angelic disposition of the soldiers. There is no integrity in that, John. You act as though the right-blogosphere induced the falsehoods in the documents by unfairly attacking the piece on no solid evidence, when in fact numerous soldiers and vets felt that there were inaccuracies and glaring unlikelihoods in the accounts. I imagine that it was sinful to have listened to people who have the knowledge, wasn’t it, John? on the part of the armchair warriors.
So–this is reasonableness? It sucks.
John S.
Zifnab-
That’s the most interesting footnote to this entire absurd affair. The right-wing blogosphere seems more concerned with vetting the veractiy of some insignificant soldiers’ war tales than they did in examining the claims made by this administration that goes us into this damn war in the first place.
It really is fascinating. A twenty-something foot soldier MUST BE HELD TO ACCOUNT – lest he harm the troops with his smears. The POTUS? Eh, not so much…I mean sending a few hundred thousand soldiers into a war couldn’t possibly be harmful to them. Hell, that’s supporting them!
It boggles the mind.
Tim F.
When claiming to have lied carries a lower penalty than inviting disciplinary actions against himself and others in his unit, incentives side with falsely recanting. Obviously that doesn’t answer whether he did or did not, it just makes it unlikely that an official investigation by authorities with the power to court martial him will turn up the absolute truth.
But of course, none of that impacts John’s point at all. Given the ludicrous shit that happens every day in Iraq it remains borderline insane to act like one obscure commentator’s uninteresting stories deserve much attention one way or the other.
Blogswarms usually serve some larger point, yet I just don’t see that here. Are we proving that the MSM lies? Beauchamp’s stuff was presented as personal diaries, not reportage. At least the Glass affair carried the weight of the journal’s credibility. Personal diaries are inherently unverifiable; they sink or swim on the credibility of the diarist. If Beauchamp made shit up then he just joins a long list of bogus diarists including, for example, David Sedaris.
Maybe the larger point is that this sort of quotidian misbehavior doesn’t happen in Iraq? Obviously not. Smartly enough, wingers on this thread itself have disavowed it as a strawman. It’s an indefensible point.
It almost seems like there is no point. Except that isn’t true. When you read Goldstein, Spades, Jimbo and cetera one theme stands out every time – every one of these guys desperately wants to think that The Dreaded Left lined up behind Beauchamp. Attacking some random guy isn’t nearly as much fun as attacking the evil horrible leftards as a conveniently composition’d unit.
If our rightward friends seem to have lost their reading comprehension skills, it’s only because John wasn’t saying what they wanted him to say, so they conveniently misheard his point and attacked the imaginary John instead. As with Ward Churchill and so many others, blogosphere right can’t handle real people on the left so they prop up cartoonish Emmanuel Goldsteins and attack them instead. Bravo, boys.
Cassidy
I don’t think we are disagreeing. All I see is a few people (not you particularly) with thoughts of some sort of conspiracy, when the simpler possibilities are much more likely. The military tends to react in ways that most people don’t think, when it comes to stuff like this. From what I’ve seen, we’ve tried to become more transparent and “public friendly” after the real crimes that have been committed. Perfect example is that the policy is shifting, in regards to Tillman, to send a Platoon mate of the deceased to the family and tell them how they died.
Nash
No, it speaks to your inability to recognize your own hypocrisy, EG. That’s the whole point, and what you are missing: A personal relationship with SB is NOT germane.
She’s not maybe kinda huh fair game, she’s not 50% fair game. She’s not fair game.
It is why I brought up the analogy with Mr. Bush’s daughters and the analogy is actually quite close, because in each case, you have a family member who supports another loved one already under attack. Anyone who believes they are fair game for verbal attack because they have a personal relationship with and support the President is, in that instance, morally without a leg to stand on.
I agree, and I never said you did. What you did say was that the fact that she was in a personal relationship with this man and that she worked for the magazine which published him gave you pause. You were saying that if she were attacked, some forms of attack weren’t as bad as others. That is moral relativism. The hypocrisy comes from your presuming to lecture John about morals while acting less than morally and also using rhetorical slights of hand while accusing John for using rhetorical slights of hand.
Nor did I call you “the enemy”. But I spoke to you as if you were one, I will grant. I won’t play a semantical word game there, such as I will continue to accuse you of playing if you follow John’s links and then try to argue that they don’t represent threats of physical harm to SB.
person of choler
Wilfred, you write,
“Now, forgive me, but I remain a bit suspicious of the timing of the Beauchamp thing, coinciding as it did with the culmination of two trials that actually might have forced a bit more reflection than running, or not, over a dog.”
On what should we reflect? Are you saying that, since military personnel are on trial for crimes, the mission in Iraq is invalid? Citizens of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other places are sometimes accused rape or murder. Would that mean that these cities are failures and should be abandoned?
Jake
POTW.
Cassidy
I don’t personally. I’m not there right now, so I can’t comment on the facts of the allegations. What I do have is a multiple experiences in multiple units, and generally speaking, you find the same kinds of people across the board. Several traits stand out about this whole thing.
The grave desecration would be a crime, as well as erratically handling a vehicle, disregarding SOP and vigilant driving practices. If the running over dogs part was true, the actual problem is not the driver, but the TC ordering or allowing his driver to drive in such a manner, endangering civilians and the Soldiers in the back. The TC is typically a SGT(P)/ SSG, so that kind of lapse in discipline would carry a heavy reprimand and serious career ramifications.
TR
See Churchill, Ward. Obscure professor in a marginal field at a state university, and he was somehow the embodiment of all things liberal. The only place I’d ever heard about him was the rightwing blogosphere.
I remember a forum — Drum’s place, maybe? — where even another professor at U. of Colorado said he’d never heard of him either, even though they were profs at the same school.
We don’t get to define who were are. The right does. Because it’s so much easier for them to fight who they think we are, rather than who we are.
Blue Neponset
I still don’t understand why personal diaries are not reportage? Beauchamp is reporting his supposed real life experiences. Just because he does it in diary form doesn’t change the fact that he is reporting what is happening in Iraq.
Dan Collins
Really? Did we say it was a conspiracy? No–we said that it was confirmation bias and shoddy fact-checking run amok. You desperately want to think that it’s us desperately wanting to think that it’s the Dreaded Left. If you’re going to make those allegations, I’d like some links. We’re a bit less conspiracy prone than the reality-based, I think.
Education Guy
Nash
You have real problems with reading comprehension. There is no point continuing with you, as you are just making shit up as you go.
Keep fighting the wingnuts. That you excel at. Too bad it’s all imaginary.
To anyone else
I would take it as a great kindness to have someone point out to me where all those links John has already provided which show what I was asking to see.
timb
Dan Collins,
Have you or Jeff recently written about the Haditha verdicts? Those verdicts, which will be endlessly hyped by our actual enemies, as revealing something about us. Do you have any outrage for murderers? Or, is it all saved for Beauchamp? Just curious, since the integrity of the troops matters so much to you, because I’m pretty sure the film rights to the atrocities at Haditha are going to picked up by some Sunni somewhere.
Just saying, since the record is such a big deal, maybe you could denounce the folks who actually do hurt the efforts of our soldiers.
…excepting the conspiracy of the Left and the mainstream media to destory our fighting morale that is…
Jim Treacher
Because it puts forth the idea that they aren’t accountable to their superiors? That nobody’s minding the store? “Go to Iraq and you can do whatever you want, because Everybody Knows Soldiers Do Bad Things.” That seems to be a big point of contention among the milbloggers and veterans who’ve commented on this.
TNR explicitly said that they trusted Beauchamp because he’s married to one of their staffers. To my mind, at least, that’s a point in TNR’s favor. Why would they think he’d make stuff up, if it might come back on his own family? It gave them more reason to trust him, even when people started asking substantive questions about his stories. They stood by their own.
If some people are making personal threats against her, I agree, they’re assholes. But it is germane.
Cassidy
Two different topics. What is the need to hear someone denounce something else bad, before they can have a conversation about a topic?
Steve
When I said “I don’t get why anyone cares,” I didn’t mean the military, although I’m not so sure whether they care about this particular set of allegations as a discipline problem or a PR problem.
What I meant is that I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal out here in blog-land. I’m no fan of the war, but it makes no difference to me whether this guy’s story is 100% true or 100% false. At most, it’s a story of a couple of soldiers behaving like assholes. Now if you asked me whether it’s important to get to the truth concerning Haditha, of course it is.
I literally don’t know a single person on the anti-war side who is invested in the truth of these stories in any way. I haven’t read a single blog post arguing that these stories prove something meaningful about our lawless military, or whatever. Nor do I expect to see anyone spitting on returning veterans because someone supposedly ran over a dog. It’s much ado about nothing.
Cassidy
Obligatory lefty, conspiracy theorist, “Blood for Oil”, war criminals, imperialist joke.
Tim F.
Shockingly, you misread what I wrote. Or maybe someone with a similar name said something about conspiracies, who knows.
Most of the Beauchamp criticisms that I have read expand from the general issue of a bogus diarist (which you will eventually admit is pretty inane) to the people who defended him. Outrage needs context, and one lying diarist isn’t it. Throw in leftards who want to believe the worst about Iraq and American soldiers, now we’re talking context.
Except as far as I can tell not many people cared to defend Beauchamp. John clearly didn’t. He just said that it is silly to go apeshit over stories that, even if true, don’t impact the Iraq narrative one bit.
LITBMueller
Yeah, cuz they worked soooo hard to keep us out of Iraq in the first place. Especially the TNR, NY Times, WaPo, and that lib’rul scumbag Tucker Carlson. Go get ’em, righties! Did they always hate ‘Murica, or was it only after they stopped agreeing with you?
Dude, a written recantation from a guy whose not even a journalist doesn’t even come CLOSE to finding a White House reporter’s gay military stud internet porn. No contest at all!!! If the wingnutosphere can find pictures of Keith Olbermann humping small farm animals, than maybe you’d have an argument. But, if this is all you guys got, fuhgetaboutit!
Scape-Goat Trainee
“Clearly this proves that the war is going well, and its the fault of the MSM for failing to report all the good news coming out of Iraq.”
No, what it proves is that the Left will grasp at whatever strawman they can to make the Military look bad in an effort to win support for their arguments. All while supporting the troops of course…
Wilfred
To begin with, the hundreds of cases brought by Iraqi victims that have resulted in paid compensation, besides the ever-increasing number of results of other claims not disclosed by DoD. Further, the results that these cases, along with abu Ghraib, have had on our stated objective of winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world.
I oppose this ridiculous war, but have a question for its supporters. What has been the effect of these actions against Iraqi civilians in terms of achieving the political objectives of the war? I have never seen a discussion of these hundreds of cases on blogs that went nuts over the possible effect that Beauchamp might have had on said effort.
over_educated
Sadly no conveys my feelings perfectly:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6668.html
Cassidy
Honest answer….depends on what level. On the Petraeus end of the spectrum, it’s PR, but for the ground level commanders, it’s discipline. Even if the allegations are slightly true, but embellished, it still speaks of a lax and undisciplined level of actions on missions. If any of these things are slightly true, they could not have happenned without the tacit permission of the Platoon level leadership.
For lack of a better word, I disagree. Just in BJ’s comments section, I’ve seen people (and no I’m not gonna waste my time searching for them) who wanted this kind of stuff to be true. Criminal or not, it confirms every belief they have about us; that we’re imperialist, torqued up jocks, etc. Whatever the belief, this kind of story allows people to stop viewing us as normal people, doing a difficult job, regardless of personal beliefs, and villify us. Is Beauchamp’s stories nothing? Sure. They could be true. I know people who I could picture doing those things. But in the end, it’s still the actions of a few, as in Haditha, that are being used to denigrate the other 99% who are just trying to do their job and come home in one piece.
Nash
As if you’ve been “continuing with” me up until now!
As to who between us has been discussing the substantive, I am comfortable leaving that judgment to posterity. [That is sarcasm, EG]
And, as I’ve been predicting all along:
Precisely! If you could ever get yourself over that low threshold, you would come to the next step, which is to deny that words mean what they mean.
But do keep fighting it, EG. You are excellent at misdirection and delaying tactics.
Tim F.
Thanks for sharing, SGT. I’m sure that Dan Collins will find your ideas especially enlightening.
BTW, you really put the cheery on the sundae by capitalizing Left.
Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
Think Cassidy (10:18 am) nails it. If Beauchamp didn’t retract, he and a bunch of his comrades were going to be in trouble: his superiors would have to investigate and take action. It’s easier for everyone (except TNR) if he retracted, although his career in the Army is finished (and his wife’s at TNR’s also). Wrecing one’s own career is one thing; but getting his comrades in trouble would be another matter entirely.
What puzzles me is why TNR didn’t ask Beauchamp whether he’d have to retract before their publishing their factcheck. Them sticking to his story while he did retracted just makes them look foolish.
[Now, given that Malkin et al. have shown this zeal to expose anonymous sources, will we see them show the same jones for attributable sources when there’s a story with “Senior Whitehouse officials said…” or “Sources close to the President said…”.]
Kevin K.
Dan “Less Italicized” Collins said:
If you’re going to make those allegations, I’d like some links.
marc page
But wasn’t it Scott Thomas Beauchamp himself who said, “All Beauchamps are liars” … ?
Cassidy
I don’t think he cares about his comrades. I think he’s a 24 year old kid with a college education, who realized his life was going to be in the shitter for literally doing nothing.
Media blackout. He was most likely put under lock and key until this matter was resolved.
over_educated
“Just in BJ’s comments section, I’ve seen people (and no I’m not gonna waste my time searching for them) who wanted this kind of stuff to be true.”
Want? I defy you to find a single instance on this board of someone (a regular poster not a poof)WANTING these stories to be true (i.e. saying “I hope this is true” or some such). Believing is different. I still tend to believe beauchamps original story for a variety of reasons already discussed. So what? I think it speaks more to the silliness of this war than denigrating the troops. Even if the story isn’t true, does that mean that Iraq is now a paradise flowing with milk and honey where all of the citizeny has a pony?
This “you all hate the troops” meme is tiresome, stupid and obviously untrue; thats why you see no one buying into it but the nutters.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all stocked up here.
cleek
wow. that’s like the Eiffel Tower of irony.
John S.
A cute logical fallacy, but a fallacy nonetheless. The few random posters that you think somehow represent the larger population – don’t. Most people do not hope that our soldiers are war criminals. However, most of us would like to think that our fighting men and women are a definite cut above those they are fighting – and I think in most cases, they are.
You confuse two entirely differnt premises. The view that America is acting imperialistic is not a reflection on the soldiers – it is an opinion about our government and how it chooses to use those soldiers. I don’t know where the torqued-up jock thing comes in, since I don’t think I’ve ever seen that accusation fly around here, but at least that is something that you could perceive as being levied towards the actual soldiers – even if it’s fantasy.
Rusty Shackleford
Am I the only person who has read John Crawford’s The Last True Story I Will Ever Tell?
Beauchamp’s “diaries” are not that much different than what has been written about war before.
Anybody read Michael Herr’s Dispatches?
Seriously, anybody making a big deal out of any aspect of this story is a complete dipshit.
Beauchamp’s only real fault is not being a better, more experienced writer. A short disclaimer would have prevented this right-wing freak fest.
“Locations and events have been modified to protect the innocent and unaware. Some individuals have been replaced by composite characters to protect their safety. The only fact you can be certain of is that war is hell.”
Oh, and that a wingnut will go apeshit if you challenge their childish world view. Honestly, is there a bigger community of shitflingers in the world than the rightwing blogosphere?
War is hell. You’d think that the war mongers would be more pleased after getting what they wanted.
John S.
Is this the first time you’ve encountered Cassidy?
Cassidy
Thats the feeling I got when reading. A lot is lost in text, sure, but that’s the conclusion I came to.
I didn’t say that. But I do beleive “you all” (collectively) have a very poor, or skewed and misguided opinion about the military and the people who choose to join it. And since we’ve chosen to be in the military at a time when military action isn’t parallel to your beliefs, we’re automatically the subject of denigration and and, at times, hate. It’s easier to view us as faceless “storm troopers” than it is to see that we are regular people who have chosen to live up to something higher than a personal opinion.
Oh, I’ll give you this one. It’s why I keep coming back to read the comments; reminds me that I’m a lot more stable than I think.
Cassidy
Like I said, John S., I’m not going to waste my time searching every conversation about this for the posts that have led me to my conclusions. Suffice to say, that unless you and I ahve very different definitions of a “regular poster”, then we are going to have to disagree.
rawshark
It was the right that made this a big deal, not the left. The left kept saying it was stupid and meaningless true or not.
You’re wrong but its typical of you’re ilk to believe that. You need to.
John S.
Seriously.
Put the hasty generalization fallacy down, and step away from the thread…
windansea
I oppose this ridiculous war, but have a question for its supporters. What has been the effect of these actions against Iraqi civilians in terms of achieving the political objectives of the war?
obviously more and more Iraqis are siding with US troops and turning on Al Queda, so you have your answer
John S.
Ok, let’s set the bar REALLY low for you.
How about an example of one post from a regular commenter that supports your ‘everyone hates the troops theory’?
Jim Treacher
I know, those Fluffernutters are all alike.
rawshark
I think STB is The Greatest American hero.
LOL Just kidding. I for some reason had the theme song in my head. Thought I’d share it.
Cassidy
What’s your problem with Democrats?
John S., I’ve found that most generalizations and stereotypes have a nugget of truth in them, or they wouldn’t exist. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, oh well. I’m not important enough to profess your undying love of all things America too.
Across the board, though, you’ll find I’ve been fairly objective about this whole topic, mainly, because I know what Soldiers and people are capable of, both good and bad. I also know Soldiers like Beauchamp and the kinds of guys that think it would be funny to wear a piece of skull under thier kevlar. Based on my experiences, I’m not judging the situation. All I’ve done is offer experienced answers on this current point in the matter.
Do I think “you all” hate the military? No; some do I sure, but the large majority of you don’t. OTOH, I also don’t believe “you all” have taken the time to realize exactly what it is you say about us. Justify it all you want, in the end, we’re just a bunch of poor, dumb, uneducated kids who aren’t worthy of your respect, because if we were truly “enlightened” and “educated” and “intelligent”, we wouldn’t be in the military, fighting for the “imperialist war criminal”.
will
>So what exactly was I wrong about?
>That he could have been lying or could be telling the >truth, but that it really doesn’t matter?
But the truth does matter! These articles were well crafted pieces designed to touch all the anti-war is hell tropes known to man. What does not matter is whether any AQI or other hostile reads it or not, what does matter is that it was designed to reinforce the surrender wing of the democratic party as well as the public at large. see http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9560
over_educated
“I didn’t say that. But I do beleive “you all” (collectively) have a very poor, or skewed and misguided opinion about the military and the people who choose to join it. And since we’ve chosen to be in the military at a time when military action isn’t parallel to your beliefs, we’re automatically the subject of denigration and and, at times, hate. It’s easier to view us as faceless “storm troopers” than it is to see that we are regular people who have chosen to live up to something higher than a personal opinion.”
Wha–? You do realize many of the folks who comment on this board (and John himself) are military or former military?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Surrender? To who(m)?
Does Bin Laden have a battleship where these documents will be signed?
TR
Wait a second, are you Stephen Colbert? Because that reads like the spoofiest spoof of right-wing punditry I’ve ever seen.
Facts and truth be damned, all you need is your feelings. Sweet Jesus, you people are insane.
Education Guy
So no one wants to back up the assertion that there was plenty of calls for violence against SB or his wife?
Tim F, surely you could point me to the myriad links where the proof is given?
TR
It must be fun having these imaginary conversations with the straw men you create in your mind.
Please find me any evidence — here or on any other liberal/Democratic website — that supports any part of that weird, paranoid delusion you have.
Andrew
Rick Moran has a shockingly good post about this.
I can’t believe I just wrote that.
Nash
More amusement from EG:
because after all, you can’t expect EG to use that little ol’ search Balloon Juice thingy up there on the left when he can insist that someone else do it for him and then claim that the bemused silence which should follow doesn’t prove anything other than how lazy and dishonest he is being.
Yes, Tim! Feel EG’s siren call to play the links game! If you don’t, doesn’t that prove his argument for him?
over_educated
“So no one wants to back up the assertion that there was plenty of calls for violence against SB or his wife?
Tim F, surely you could point me to the myriad links where the proof is given?”
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=8458#comments
Thats a good place to start. I would prefer not to have to wade through more of wingnuttia to bring out some of the viler things said…
ThymeZone
The phony troopboosters are people who would have you believe that if you are in a war, and people are dying next to you and bombs are going off, the biggest thing you have to worry about is whether some lady in the Safeway store in Joplin Missouri is reading something derogatory about the US military.
Anything else on that subject is pure bullshit, I don’t care who says it or how good they think their warmed over spoof troll is.
John S.
Cassidy, absent your ability to prodcue even ONE post that demonstrates this point of view, I can only assume that you are talking out of your ass. It seems that you are the one with the problem. Somehow, you have internalized this message that you are stupid or a villain, but that is your problem – not ours.
I suggest you take more pride in your work, and stop listening to the voices in your head that tell you to be ashamed of what you do for a living.
Education Guy
over_educated
Thanks. I agree, and have never agreed that threats of violence against the liar were called for. I didn’t see any threats against his wife.
Do you think it is fair to characterize the comment pointed out by John as representative or the larger “right wing” reaction? If so, can you tell me what leads you to that conclusion?
Lastly, do you think this excuses TNR or the liar for their conduct?
Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
Yeah, but they must have talked with him prior to confirming his identity.
You’d have thought then they’d have asked the question whether he’d retract or not.
Ah well: the upside: Marty Peretz gets embarrassed.
Dan Collins
Tim F.
Gimme those links, brother. I’m still waiting.
tBone
Damn. I hope none of my friends and family in the military are reading; I’d hate for them to find out what I really think of them, courtesy of Cassidy.
For the love of God, please drop the persecution complex. There is no collective hivemind here that looks down on the military, except in your head. Almost every time I’ve seen someone say something shitty about the The Troops™ here, they’ve been roundly shouted down.
If someone says something about the military that you don’t like, argue it out with them instead of attributing it to the collective “us.” The collective “us” is getting mighty fucking sick of it.
Charlie (Colorado)
John, are you finding being an idiot an impediment in your daily life?
buzz
“There is nothing official, yet, but I think I speak for everyone when I state that I think this definitively proves that our troops are, to a man and woman, angels, there never have been any jerks in the military….”
Yes, you would be correct. Because those are the only two options.
“…and we can all expect a decrease in violence in theatre now that the Jihadi’s who were worked up into an America hating-frenzy after reading Beauchamp’s pieces in the TNR read that the Weekly Standard has debunked them. Hallelujah.”
I was unaware anyone was making that argument, but if they were, you are under the impression anyone “worked up into an American hating-frenzy” will be taking the militaries word for this?
You call this minor, but if I was in the same unit as this person and came home to family and friends asking me why I would treat the disfigured women that way, or the dead that way or do anything he said they did, I would be quite upset. However, since I am not in that unit and therefor disqualified from making any objection to a clearly false indictment of our military, I guess it doesn’t matter.
As another poster above says, this site has become a joke.
Dales
Actually, no I didn’t, Cole (since we apparently are on a last name basis). I am not an editor at RedState any longer, and have not been for quite some time. Not as long as you haven’t, but close.
I figured you would not care what I said, which is why I did not go into details about my disappointment. I figured that your reaction would be similar to what it was, so what would be the point?
One of the questions that was answered with this whole Beauchamp kerfuffle is over if he always was the jagoff he described in Shock Troops, or if he became one in Iraq. We know. Sadly, I now wonder the same regarding you. Were you always like this and I did not see it before, or did something change in you? Your response makes me think what is is what always was. It’s a shame, really.
Peace.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Wait a second, Dan — these mental defectives will tell you what you said. You clearly said that all soldiers are saints and TNR’s gullibility and bias justified ousting Saddam. Don’t you remember saying that?
Jon H
“I don’t think that is fair- there is no evidence that his Officers would do something like that,”
Oh please. Let’s see, they started out by removing his ability to communicate with, well, anyone.
That would certainly make it easy for them to apply coercive measures without any civilians being able to find out.
myiq2xu
Who gives a shit about Scott Beauchamp? What difference does it make whether he was telling the truth or not?
It was Wingnuttia that got their collective panties all twisted over this whole story in the first place.
When are they going to get equally hysterical over something that really matters?
Like 190,000 missing weapons?
Doug H.
That’ll obviously end well, just like it did when the Soviets sided with us and turned on the Nazis.
capelza
Oh for the love of Pete…grow up blogswarm. Read what has actually been written here. Quit acting like my middle school kids, because that’s what you have been behaving like.
TZ, there are no Safeways in Joplin, MO, (much to my mother’s chagrin) so your entire premise is a LIE!!!!! Heh.
#1) If I hated the troops I’d be a real buzzkill at the family dinner table. So stuff the “left hates the troops” crap right here, right now.
#2) One more time, for the very slow, if Wingnuttia had not brought Beauchamp, and in reality TNR as well (the idea that they represent the left is so laughable), then you would not have had to rise to the defense of the “troops”. This was a manufactured bullshit thing all the way.
#3) Please tell me one more time why it was so very important for you all to bring this to the entire blogosphere’s attention IN BIG CAPS!!! if your true concern was to protect the reputation of the “troops”, dragging it out into the daylight completely defeats the purpose. It’s the hypocrisy. And the shrieking and the chest beating.
#4) And while you all worked into a lather over this incredibly minor bullshit published in a rag hardly anyone reads, it does allow you to ignore the recent convictions for murder, rape and conspiracy that the military HAS publically acknowledged. Was the point of the exercise? A dead dog is worse than murder, rape and setting a young rape and murder victim’s body on fire and killing her whole family to cover up the crime.
#5) So stupid.
Jon H
Another thing:
John Cole wrote: “One last thing- in the comments, someone suggested his Officers coerced him into signing the statement (if, in fact, there is one).”
Keep in mind that “his Officers” runs all the way up to the corrupt jackass-in-chief at the top, and there has been plenty of evidence of pressure being applied downward to make unpleasant stories look pretty or to go away.
If he was coerced, his commanding officers probably were as well.
Jim Treacher
He’s in the Army, not the Cub Scouts.
Doug H.
And commenters like you are the punchline.
But getting one over on The Left(tm) is the single most important thing evar!!!!!!!1!!1!!11
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Yeah, right, except for Beauchamp’s sickeningly trite thesis (“That is how war works: It degrades every part of you, and your sense of humor is no exception.”), nothing was debunked.
Tsulagi
Well, a perfect ending to a gnat’s ass of a story. Beauchamp certainly got more than his 15 minutes of fame thanks to the Wingnuttians. Awesome work. I’m sure Beauchamp’s NCO, those further up his chain plus the PAO really appreciate the hours and hours spent on paperwork for this thing. Not like they had anything better to do.
A funny thing would be if what Beauchamp wrote previously was true, you know the running over of dogs and other un-PC behavior, then he just took one for his buddies. But that thought would never occur to bright bulbs over at Uncle Jimbo’s who were just certain with their reading of USMJ that Beauchamp was guilty of sedition and treason.
Still don’t give two shits whether the Beauchamp stories were true or not. Ah, but the campaign by the mighty Malkinette warriors like Uncle Jimbo, Ace, Goldstein, and others was glorious. No doubt extra cupping, rubs and tugs all around with Michelle leading the cheers.
The Malkinettes need to come up with a medal for this kind of action. Maybe the KAB, the Keyboardist’s Action Badge. And for special meritorious behavior among the 101st Fighting Keyboardists like that exhibited by Ace and those that rushed to Matt Sanchez’s back like Jeff Emanuel, the KAB with Cheetos clusters.
Gus
Will this stupid story just die now? Even I, a dog lover wasn’t exercised enough by this story to follow it. The folks at TNR should be ashamed of themselves (if they’re capable) for defending a story they obviously hadn’t vetted thoroughly. Other than that, who really gives a fuck?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Who cares if journalists publish fiction as nonfiction, or if they don’t fact-check, as long as they’re on my side!
Brilliance!
tBone
Great. The clusterfucking of this thread is complete now that the not-at-all-missed Mac Buckets has returned.
Tim F.
Too funny. Less than thirty minutes after one of your winger friends says precisely what I predicted. You don’t need my help to see the obvious.
Beyond that silliness, try to explain to me what exactly is the context for this hysterical bloggasm if it is not to smear the left (The Left) for wanting to think ill of the troops. Misbehavior does not happen in Iraq? The MSM lies? Maybe there is no larger context you just want to destroy the life of someone who displeased you. Clarify for me your obsessive interest in this particular story.
Dales
And if my last post was unclear– I did not comment on Jeff’s piece, because I had not (and still have not) even seen it.
It sounds like something I would have objected to, were I there. But I am not. I certainly did not, and do not, share those opinions of you.
However, I think that this post and the sarcastic “all angels” comment are ill-advised and disappointing, and I think your “blow it out your ass, Daly” line shows quite a hostile nature that I had previously assumed you were more reasonable than to default to.
C’est la vie.
Tim F.
Thanks lambchop. No doubt Dan Collins will appreciate your input.
Cassidy
I find this interesting coming from someone who’s decided that attacking is the only option, when confronted with someone who doesn’t believe as you do. Are you so insecure in your personal beliefs? As I told you, I’m not going to waste my time searching for posts. Then we’d get into a childish argument about the definition of “is” (he’s not a regular poster, he’s only here on Tues, Thurs and holidays, etc.). So, believe what you want. I’ll feel justified in lumping you in with the other ignorant civilians I come into contact with daily. Shows me for actually trying to treat you with respect. Silly me for thinking I was talking to an adult.
As for me, I know I’m not stupid, nor a villian. I also know I’m one of the minority in this country, and the few on this blog, who actually has the experience regarding this kind of subject, rather than some fantasy, SOCOM-induced ideas.
What next? Care to share with us your token black and gay friends? Backpedal all you want. This comments section has two modes: 1) agree, or 2) get shouted down and called names because you don’t toe the line.
I’ve tried. See this comments section. See above comment.
If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, here’s a cookie. Happy now?
It has more than one definition. How about “sense”? Does that make you feel better. So when is numace allowed? I mean, if I’m going off of multiple posts, which have led me to believe that thier is some serious denigration of Soldiers, without actually saying it, does that mean Bush never said iraq was an “imminent threat”? Or do I have to be an “enlightened” liberal to be able to comprehend the meaning that is implied.
No…just the regular commenters.
Wilfred
Hey Lambcop, Here’s Alan Dershowitz after marine Sgt. Hutchins was sentenced to a whopping 15 years for killing an unarmed civilian:
Now, now, Professor, none of the trite ‘fog of war’ defense.
Andrew
EEEl, you’re a huge idiot.
John Cole
My apologies, Daly. I have spent the last week dealing with folks who I used to like and used to get along with coming on here and other sites accusing me of all manner of things- being a homophobe, hating the troops, simply writing things to “curry favor” with the Kos crowd, etc.
I thought you were just another in the pile-on. I was an ass to you, it was unwarranted and unfair, I am sorry, and I apologize.
John S.
They only get hysterical over things that can be used to make the “left” look bad. Examining the falsehoods that led to the war doesn’t acheive that goal. Rather, it makes them look bad for being such avid (and mindless) cheerleaders.
As Tim sums up, this is all about:
And our pal Cassidy, though a self-avowed Democrat, joins in the pile-on because he is a soldier and extremely sensitive to these things. Never mind that there seems to be little actual evidence that the ‘left hates the troops’ meme has any validity, but it sure does make for an excellent bloggasm.
ThymeZone
Surprised to hear it, they had a large bakery and distribution center there.
Jim Treacher
Shut up, stupid!
Dales
OK, then let’s go back to Gerry then, John. Apology accepted. I can see how just a dropped in “disappointed” line may have come across given those circumstances of which I had been unaware. I apologize for my part in that misunderstanding.
(I still think some of this post was ill-advised, but no one ever said we have to see eye-to-eye on everything)
Tim F.
I particularly enjoyed this at Ankle Biting Pundits:
Want to bet that he’s an outlier? I’ll take your money.
capelza
Well, I looked it up and by god you are right. This is weird, the last time she was here visiting we were talking about this. Safeway DID leave Joplin, I remember when the stores closed..okay years ago, but it appears they are back.
So I was wrong. You weren’t “fake but accurate” after all. :)
John S.
Seriously, what the fuck are you babbling about? I really have no idea, nor do I really care.
Digging up one post must be really hard work – especially is such a post doesn’t exist.
I believe you are a thin-skinned man with a poor grasp on conversational skills. You “feel” whatever you want, just leave whatever you thing passes for logic out of it. I guess we can add ad-hominem to your list of fallacies in that department.
Really, you are a piece of work. Whatever complexes you have seem to weigh heavily on your persona, and I only hope that in the future you can find peace.
timb
Why do all the Protein Wisdom commenters come to this site to all agree with one another? Isn’t there enough room on the PW comment boards to slap each on the back and tell Dan and Jeff how awesome they are?
As for Cassidy, I was mentioning my hatred of military men and women to my brother-in-law last evening and reminded me that’s he’s been to Iraq and I like him and his status as a chief in the Navy. Yeah, I said, but I hate my Dad, ’cause he was in the army in ‘Nam. My brother-in-law pointed that I love my father…imagine my chagrin.
Reluctantly, I realized that I didn’t hate military members and he told me I probably shouldn’t have heckled my Marine officer cousin at our reunion the day before. In my defense he’s going back to Iraq in September for his second tour, so I must hate him, right, Cassidy?
Put the comic book down, pal. There is nothing in this country respected more than the professionalism of the US Armed Forces. Doesn’t mean some of them aren’t asses.
Personally, I support my cousin and brother-in-law by wanting the US involvement in the war to be over, so guys and gals they never met will stop trying to kill them and guys and gals like them can stop dying for a mistake.
Ian
I think on reflection the whole thing was silly. The original story wasn’t that significant. (wow, there may be jerks among our troops, alert the press!). Still, being truthful isn’t just a virtue of one side or the other along the political divide. One side raised questions and it appears they were right. The other side called these critics “knee-jerk” and so forth and now look even worse. And all for what again?
Cassidy
Ummm…ask John to post about it so it can be hysterically discussed? Find a thread on another blog? Think outside the box man.
I don’t need to smear the left…you guys are doing a fine job yourself. There is litle evidence of a lot of things (war criminal, blood for oil, etc.), but that hasn’t stopped the various regular posters around here from bandying about those terms like a tetherball. As I’ve said before, very recently, I don’t think the left hates the troops, but I do think you have some very misguided and insulting ideas about who and what we are. I think it is intellectually dishonest to use horrible events, like Haditha, as “gotchas”, when the other 99% of military personnel in that country are trying to do their job and come home.
Cassidy
I’ve said as much before.
Like I said, here’s your cookie.
John S. you are truly an inspiration to this generation of dogmatic liberals. All I ask is that when the elections come along, if you and your friends could keep quiet, so as not to ruin a Democratic victory for the White House.
ChrisW
By Beauchamp’s own admission, he freely mocks and humiliates a disfigured woman that he doesn’t even know in public, surrounded by people who could punish him harshly for that action. Hell, by his own admission, the woman could have been an officer.
What do you suppose he does to his wife, when they’re alone behind closed doors?
Dan Collins
Here, Kevin. You can start with this. I’ll go to the well again, if you require it.
Dan Collins
What, you never go slumming? I dropped by so I could call you a moron in a new venue, Tim.
Cassidy
Could very easily have been talking about Paris Hilton…
capelza
Who’s trying to use it as a “gotcha”? The point being made here, and realise that this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, is that while wingnuttia has been in a full blown lather about Beauchamp they have essentially ignored that confirmed crime. That crime does not represent the vast majority of the soldiers serving, and this is known, you dimwit.
Yet because the collective wingnut community is impotent in the face of the convictions, they ignore it and spend countless hours and days focusing on something so trivial to compensate. It is so pathetic. Really really pathetic.
Instead it has been they that are playing “gotcha” about something that does not matter in the real world. Because the real world is the one where the rest of us live.
John S.
If you are referring to my “dogma” as believing:
1) You are full of shit.
2) You cannot substantiate any of your claims about liberals’ views of the military.
3) You rail against fantasy contsructs rather than actual people or arguments.
Then for a change, you are correct.
Cassidy
Color me confused, but you have one poster, hysterically calling for the righteous condemnation of the Haditha incident, as a pre-requisite to even discuss this topic, and now you want to bring it back on topic and say that incident is not a part of this? Very circular logic. Maybe I sholdn’t have deleted all those MoveOn newsletters after all.
I’ll give you this one. I thought it was kind of dumb in the first place, but for different reasons.
You mean the real world of “blood for oil” and “war criminal(s)”? We definately do not occupy the same world.
rawshark
Ignorant civilians? This from a guy who says civilians think all members of the military are poor, dumb and uneducated.
Jim Treacher
If it’s a confirmed crime and they were convicted for it, why should there be any outrage? Justice was served, right? The punishment fit the crime?
Just for the purposes of argument, what sort of reaction from these wingnuttians would have satisfied you?
Cassidy
Believeing isn’t allowed. You’ve allready set that precedent.
But I do appreciate you for proving that I’m right. Keep it up…maybe some HS Democrats will write a theme about you.
John S.
The liberals in Cassidy’s head. He won’t waste his time looking for proof of their existence, though, so don’t even bother to ask.
Frew
Don’t forget that we have had a whole series of fake military people who tell stories of war atrocities, and supporters of the military have their antennae up for those guys. Jumping all over Beauchamp was partially a result of the earlier fabulists, IMHO.
When’s the last time anyone has put out a movie or any form of entertainment that puts the military in a good light? Some of us are getting pretty fed up with this culture, and when we catch wind of an unfair attack on the military we chase it down and beat it to death real fast. Sorry if your sensibilities are harmed in the process.
Doug H.
When do we get to see your ‘Advanced Sharpshooter of Strawmen’ badge?
Cassidy
I would say the gnashing and wailing of teeth, but I reserve that response for hysterical liberals.
Imagine the irony….maybe we aren’t poor, dumb, and uneducated. I am a gov’t worker, so I don’t make much, but I wouldn’t call it poor.
John S.
Cassidy – the modern day Don Quixote – loves tilting at windwills.
Cassidy
Fixed. ADD moment.
Henry Bramlet
Partisan mud-slinging and grand-standing aside, I think the left and right know very well what the problem was here.
Nobody disagrees with the fact that there are bad apples in the military, but Conservatives believe that there is nevertheless honor in that profession. And we believe that honor and good will prevail by finding these bad apples and punishing them, or by keeping in check the impulsive and brutal temptations of war. Nobody denies that there are exceptions- all the more reason that every soldier needs to keep that sense of honor clear in their mind.
The left does not believe this thesis. Too many believe that soldiers are degraded by the military- that it sucks goodness from them and debases their virtue as citizens of a free nation. And here they had proof that the common military man was indifferent to such degrading behavior. Disrespect of burn-victims and remains was not just occurring, but tolerated and common-place among the troops.
Here was an example of how the average day in the life of a soldier proves how inhuman and despicable the military was- not necessarily because these were bad men without conscience (Beauchamp admitted his remorse at his own behavior), but because this was a screwed up situation that conspires to bring out the worst in men. This reinforced some peoples’ belief that the military lies when it says you can “be all that you can be”.
Be honest with yourself, Cole. This narrative of an indifferent, unprofessional and amoral military environment is significant, which is why the left so totally embraced it. Not the specific events, but the pervasiveness of depravity.
Conservatives aren’t asserting that soldiers and the military are 100% pure and chaste- Cole’s straw-man notwithstanding. They are combating a dangerous and incorrect narrative, which the left finds so compelling. They were right to defend the image of professionalism and honor in the Millitary, and if Cole and others cannot understand why, it is all the more reason why the image must be defended.
capelza
I hope the liberals in his head are wearing patchouli and really scratchy hemp clothes. And remodeling his brain with their MoveOn.org posters. Why waste a good stereotype?
Cassidy
Nah…most of them sit around on computers talking about things that they have no real life experience with.
John S.
A simple shrug of the shoulders would have sufficed.
I mean, seriously, nobody actually reads TNR or cares about anything they have to say. Not any liberals, anyway.
John S.
Exhibit A: Cassidy railing against the troop-hating liberal universe.
Cassidy
John S., I realize that it’s easy to flip to insult mode, especially when you can so easily dehumanize someone who doesn’t beleive as you do, but maybe you oughtta go rub one out. A little stress release maybe…all this vile, liberal hatred you’re harboring is making you very combative.
capelza
Well, living only in your head, how would they have any experience?
You assume that liberals don’t have experience in real life that only you are privy to. That’s your first mistake.
Cassidy
You really are suffering from some reading comprehension issues. I’ve said very clearly, on two occassions in this thread, that I don’t think the left hates the military. But keep repeating that if it makes you feel better.
Jim Treacher
Should they have typed stage directions, then? “Some soldiers did bad stuff and were convicted for it. [shrug]” Then they’d have the right to opine on Beauchamp’s story? Well, that seems reasonable enough. You should let them know, for next time.
tBone
Backpedal from . . . what, exactly? All of those vicious smears I’ve made on The Troops™? Good luck finding one of those.
Believe it or not, I think you have an interesting perspective on a lot of things. Unfortunately, instead of listening to what other people are actually saying, you spend most of your time here tilting at windmills in the cartoonish binary world you’re constructed in your head, where we all secretly despise the military and you’re the lone Voice of Reason. And then you whine about how people get pissy with you.
BTW, the “token” snark? Weak. But it did give me an idea. I’m going to retool the pie filter to replace all of your posts with “It’s a military thing, you wouldn’t understand.” I don’t think I’ll be missing much.
Cassidy
I’ve made no assumptions. I’ve drawn my conclusions from various posts on this blog and interactions, etc. And I’m not the only one privy to my lifestyle….there are many of us. Are you suggesting we aren’t a minority?
I think you’re first mistake was to automatically cloose yourself to any opinion that didn’t coincide with yours. Sad, but typical.
Cassidy
The goal posts move around here so often, it would be a dizzying flurry of update after update.
BTW,…“Some soldiers did bad stuff and were convicted for it. [shrug]”.
John S.
Of course you do! This was you just a short while ago:
That was easy!
I don’t think you know what these words you use actually mean. Dehumanize you? No, I merely think you make sweeping generalizations that have no actual basis. When asked to support your claims, you refuse. When pressed on the matter, you attack. You’re human, just not one that is very good at making your point.
LOL
You’re the one that hates the liberals for hating on the troops (and by extension, you) – remember? I don’t hate anyone, really. It’s too strong of an emotion that requires too much effort – especially for someone like you. I’m merely eating my lunch at work and passing the time.
Cassidy
I’ve listened to it…over and over again. And where applicable, I’ve said very clearly that it’s plausible. You can go back to the “blood for oil”. I conceded it was plausible. Likely? No, but sure, it could’ve happenned that way.
Here’s the thing, though. I don’t listen to dogma. Period. It’s useless. You can look at most of the unfortunate events throughout history and see that they were perpetrated by people with dogma. Whether it’s religious zealotry, or political fervor, the end result is the same. I have no time for it.
Andrew
Christ, it was nice to have a few days without Huge Asshole Cassidy being so fucking annoying. Huge Asshole Cassidy should go back to trolling TMZ and Perez Hilton. Also, Huge Asshole Cassidy should subscribe to TNR to give liberals another reason to hate it.
Why don’t wingers understand that the liberal blogosphere hates TNR?
Cassidy
I don’t hate liberals. They’ve got more “liberated” chicks and give better head than Republicans. Can’t beat that.
Cassidy
Awww…it’s nice to be missed. Sorry, I was moving.
Jim Treacher
Because, see, if you acknowledge that the military is capable of policing itself, that crime is punished, then… okay, that’s where I lose the thread. One of the smart guys, please help me out. Are you saying that the very existence of crime in the military means that the wingfluffians aren’t allowed to comment on any sort of misconduct?
tBone
You do a great job shoveling it, though.
Cassidy
Well yeah…coming through here is like slogging through shit. I’ve got to shovel it out of the way.
John S.
Of course you do. You simply prefer the bullshit dogma you have invented for yourself rather than prescribe to one created by someone else. Thus far, we’ve witnessed that the cornerstone of your dogma is that liberals hate troops.
I wish I had more time to examine further the fuller spectrum of your dogmatic beliefs, but lunch time is over and I have to get back to work.
Peace!
Zifnab
Please don’t let us stop you from continuing.
Cassidy
Oh no…I’m done. But thank you, though. Very kind of you.
John S.
I think molehills look a lot like mountains – especially when viewed through a certain kind of lens (I have this one that makes objects seem much larger than they actually are).
In fact, I have a molehill in my front yard that I have dubbed K-13, and am proud to announce that I am the first person to have scaled it successfully.
Sir Edmund Hillary already wrote me a letter congratulating me on my triumph.
over_educated
“I’ve made no assumptions. I’ve drawn my conclusions from various posts on this blog and interactions, etc.”
And yet you repeatedly refuse to cite a single example of where folks on the boards “hoped” this story was true. If you have the time to post upwards of 20 posts on this thread, you have the time to do a little research to support your position.
Jim Treacher
So you think they should be allowed to comment on it, but that some of them have overreacted? If that’s what you’re getting at, I think that’s true.
tBone
Cassidy and Zell Miller: Party of Two.
Steve
I kinda lost track of this out-of-control thread, but I thought Cassidy had a number of thoughtful and reasonable posts, and I just wanted to say that.
rawshark
That is utterly ridiculous.
Anytime someone states ‘the left does…’ just ignore the idiot. The left doesn’t all think one way. Nice right wing projection there.
rawshark
Before anyone gets snarky. The fact that I’m a bad writer doesn’t disprove my point. I’m not articulate. I know this.
Cassidy
Steve, now I’m just screwing with people, (except for the liberal chicks part…ahhh those Lillith fairs…). It’s kind of a hobby, unfortunately. You can only give up so many vices at one time.
I appreciate the comment. Thank you.
tBone
Get a room, you two. You’re interrupting our liberal hate-fest.
Jim Treacher
Okay, you were making a joke there, right? Like, “I’ve told you a million times, do not exaggerate,” yeah?
timb
Dan, if you come back, allow me to give a “well-played, old man.”
And, can you send my wife one of your products for free, since I allowed you to rehash the same schtik at a different venue?
As you are no doubt aware, if you read my comment, I was referring to the typical “yeah, what he said” response from an anonymous PW poster (one with a Greenwald fetish…that will be hard to track down given it’s an epidemic over there).
But, it’s nice that you defended your little brother….maybe one of them can back later and jump from behind your skirt to say “Moron” and then stick his tongue out?
You check and I’ll be back to see later.
over_educated
“Do you think it is fair to characterize the comment pointed out by John as representative or the larger “right wing” reaction? If so, can you tell me what leads you to that conclusion?”
No I do not. But I think all the hype helped the few loonies go over the edge. Some of the accusations were just patently ridiculuous, my favorite being that he joined the army as a “plant” by the left to smear the troops.
I can imagine quite few safer ways to smear the troops then making up stories about dog slaying and assinine behavior. This concept that this is part of some “insidious plot” by the “mainstream media” to discredit the war is equaly absurd. Check the front page of the Washington Post right now. The simple death count and facts on the ground are a thousand times more relevant to why the country no longer supports this war.
Spending hundreds of hours investigating Beauchamp and effectivley ruining this guys life over, what is in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor asshattery is just vicious and vindictive. The personal threats were just the logical outcome of a poorly thought out narrative.
timb
Actually, I thought Cassidy did a pretty good job of discussing things before he started watching his cartoons of “bad” liberals impugning soldiers.
Then again, the last time I saw a political movement smear a war hero, it wasn’t libs (paging John O’Neill, Bob Perry has some money for you in shipping/receiving)
Livermoron
It is illuminating to see so many Leftists trying to justify their swallowing of pvt beauchamp’s fabrications by resorting to the ‘lied about WMD’s’ meme.
To do that they have to overlook the years of warnings given by Democrats, including the Clintons, about Saddam’s possession of such weapons, the ongoing development of capabilities cited in post-invasion reports, the actual use of gas on Kurd’s and Iraninans, the intelligence reports from other nations, admissions of high-ranking memebers of the Iraqi military that such weapons existed (and some who confirmed that the trucks streaming into Syria just prior to the invasion were full of those weapons), Saddam’s failure to prove the destruction of said weapons, the fact that no one has ever come forward to state that they were coerced into making false assessments of Iraqi WMD’s, the proven fabrications of Joe Wilson and Richard Clark, and the list goes on.
I am sure that these same people were protesting Clinton’s lies about WMD’s when he authorized fighters to destroy Iraqi military facilities during his presidency.
Beauchamp has recanted and yet so many posters refuse to accept that.
Orwell would be proud.
Jim Treacher
If Beauchamp’s life is indeed ruined, he has nobody to blame but himself. I agree that any physical threats are out of line, but nobody held a gun to his head and made him write that story. (Although that might have been a good place to start the sequel, if he hadn’t been caught out this time.)
Cassidy
That is one way to look at it, especially from the outside looking in. As a counterpoint, it is the goal of the military, any military really, to break down the self-constructed barriers of selfishness. As Americans, we tend to have a very limited world view, not being able to see much ebyond our own faces, regardless of background or political leaning. The military system of indoctrination seeks tobreak past that and cause a fundamental change inside a person to where they put thier own thoughts and feelings last in lieu of someone else. That “someone else” is most often the Soldiers to your left and right. For some it’s the country. It can be anyone. In the end, though, the goal is to achieve an ideal of being part of something bigger than yourself and that you own petty wants and needs are not as important as the mission.
Of course, this isn’t always the case, especially with the softening of Basic Training and less rigorous application of discipline. Also, a lot of it has to do with being in Combat Arms or Combat Service and support.
As a bit of a character study, compare the Abu Ghraib and haditha incidents. Abu Ghraib was a case of people having too much power and not enough oversight. They felt the need to vent negative feelings and did so in an inhumane way. The Soldiers involved in that debacle were not Combat Arms.
OTOH, Haditha, while not condoning it by any means, was an act of rage and anguish perpetrated by Combat Arms Soldiers over the deaths of loved ones.
I know some of you will say I’m splitting hairs, and in some ways, you’re right. I’m not trying to say that one was preferable to the other. I’m just pointing out the motivational differences behind the atrocities compared to the kinds of troops involved.
over_educated
Hey hey, breaking news, the army is now NOT confirming that Beauchamp signed a confession! Perhaps you all should get on Weekly Standard for not adequately fact checking!!!!
jaime
Whoops:
From TNR
Weekly Standard: Fake, but…Fake?
Tim F.
I love it!
Dan Collins, where’d you go?
TR
Seems to work for you, Cassidy. I haven’t seen someone with this big of an imagined persecution complex in my life.
My life of real experiences, even!
TR
For the last fucking time, no one here has said this war was about “blood for oil” or any other bizarre cartoonish assumption you might have about the left.
We can’t go back to it, because we were never there. Stop putting words in our mouths, you condescending asshole.
Livermoron
Is Tim F actually saying anything? I guess he thinks he is.
I am pleased to read TR maintaining that the Left’s ‘blood for oil’ was a figment of my fevered right-wing imagination. I should have realized it as, as TR so eloquently describes it; it is a ‘bizarre cartoonish assumption.’
Mea culpa.
Tim F.
I see that some people are too lazy to read a thread. Tsk.
Cassidy
Well, I can find two comments in this thread alone, where I say otherwise. So, are you being obtuse, stupid, or a child of the public education sector.
Sure…and you’re wrong.
Cassidy
I’m assuming you’ve never been to a college Democrat rally?
Cassidy
Or, even better…the girl who’s life was “ruined” because she was called a “nappy headed ho”.
Livermoron
I read the whole thread and my question still stands. Tsk.
over_educated
Cassidy follows the time tested right-wing strategy “making up facts to support his position.” This was pioneered by Reagan, and perfected by the current administration. Since he can’t be bothered to look up any proof of his bizarre claims, he is even more funny to ridicule.
Cassidy, we don’t mock and ridicule you because you are a soldier, we mock and ridicule you because you refuse to back up your argument. If anyone on this board “hoped” for Beauchamps story to be true or spouted off that this was a “war for oil” please link to it. To make your search easier there is a search function in the upper right hand corner.
If you cannot find any evidence to back you up, kindly drink a steaming hot cup of shut-the-fuck-up.
BIRDZILLA
Put him on KP make him peel lots of potatos
Cassidy
Lol…dude, I’ve been shot at, mortared, and other such nasty things. Do you really think I care what you have to say? Why am I going to waste my time looking up arguments I participated in, knowing that as soon as I find them, the goal posts will move…once again.
Btw, I’m not right wing, but thanks for playing.
Yet another example of a hate filled liberal who can’t stand to not be agreed with. Are you really so insecure?
Tim F.
Don’t get me wrong bro, I like you. Lambchop is a troll and Scape Goat Trainee is a moron so your input really helped prove my point. Maybe you didn’t mean to do that, your bad I guess, but it just looks silly to try to cover that up by pretending that you proved a point that I didn’t have.
ImJohnGalt
Cassidy:
Cassidy, I asked in a different thread but you probably didn’t see it, so I’ll ask again. How it is that you self-identify as a Democrat? Almost every one of your positions screams authoritarian, or Republican, or both. [No civilian oversight of the military! The public education system doesn’t work! The Left thinks the troops are stupid, poor and ignorant!]
And you want people to the left of you to shut up in the next election? You loves you some Republican government, do you?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Troll (n): someone who a lightweight like Tim has no prayer of besting in an honest argument. (Now someone will have to look up “honest” for Tim.)
Tell me again how everybody working for the federal government is a Republican, Tim. I could use another big laugh.
Tim F.
Cry me a river, lambchop. I still get a laugh that you think that a department that’s been under Bush for 6+ years is still a Clinton department.
Tax Analyst
Jeez, except for a few remarks from when he first started posting here which kind of rubbed me wrong, I personally think Cassidy is not all that bad of an egg. He may be a little quick to jump when he thinks he or the military in general are being dissed. That would put him in the rather non-exclusive “occasionally thin-skinned” category that some of us fall into now and then. I don’t find myself in full agreement with him on too many issues, but he fills in some blanks now and then on stuff I have no knowledge of, i.e., military procedures and viewpoints from the inside. He’s got a POV – he’s entitled to it. I don’t see a real point in baiting him over much of what he has said, but maybe I’ve just missed something egregious or malicious somewhere.
Maybe I’m just getting soft in my old age, but his comments have rarely filled me with rage and indignation, and believe me, I’ve still got plenty of that to share and spread around when so moved.
This War sucks…most do, but some at least have some legitimate rationale for being involved. So this one sucks many more times than doubly and the people that fight it are mostly doing the best they can under circumstances that suck even worse, if that’s possible, and now doing it with the knowledge that it will be in 15-month chunks with a shortened respite period until the next go-around, and yes, that really sucks, too.
Our beef is, or at least should be, with the leadership that got us into this shit-fest and insists on slogging forward towards goals that are no longer, perhaps never were realistic.
And no, I don’t approve of raping, torturing, humiliating or killing innocent Iraqi citizens or innocent civvies of any kind, for that matter. Folks that do it should be tried and punished if found guilty.
Relinquishing my remaining Soapbox time, if any, to the next party.
Tax Analyst
…more like an unpalatable appetizer.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I think it’s funny that you actually think in naive terms like “Clinton Department” and “Bush Department.” Keep on keepin’ on, you little expert on government!
Tim F.
Own goal. If you didn’t want to argue that it was a Clinton department then you would not have pointed out that it was run by a Clinton appointee. Either you meant to imply that the Clenis maintains culpability for any department that still has Clinton appointees or your words don’t mean anything.
James E. Fish
This would be a surprise to The New Republic. They claim to be the voice of the left.
Cassidy
I think you misuse authoritarian. I’m not against civilian oversight; I just think civlian oversight should be informed. I’m not against the public education system as a concept, but as it stands now, a terrible disservice is being done to our youth as we’ve transitioned to feel good policies that trump real education. As for the left thinking poorly of the military, I admit that to be anecdotal, but I’ve run into it enough times to beleive it to be fairly broad based.
As for what makes me call myself a Dem: I’m pro-choice. I believe in the fair and equal application of rights to all American citizens regardless of race, religion, sexuality, etc. I believe in a justice system that will adjudicate fair punishment, including death, but must first prove beyond all doubt guilt. I believe in the rights of states and communities to make decisions for themselves and that the Federal Gov’t is ill-suited for micro-management. I beleive in domestic spending that encourages growth and improvement amongst our businesses and communities, coupled with oversight to identify wasteful pork. I beleive in economic regulation that errs on the side of consumer advocacy, but should not be made from knee-jerk reactions but with an eye towards long term affects. I beleive in good stewardship of our environmentally protected areas and the wildlife, as well as pro-active measures to protect endangered species. I beleive in the right of family members and individuals to decide what’s best for them (a la Schiavo) whether it be smoking, sexual orientation and practices, etc. I believe a person should take responsibility for thier own actions and not expect to be bailed out by the gov’t. I beleive in a social safety net put in palce for those who have a run of misfortune. I believe our public school system should not be abandoned, but a focus on a more classical and scholarly education needs to happen. I beleive in subsidized college educations for those of lower incomes, who show the ability to succeed. I beleive the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should always be applied as is. I beleive in the freedom of speech and the press, regardless of what is being said. I am pro-union, but said unions also need to remember that they are part of an organization that is designed to make money. I beleive that the gov’t should let the free market run as intended and focus more on unlawful business practices than unecessary regulation. I beleive in stem cell research. I beleive in health care reform, but not Universal Healthcare. I beleive in a graduated tax system, but I also think it is unfair to “punish” people for being successful (I’m not a tax expert, so I don’t know the right answer to that one).
I’m sure I’ve missed a few. I admit to a libertarian streak. In the end, I’m largely a supporter for the growth and improvement of the middle class and lower classes. I beleive a lot of ideas that are bandied about are nothing more than band aids for a larger cultural problem that doesn’t encourage responsibility anymore. For overall reform to be effective, a gradual cultural change needs to happen. In the end, though, it needs to incorporate good public policy that ,while looking out for the greater good, doesn’t step on the rights of the individual who has done nothing wrong other than think differently. We, as a society, have gotten away from the ideal that the individual can be successful with some hard work and determination, guided by good parenting. The far right claims that if we follow thier path blindly, we’ll be fine. The far left claims the same thing. In my mind, there is no difference…only different sheep pelts.
And yes, I see a lot of “I before E” errors. Damn learning disabilities and my unwillingness to go back and change them.
Cassidy
You’re absolutely right. Tell that to my bottle of Zoloft and my wife when my turn comes around…again.
Tim F.
Well gosh. If I claimed to be the voice of Ella Fitzgerald I guess that you would believe me.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You are equal parts clueless, simpleminded, dishonest, and naive, as always. I’ll bat you around once more, for old time sake.
Here was your deep, deep logic on the subject:
1) The Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners are incompetent because Republicans are stupid.
2) I can’t wait until 2009, when Democrats are in charge, because Democrats are smart and will appoint smart Democrats, not like these NRC ReThugLicker buffoons!
3) Uhhhhh, what? The two senior, and three of the five, commissioners are Clinton appointees and/or Democrats? Is that allowed? Huh, no shit?
4) Bush… uhhh, must have… must have made these brilliant Democrats turn incompetent and stupid!!!!!
5) I can’t wait until 2009, when Democrats can appoint smart Democrats and turn all the stupid, incompetent Democrats smart again!
Naive as a box of newborn kittens, you are.
Tax Analyst
Perhaps, but like the newborn kittens eventually they will cover YOU up with sand.
Until then…
Scape-Goat Trainee
“Tim F. Says:
They claim to be the voice of the left.
Well gosh. If I claimed to be the voice of Ella Fitzgerald I guess that you would believe me.”
Well, no.
But at least then there might be a reason to listen to you.
Tim F.
I guess that settles it then. And thanks again for helping to prove my point for me.
Tim F.
Honestly, I had forgotten that the NRC thread was what you were talking about. Day job, lazy blogger, et cetera. That time you had a point, which clearly explains why you brought it up.
James E. Fish
TNR claims to be the voice of the left and has since the magazine’s founding. They make no bones about their politics and influence with liberals and The Democratic Party.
The left is being consumed by Bush Displacement Syndrome.
capelza
Oh please, don’t make me link to the multiudes of threads from the “left” that rip TNR a new asshole on a regular basis.
Because I would, but I still after nearly two years don’t know how to embed links here.
But if you REALLY want to know what the “left” thinks of TNR and Peretz, google it. Try Marty Peretz and Daily Kos just to start. I’m sure you do know how to google, right? Or would that blow your whole point.
Also google Michael Steinhardt and then tell me that TNR speaks for the “left”.
James E. Fish
TNR bills itself as a “Liberal” magazine. I’ll take their word for it. The fact the radical netroots think it’s not liberal enough shows how radical they have become. In to day’s atmosphere Karl Marx would be considered a conservative. BTY the link is to an article that does not even mention TNR.
John S.
I bill myself as lord commander of the universe. Will you take my word for it? If so, BOW TO ME!
Actually, no.
See, TNR has always been more or less a centrist magazine. The problem is that folks like you have moved so far to the right that from your hyperextended view the middle looks like it’s to the far left. The only problem is that the middle didn’t move – YOU did. For those of us that actually do dwell on the left side of the political spectrum, TNR is the same old centrist publication that it always has been. For the most part it is full of shit and engages in concern trolling of the highest order. I’ll give you a visual analogy:
X—————X—————X
X—————X——————————————X
The top diagram is how the political spectrum used to be. The bottom diagram is what it has turned into. Now granted, from the right side everything on the left looks like it has shifted quite a bit. But who actually moved?
John Cole
I am so inspired by the idea that Jon S. might make some headway with the above graphical representation, that I would like to build on it. You see, despite what you read at Ace or the like, I really am not a liberal. Here is the old political spectrum, with my position in it marked with an exclamation point:
X———————-X——!————-X
Now here is the new one.
X———————-X——!——————————————————X
I am no less conservative- it is just that many of you are so damned far out there that even the looniest of the far left seems sane by comparison.
tBone
Be careful. It’s a short step from political diagrams to ASCII versions of goatse.
James E. Fish
Just what are you smoking, and where can I get some. John F. Kennedy’s programs would brand him as an extreme conservative today. When he was elected he was liberal and proud of it. He cut the capital gains tax, was a rabid cold warrior, and the darling of the left. I am old enough to remember Adlai E. Stevenson running against Eisenhower. Stevenson was considered a radical leftist in those days. Today he would be to the right of TNR. Flip your diagram 180 degrees and it will be closer to reality.
John S.
Cole-
Well Slate says you are, so it must be true! And it’s funny, but that exclamation point is exactly where I had envisoned you on my chart the moment I threw it up there.
Fish-
Whatever you say, pops.
Oh, right. I’m a dirty, pot-smoking, hippy liberal. But judging from your comments, I’d say you’ve got more than enough to smoke.
Whose your reality? Mine or the guy that thinks that JFK would be an arch-conservative by today’s standards?
heh
heh- lefty meltdown when confronted with the truth… like a cross to a vampire.
Actually fun to watch… In a car wreck sort of way.
James E. Fish
I would suggest studying the Kennedy administration and its policies. Your comment shows you know nothing of JFK’s politics and policies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions no one is entitled to their own facts.
John Cole
But what about Lincoln and Monroe and Washington? Where would they be on the spectrum. Because if I know I examine the rightward lurch into fantasyland by the Republican party the last 15-20 years (and especially the last te), it sure as hell matters where Kennedy, Lincoln, Monroe, and Washington would have been called, despite the fact that our current political challenges and issues have NOTHING in common with the climate when they were President.
I know our society hasn’t changed a bit. Just last week I was in a big debate with someone about the need to enact some Civil Rights legislation, since none was ever passed in the 60’s.
/sarcasm
In other words, claiming Kennedy would have been a conservative is a pointless exercise. Not only has Kennedy’s party changed- but so has the opposition in the past 40 years.
over_educated
“Lol…dude, I’ve been shot at, mortared, and other such nasty things. Do you really think I care what you have to say? Why am I going to waste my time looking up arguments I participated in, knowing that as soon as I find them, the goal posts will move…once again.”
You have caught on to my clever plan, by asking you to back up statements you make on this thread I am just seducing you to the liberal left with the siren song of “reason” and “common sense.” Walk down that road and soon you will be questioning both the wisdom and justification for this war and soon you will hate our troops and madly gibber about war for oil. You are too clever for me however blast you! I must inform my dark queen, Ms. Streisand! She will not be pleased…
James E. Fish
As I said no one has a right to their own facts. The civil rights legislation was passed under Johnson not Kennedy; I guess it’s time for a history lesson
.
Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion
Kennedy cut taxes
Kennedy approved going to war against China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu.
Kennedy allowed his brother Robert to conduct warrant less wiretapping
Kennedy refused to support the civil rights movement in fear of losing the South
I’ll stop at five but there are many more examples of what today would be called conservative.
James E. Fish
That is true. The Democratic Party has moved far left while the Republicans have moved right of Richard Nixon, the President who presided over perhaps the greatest expansion of government since FDR.
Nash
When I read this kind of thing and see how sarcasm is totally lost on fools like Mr. Fish, I feel your pain, John.
Why even try with someone like him? To understand sarcasm, you actually have to have a sense of humor. Without one, you are, well, Mr. Fish.
Poor guy. Life in his eternally literal world must be so gray.
Phil
John,
Take this from someone who wasn’t even aware you decided to follow Andrew Sullivan’s fellow “conservative with a conscience” route (which apparently includes telling your British readers in all seriousness that Ron Paul is about to win the Republican nomination any minute now) and thus doesn’t really care to engage in “I was right – you were right” debate:
Lies by the mainstream media matter. Lies that appear in major publications certainly do. Even if its about ponies, or puppies or even f*cking crabcakes. It still matters.
And if somehow the editors of a mainstream publication weren’t aware that one of their writers was lying about something, attacking people who have serious questions about the veracity of the story made, rather than actually inquiring about them, REALLY matters.
Claiming that it really wasn’t a big deal when its found to be a lie matters a little more. And then denying that the whole thing was a sham when the house of cards comes down matters even more than that.
That’s Dan Rather territory. That’s Stephen Glass (remember him?) territory. That the story was about a war where we are in the midst of a struggle between civilization and 12th century jihadists makes it even matter even more. No, our soldiers are no angels, but making sh*t up about them and then denying you did MATTERS John.
I think the John Cole of 3 years ago would be smart enough to realize that. Sorry to see he’s no longer with us.
Phil
Nash
Silly me, I forgot to spell it out for you, Mr. Fish.
When John said this:
he meant this:
and he was saying that in order to set up his argument that the base position of each of the major parties has shifted dramatically and therefore you are playing with apples and oranges.
It’s called sarcasm, Mr. Fish. With practice, perhaps you will learn to recognize it even without the big fancy letters in his post which say, oh I don’t know “sarcasm”.
John, you didn’t clean up your sarcasm tag correctly. I’m going to need a retainer if I have to keep doing this.
jake
Completely OT:
Is there a way to use similar diagrams for your blogroll?
X—!–X——X
Crooks & Liars
&c
X——X——X !
RedState
&c
James E. Fish
True, I missed the sarcasm tag; however I was talking about Kennedy. The civil rights legislation was passed by Johnson while the sarcasm seemed to target Kennedy. I am sorry for misreading the post, yet it is still accurate to say Kennedy’s policies would be considered conservative, not arch-conservative, today.
I am also sorry that instead of engaging in a civilized conversation, posters have resorted to calling names. That is the tactic of those who can not reasonably defend their position and resort to childish attacks. Unfortunately both ends of the political spectrum fall into this trap, shame on all of them.
John Cole
James-
The point is the issues are not even close today to what they were 50 years ago. Comparing Kennedy on the political spectrum then to where he would be today may be entertaining, but can never be accurately portrayed. Additionally, how can you be so sure that Kennedy, himself, might have changed with the years.
John S.
Dear Mr. Fish-
You are quite the interesting fellow. Let’s examine some of your ‘facts’, shall we?
I’m sure you think that a covert military operation in Cuba is equivalent to an overt military operation in Iraq, but I don’t think history bears that out. First of all, the training of exiles for the toppling of Castro began under Eisenhower on March 17, 1960. As recommended by the CIA, Eisenhower made it US policy to overthrow Castro, and began training exiles.
When Kennedy became president, he thought the policy had to do with the build up of Soviet armaments in Cuba (a notion that was later proven to be correct), and therefore moved to neutralize a legitimate threat. Of course the operation failed – as many military leaders expected – but they assumed Kennedy would send in Marines to save the exiles, which he did not because he did not want to risk a full scale war.
In the aftermath, CIA director Allen Dulles, deputy CIA director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director of Operations Richard Bissell were all forced to resign. Thy were not given Medals of Freedom for their bungling. Apparently, The CIA was certain that the Cuban people would rise up and join the exiles (or perhaps greet them with flowers and candy).
I’m a bit out of my depth on this one, so I’ll defer to someone else on the matter:
The rest of the article pretty much deflates your theory (although apparently you’re not the first conservative to try this line of reasoning).
You’re off your fucking rocker on this one altogether. I presume you’re referring to the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. That situation occured in 1958 under the Eisenhower administration.
The greatest irony – and sheer stupidity – of your statement is that in 1960, on the question of “Matsu and Quemoy”, Richard Nixon accused John F. Kennedy of being unwilling to commit to using nuclear weapons if China invaded the outposts. Kennedy said in their second debate, “while I would not suggest withdrawal at the point of a gun,” it would be “unwise to take a chance of being dragged into war – which may lead to a world war – over two islands which are not strategically defensible”. That sounds a little different than your version of events.
Again, you are out to lunch on this point. From Wikipedia:
Apparently, that would be Hoover – not JFK – that gave the go ahead on anything that even resembles what Bush is up to. Also, this all happened before FISA was enacted. Bush willingly violated a law that not only was on the books, but deemed to be illegal by the DOJ. This was not exactly the case with Kennedy.
Again, I’ll turn to Wikipedia and save myself the typing:
Though I suppose there is a kernel of truth to your statement, ultimately to insinuate that Kennedy was against civil rights is patently absurd. However, I do find it fascinating that you think that blocking civil rights is a something that a conservative would do. Very telin, that is.
Where do you come up with this shit, anyway? Conservapedia? Or is there a pamphlet on “JFK: Conservative?” circulating the wingnut tribes?
John S.
I agree with this point entirely, as that was the whole purpose of my rudimentary diagram. The spectrum changes over time and throughout the generations. It just so happens that inrecent years – largely due to the current administration – politics have taken a hard lurch toward the right.
9/11 certainly did change everything: it brought out the authoritarian streak in those inclined to trend so in the first place.
James E. Fish
John-
I am only using Kennedy as an example of how far left the political spectrum has moved, perhaps he would be the owner of The Daily Kos today, I don’t know. The reality is the spectrum has not just shifted, it has expanded. The left has moved more to the left while the right has moved right. As for myself I say a pox on both camps. Hatred from both sides will lead to disaster for our nation. I don’t think any of us want’s that, however some the reactions to my posts seems to be more interested in ego trips that rationality. You can argue without resorting to calling your opponent a fool. As for my politics, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I consider my politics to be neo-libertarian.
John S.
Well on this point we can agree, Mr. Fish. Hatred in general is a poor fuel on which to run a country. Quite frankly, though, I see it levied more frequently as a tool of those on the right (as is well documented in this thread), but it is unwelcome from any quarter.
James E. Fish
Let me clear things up a little. Words are being put in my mouth I didn’t type.
Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs. The CIA under the Eisenhower administration put the fiasco together, however it was carried out under Kennedy’s watch and he had the opportunity to cancel it. I was not comparing the Bay of Pigs to Iraq.
Kennedy approved tax cuts for capital gains and later said it was one of the best things he had done. I made no reference to supply or demand side theory. The Greenburg article is irrelevant. I don’t think Kennedy and Reagan were soul brothers.
Quemoy and Matsu. I am referring to the Kennedy-anal orifice, oops Nixon debate. Kennedy was criticized for the comment you quoted and changed his position later.
Robert Kennedy worked with Hoover in the wiretapping. At the time they were on the same page. True, there was no FISA, but warrants were required and they ignored the law. Wikipedia is a poor source for information. As a retired journalist I would not trust it as a source.
Kennedy’s intervention in Alabama was the start of his movement towards proposing the civil rights laws. A good thing, however Eisenhower sent in the 82nd Airborne Division to protect blacks during his administration giving Kennedy precedent. JFK’s early reluctance to support civil rights angered his brother, Robert, who argued he should support the end of “Jim Crow”
I get my information from a half century of following politics and a quarter century as a journalist covering news from the early ‘60’s to the middle ‘80’s. My politics are explained in an earlier post.
James E. Fish
Hatred is also a poor substute for debate. Hatred comes from both sides. Read The Huffington Post for a dose of left wing hate. I submitted seven comments to that site before being banned permanently. My sin was a mild comment that if he ran for President, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson might have trouble with corruption in this state. At the time several State officials had been convicted of corruption. Although Richardson was not involved in that scandal, New Mexico is known as a pay to play state and it is known the Governor has skeletons in the closet. The next day comments like “he’s a fucking racist” appeared without any problem. That’s hate anyway you look at it.
Kevin K.
Dan Collins said:
Oh, good christ, did you really link to Mary Katherine Ham? I’m supposed to “start” with a cold sore?
Cassidy
Heh…let me know when you guys find it.
John S.
Thanks for those clarifications, although it does little to persuade me that Kennedy would have been a conservative. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own set of facts.
Had you bothered to read the excerpt, you would see that it is entirely relevant. Your assertion was that Kennedy’s tax cuts on capital gains would qualify him as a conservative. Greenburg indicated that Kennedy preferred government spending to tax cuts, but conservatives in Congress opposed it. He compromised on a position that put him on the opposite side of conservatives.
I agree, which is why I always look for corroborating sources for anything I find on Wikipedia. As a former journalist, you should be familiar with that concept. If you think anything I cited was factually inaccurate, by all means, have at it.
That’s certainly noteworthy, but hardly elevates the value of your opinion. I realize that you wanted to dismiss me as a pot-smoking punk who didn’t know shit about history, but being a curmudgeon doesn’t give you a better grasp of history. You make some interesting points, but I suggest the next time you want an amiable conversation you assume a little less credulity on the part of the other commenters (a little less arrogance would be nice, too).
Good day to you, Mr. Fish.
James E. Fish
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. In the ‘60’s I lived in Hashberry, smoked dope with Jerry Garcia and went to Ken Kesey’s Kool Aid parties.
I read the entire article. It was irrelevant to my argument. I never said the tax cut made Kennedy a conservative, he was a liberal, but a liberal in 1960 is different than one today. Kennedy did say the capital gains tax was one of the best moves he had made. That’s on tape.
I did not challenge the veracity of your points. I only noted your cut and paste from Wickopieda was suspect as is everything from that source.
I am not quite sure how to address this. Looking over my posts in this conversation sheds no clue. I did err in not noticing the sarcasm alert in one post; however I apologized and cleared up the misunderstanding in a reply. I am at a loss as to the reason for your apparent anger so I will ignore your condescending close, “Good day to you, Mr. Fish.”
person of choler
Wilfred, I’ve been meaning to ask,
“We managed to get 9 more Names Not Released Yet in the past 2 days….”
What 9 Names? Who are “We”?
“Hundreds of cases….” Hundreds? Of what? How do you know?
rawshark
I wouldn’t mind hearing a little more about those Kool Aid parties.
James E. Fish
I’d tell you all about them if I could remember them. There is a saying, “If you remember the ‘60s, you weren’t there”
John S.
I’m not angry in the slightest. I was attempting to acknowledge that I believe we got off on the wrong foot, and said as much.
My close was not meant to be snarky, though. I have continually referred to you as Mr. Fish – not out of condescension – but out of respect. I may not respect your opinions, but from perusing your blog the fact is that you are several decades my senior and therefore are personally deserving of my respect. If I met you in person, I would refer to you similarly (but probably resist my urge to use profanity).
I apologize if that point did not come across clearly.
John S.
Incidentally, Mr. Fish, I believe we have come a long way from this:
Although Cole was right from the start – claiming Kennedy would have been a conservative is a pointless exercise. Actually, it’s a pointless political excercise, but a rather interesting historical one.
grandpa john
empty rhetoric
such a wonderfuly descriptive phrase for the dialogue that ensues
jones
re:Cassidy
according to the latest, Cassidy got it almost exactly right.
jones
here:
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=8516#comment-355865