ATTENTION WINGNUTS: NARRATIVE IN DANGER

DTG28102007: 1459ZULU, STOP
THIS IS AN IMMEDIATE ACTION ALERT TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE 101st CHAIRBORNE
, STOP
OUR NARRATIVE IS UNDER ASSAULT AGAIN, STOP
RAISE HYSTERIA LEVELS TO DEFCON ELEVENTY-THREE AND SET PHASERS ON SMEAR, STOP

YOUR TARGET- OBSIDIAN WINGS, STOP:

I stayed away from the entire Beauchamp affair. I was aware of it, and I had my own opinion, but since I had no way of proving anything one way or the other, I saw no real value to jumping into the fray. However, an experience I had the other day has left me with the feeling I have little choice but to speak up.

***

I had to get back to my FOB the other night. I was away from my unit, so I hitched a ride. The guys in the HMMWV I rode in seemed like normal soldiers: a bit irreverent, sometimes frustrated, but decent guys. Until we passed through a town and spotted three dogs in the middle of the road. Without hesitation, indeed with genuine glee, the driver accelerated and apparently ran down one of the dogs (in the dark, from my position, all I know for sure is that there was a bump). He then got into a vigorous argument with the gunner over whether or not he had hit the dog; the gunner was attempting to deny him ‘credit’ for the kill. There was no objection from the vehicle commander over any of this…killing a stray dog didn’t seem to faze him in the slightest. Granted, this didn’t affect the mission one way or the other, and it was a dog and not a person. Still…I felt a bit ill at the thought the vehicle I’d been riding in probably ran over a dog, and the fact this seemed to bring joy to otherwise normal appearing people remains appalling to me.

Does this mean Beauchamp was telling the truth? Nope…I still can’t prove that one way or the other. My point in bringing this up is only to note that, whether or not his story was true, soldiers are people, and sometimes people do some pretty unpleasant things. And attacking people who point out that soldiers are people, however cathartic it may be for some, does nothing to change that fact.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION: STOP

PHASE 1: DENY G’KAR IS A SOLDIER, STOP
PHASE 2: ADMIT HE IS A SOLDIER, FIND OUT HIS NAME, INVESTIGATE HIM THOROUGHLY, RECOMMEND BLANKET PARTIES AND/OR FRAGGING, STOP
PHASE 3: SANDTABLE EXERCISES WITH A SCALE MODEL OF A HMMWV TO PROVE YOU CAN NOT RUN OVER A DOG, STOP
PHASE 4: REFER TO RELEVANT MILITARY SOP’S AND NOTE IT IS NOT SOP TO RUN OVER STRAY DOGS, STOP
PHASE 5: DEMAND G’KAR TURN OVER THOSE SOLDIER’S NAMES AND THEN REPORT HIMSELF TO THE NEAREST JAG FOR PUNISHMENT AND POSSIBLY EXECUTION FOR TREASON, STOP

ADDITIONAL COURSES OF ACTION, IF IN ANY WAY APPLICABLE- BLAME THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND/OR DHIMMOCRATS, STOP

PLEASE FORWARD ALL SITREPS TO THE CONFEDERATE YANKEE, STOP

I THINK YOU ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. WE CAN NOT ALLOW OBSIDIAN WINGS TO EMBOLDEN THE INSURGENTS WITH THIS SLANDER, FULL STOP

91 replies
  1. 1
    capelza says:

    Oh the siren is the perfect touch!

  2. 2
    TenguPhule says:

    You can almost hear the little pricks little pricks standing at attention as they prepare the Armchairs of War.

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    The right long ago degenerated into farce, a caricature of itself. While this post is good quality material, if there were one place on earth where one would expect to find appreciation for the fact that satirespoof cannot top reality, you would think this would be it!

  4. 4
    Thomas says:

    What about the dogs? Maybe the dogs hated our troops, and merely posing as innocent strays.

    It’s sad that so much of the MSM narrative relies on the anti-troop ‘fact’ that dogs are not affiliated with the Islamojihadi enemy.

  5. 5
    El Cid says:

    ZOMG I will go out now and start screamin in tha back yard about how Bill Clinton filled up our army with traitor dog killers who make up stories about killing dogs and then go back to Arkansas to kill kids with trains and then not let a serial rapist free.

  6. 6
    OxyCon says:

    You forgot the most exctiting right wing smear/fear tactic…G’Kar’s wife and kids are now fair game because he entered the fray!
    Time to give out their names, addresses, phone numbers and schools they attend. Bonus for having Michelle Malkin personally do the Stalkin.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    The right long ago degenerated into farce, a caricature of itself. While this post is good quality material, if there were one place on earth where one would expect to find appreciation for the fact that satirespoof cannot top reality, you would think this would be it!

    I am now to the point where all I am going to do is throw shit in people’s faces until a Democrat is in charge of the White House.

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: “John Cole is such a fucking asshole.”

    I have a mission.

  8. 8
    Doug H. says:

    Quick! Someone get a Hummer model and a sandbox!

  9. 9
    MM says:

    The right long ago degenerated into farce, a caricature of itself. While this post is good quality material, if there were one place on earth where one would expect to find appreciation for the fact that satirespoof cannot top reality, you would think this would be it!

    Of course by the end of the day, Dan Reihl will make this exact same post, only earnestly.

  10. 10
    Jess says:

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: “John Cole is such a fucking asshole.”

    you rock.

  11. 11
    ActualRealPatriotAmericanGoreSucksRedStateMan says:

    REMIND PEOPLE THAT BILL CLINTON’S DOG BUDDY WAS RUN OVER UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. CREATE LINK BWT THOSE WHO DEFENDED CLINTON IN BUDDY-GATE VERFSUS THOSE WHO ATTACK SOLDIERS FOR FALSIFIED ALLEGED CANICIDE. NOTE THAT AL-QAEDA HAS ACCESS TO DOGS. NOTE THAT DOGS HAVE FLEAS. LAUNCH EFFORT TO PORTRAY CANINE THREAT TO NATIONAL VITAL FLUIDS. NOTE THREAT OF DOG WARS III, IV & VIII. HELPFUL CATCH-PHRASE: “WHY DO YOU THINK THEY CALL THE DOGS?”

  12. 12
    TenguPhule says:

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: “John Cole is such a fucking asshole.”

    I have a mission.

    One of Us. One of Us. One of Us.

  13. 13
    The Other Steve says:

    What I still find curious about this, is the very western attitude that killing a dog is bad. It’s a cute puppy dog after all, why would anybody want to hurt it?

    In places outside of the United States and Western Europe, the local government does not have a Dog Catcher.

    think about it, and what that means.

    I don’t have a problem with killing feral dogs. I just wish they’d do it more humanely, and with less glee. That’s the sad part here.

  14. 14
    The Other Steve says:

    You forgot the most exctiting right wing smear/fear tactic…G’Kar’s wife and kids are now fair game because he entered the fray!

    Not to mention the counter tops!

  15. 15
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: “John Cole is such a fucking asshole.”

    I have a mission.

    Indeed, no higher calling can be found.

  16. 16
    Ted says:

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: “John Cole is such a fucking asshole.”

    Stay heart-healthy, John. The wingnut Tinkerbell parade clearly drives you up the wall, but we must always find ways to relax. :)

  17. 17

    Someone get a Hummer …

    Taking it completely out of context, but I volunteer for that mission. Just don’t send Michelle Malkin, because I am not enough of a Patriot to take that one for the team. OK! OK! OK! I’ll do it, but only if she wears a flag lapel pin.

  18. 18
    Thom says:

    I’s a HMMWV! Not a BFV! Of course you could do that in a HMMWV!

    That will be the first thing they say.

  19. 19
    Ted says:

    I don’t have a problem with killing feral dogs. I just wish they’d do it more humanely, and with less glee.

    Agreed. And if you’re in a HMMWV in a war zone, and especially since you’ve probably been told not to stop or slow down for practically anything lest you make yourself a sitting target, hitting a dog in your way is perfectly understandable. What blows me away is the going out of your way to run one down. I’m worried about the mind that finds that entertaining.

  20. 20
    jcricket says:

    First I think I accidentally typed Drudgereport.com into my browser. Then this gem:

    I have a mission.

    Mission accomplished John.

    It must be strange in 24%-istan these days. Where Bush is still a genius, the war is on the verge of being won (sans quotes), everyone loves America, the caliphate is on the verge of imposing sharia on all of us, and we our biggest threat is a brain-damaged 12-year olds who might engender sympathy for a children’s healthcare expansion.

    I sometimes wonder if the Republicans haven’t all started challening Jack and Rexalla Van Impe.

  21. 21

    John you’re probably the only one who has accomplished a mission in this whole so called war but I sure hope G’Kar doesn’t end up as collateral damage in this operation. He’s pretty new over there I think. They might not have realized he was blogging. The sad thing is they might really gangbang him.

  22. 22
    Psycheout says:

    Nice rant, but c’mon. There’s no proof whatsoever that a dog even got a scratch or an ingrown toenail. Those roads in Iraq aren’t in the greatest condition. What most likely happened is that they hit a pothole and the guys were just messing with his head to see how green he was.

    American soldiers do not run over defenseless animals on purpose. This is Beauchamp II: Electric Jubilee.

    That the guy got all spooked about it probably means he needs to go back to boot camp.

    The flashing lights do look good though. So do the all caps marching orders.

    NO BLOOD FOR OIL. STOP. LET’S CUT AND RUN WHILE THE CUTTING AND RUNNING IS GOOD. I WELCOME OUR NEW CALIPHATE OVERLORDS. STOP.

    PLEASE MAKE ME … STOP.

  23. 23
    ThymeZone says:

    I have a mission.

    Leave the Dark Side, and join our team :)

  24. 24
    laneman says:

    I am now to the point where all I am going to do is throw shit in people’s faces until a Democrat is in charge of the White House.

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: “John Cole is such a fucking asshole.”

    //hugs

  25. 25
    Psycheout says:

    Hey John, you still have accounts at Daily Kos and Red State, right? Why not post this up on both sites and see how the polar opposites react. It might be fun to watch on a lazy Sunday. Anything’s better than Beat the Press with Russert Potatoe.

  26. 26
    nightjar says:

    I sure hope G’Kar covered his tracks well. It seems like the wingnutt-o-sphere and Army propagandists {PR folk Boylan et al..} are working hand in glove to keep America safe from the truth in Irak.

  27. 27
    jake says:

    I have a mission.

    Godspeed, sir!

  28. 28
    chopper says:

    dude, i’ve been sitting in this family’s hedges for like a day now and i’ve seen nothin. sigh, i’ll never be a citizen-journalist…

  29. 29
  30. 30
    Cain says:

    dude, i’ve been sitting in this family’s hedges for like a day now and i’ve seen nothin. sigh, i’ll never be a citizen-journalist…

    Dude, couldn’t you at least tell us what kind of countertops they have? I mean… come on. We need to know.

    cain

  31. 31
    RSA says:

    In places outside of the United States and Western Europe, the local government does not have a Dog Catcher.

    think about it, and what that means.

    Private enterprise toward the acquisition of a good source of protein?

  32. 32
    OxyCon says:

    Or this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSnHudm5Cmk

    =================

    Watch war movies and read first hand accounts about how our troops behaved in our past wars. They were always the good guys at all times.
    But there is no doubt that a few of our soldiers in Iraq are acting like right wing a-holes, and I put the blame on Bush, Fox “News”, Rush Limpbaughs, right wing blogs, sh*theads like Col. Boylan and the rest of the right wing media/smear machine.

  33. 33
    John Rohan says:

    Sorry, Cole. In spite of the hysterical sarcasm, that’s not going to fly. Two BIG differences between that story and Beauchamp’s:

    1) Beauchamps’s crew were driving around in a Bradley, not a HMMWV (you know there’s a big difference, right?). One of our own HMMWVs in a convoy of mine hit and killed a dog once (although not on purpose).

    2) Running over dogs was not the real problem of that part of Beauchamp’s story. As I already said once, the bigger problem but that he said the driver constantly ran the vehicle into walls and concrete barriers:

    outside visibility is poor in a Bradley (soldiers don’t ride standing up in the hatch like they did back in 2003) and the things are loud, lumbering machines, so running over a dog is extremely difficult. But even more impossible is the claim that the driver regularly smashed his vehicle into people’s walls and concrete barriers. Patrols wear down the tracks on these vehicles, and they constantly need to be replaced. Spare tracks are not easy to come by, and hammering them back together is long tedious work, which is done by the vehicle crew themselves (at least it was when I was there). Any Bradley commander would immediately replace someone who treated the vehicle like that, no ifs, ands or buts.

  34. 34
    John Cole says:

    Running over dogs was not the real problem of that part of Beauchamp’s story. As I already said once, the bigger problem but that he said the driver constantly ran the vehicle into walls and concrete barriers:

    This is the best you got?

    The reason you attacked him was not because of the impossibility of it, but because that is was an outrageous libel and smear on the integrity of the soldiers. Now, when faced with evidence that essentially the same damned thing has happened, you claim it is not the smear, but that it was impossible.

    You are an idiot.

  35. 35
    chopper says:

    Dude, couldn’t you at least tell us what kind of countertops they have? I mean… come on. We need to know.

    i left my official right-wing ‘countertop identification manual’ (updated) at home.

  36. 36
    SP says:

    cool siren light

  37. 37
    Newzateleventythree says:

    Coming up at 11.30

    Steelers fan, Hola Fruta connoisseur and Blog Maestro John Cole has consistently said he didn’t give a flying fuck if Scott Beauchamp (damn him!) was lying in his dispatches to TNR. He has just as consistently objected to the resulting flood of hysteria from RighterBlogistan, and brought smiles to the faces of a few … a few, with his mockery of the Keyboard Commandos antics.

    Despite his clear stance on the issue, various Very Serious Pundits still don’t want him to talk about it at all. Join us at 11:30 as we delve into why some people get a long branch of Devil’s Walking Stick up their asses when John Cole breaks out the comedy.

  38. 38
    Peter Johnson says:

    Does anyone know that the poster who wrote that, G’Kar, is actually in Iraq? It would be ironic to see Beauchamp defended by someone who was faking it himself.

  39. 39
    tBone says:

    Does anyone know that the poster who wrote that, G’Kar, is actually in Iraq? It would be ironic to see Beauchamp defended by someone who was faking it himself.

    That would be ironic. If you’re Alanis Morisette.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t worry. If the guy is faking, we’ll soon know exactly how much money he makes, what kind of vehicle he drives, and what kind of countertops he has. Come to think of it, we’ll probably know all that anyway.

  40. 40
    Thom says:

    For sale: One crystal ball. In perfect working condition:

    3:53 p.m.:

    Thom Says:

    I’s a HMMWV! Not a BFV! Of course you could do that in a HMMWV!

    That will be the first thing they say.

    5:11 p.m.:

    John Rohan Says:

    Sorry, Cole. In spite of the hysterical sarcasm, that’s not going to fly. Two BIG differences between that story and Beauchamp’s:

    1) Beauchamps’s crew were driving around in a Bradley, not a HMMWV (you know there’s a big difference, right?). One of our own HMMWVs in a convoy of mine hit and killed a dog once (although not on purpose).

    For sale: One crystal ball.

  41. 41
    El Cid says:

    Twintiforpursentistan — I love it.

  42. 42
    Newzateleventythree says:

    BREAKING NEWS!!

    Slightly insecure blog-monster, Peter Hugh Johnson has comes up with an all-encompassing response to every soldier who has ever had anything less than splendiferous to say about the Iraqi War:

    They’re not really there. Right now we’re interviewing friends and relatives of soldiers, analyzing the writings of soldiers on blogs, message boards and MySpace accounts to determine how many soldiers have complained about the situation and Iraq. Join us Tuesday for our special report:

    The War in Iraq: Is there anybody out there?

  43. 43

    So, John, are you telling us that the IP address for PJ is the same as the IP address for DJ? I kind of expect that to be the case, but he’s such an annoying spoof (PJ) that I’d like to be able to lay that ghost to rest.

  44. 44
    craigie says:

    I am now to the point where all I am going to do is throw shit in people’s faces until a Democrat is in charge of the White House.

    Spoken like a true conservative.

  45. 45
    craigie says:

    But the dog was a member of a terrorist organization. Osama bin Bow-wow, they called him. He was evil. And now, he’s a rug. Heh heh heh.

  46. 46
    The Other Steve says:

    Running over dogs was not the real problem of that part of Beauchamp’s story. As I already said once, the bigger problem but that he said the driver constantly ran the vehicle into walls and concrete barriers:

    What happens when someone else posts about riding in a Bradley hitting stair steps and fences?

  47. 47
    STEVEinSC says:

    Well I think the point is, what kind of things are being created in Eye-rak that will come home and begin to miss the good old times or running over dogs? Cruelty is the point whether its trying to run down an animal or raping and killing a young girl and murdering her family. It is the psychopaths that the right is defending, rather than demanding their rooting out in courts-martial to “conserve” the honor of their country. Where is their patriotism? Oh yeah, it’s a last refuge.

  48. 48
    Perry Como says:

    What happens when someone else posts about riding in a Bradley hitting stair steps and fences?

    Are the stair steps and fences evil?

  49. 49
    John Cole says:

    Are the stair steps and fences evil?

    I am going to have to guess the infrastructure is as pure as the wind driven snow, because chief beauchamp foe John Rohan, earlier in this very thread, asserted that Greater Wingnuttia was not upset about allegations of dog mutiliation, but allegations that we had hurt their streets:

    Running over dogs was not the real problem of that part of Beauchamp’s story. As I already said once, the bigger problem but that he said the driver constantly ran the vehicle into walls and concrete barriers

  50. 50
    Abe Froman says:

    well mr. Cole!! Fuck you! You’re an Asshole I just pee’d pants laughing my ass off. Thanks!

  51. 51
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    John, your mission, should you accept it, is to drive greater wingnuttopia totally insane. This will be a dangerous assignment, and you could be bitten by rabid, frothing at the mouth keyboard commandos and assaulted by simpering morons. Your IQ alone should protect you from any damage.

    This message will self destruct in five seconds…

    Ok, driving them nuts is not really Mission Impossible.

    ————–

    Psycheout Says:

    Hey John, you still have accounts at Daily Kos and Red State, right? Why not post this up on both sites and see how the polar opposites react. It might be fun to watch on a lazy Sunday. Anything’s better than Beat the Press with Russert Potatoe.

    Please John, go pimp your blog! ;)

  52. 52
    jake says:

    Ok, driving them nuts is not really Mission Impossible.

    Heh. More like Mission Redundant, but you give an accurate description of the risks. I can hear the clashing of Cheeto-stained mandibles e’en now…

  53. 53
    Punchy says:

    If I were an insurgent, I’d load a dog full of explosives. Talk about an effective delivery device. Just let a bunch of loaded dogs off near some major roads and watch the result.

  54. 54
    Cain says:

    John,

    I think you’ll have to tell us what your countertops are as a pre-emptive strike at Greater Wingnuttia, because you know MM is out there in the bushes with a hummer (military grade) and a binoculars.

    If you hear the sound of buzzing while walking outside, I suggest you get your gun or maybe a camera, I’m not sure which.

    cain

  55. 55
    Doughbob Loadpants says:

    It’s not the 101st Chairborne, it’s the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. I think it’s the 82d Chairborne.

  56. 56
    TenguPhule says:

    If I were an insurgent, I’d load a dog full of explosives.

    The Iraqis are way ahead of you. They already do that.

    Of course, the dogs are already dead before the operation….

  57. 57
    El Cid says:

    But if any of em’s BBQ grills blow over in a hard wind, we’ll somehow pull together to buy ’em outta thur mess.

  58. 58
    jake says:

    you know MM is out there in the bushes with a hummer (military grade)

    Ick.

    Please, no one mention wet suits.

  59. 59
    hilzoy says:

    Peter Jonson has nailed it. G’Kar is in fact on Narn, and as anyone with half a brain knows, Narn is a long, long way from Iraq.

  60. 60
    josephdietrich says:

    Well I think the point is, what kind of things are being created in Eye-rak that will come home and begin to miss the good old times or running over dogs?

    Dude, guys do that kind of stuff back home already. I saw it when I was growing up in Indiana. I knew a guy who would go out of his way to run over cats whenever he got the chance. I knew different guy who, when he went hunting, would pretty much shoot at whatever was running around on four legs or two wings.

    That’s one of the things that doesn’t make any sense about these dumbasses’ outrage over the whole Beauchamp thing. They act like there is no such thing as “young, dumb, and full of cum;” that everyone in a U.S. uniform is pure as driven snow and that out of all the soldiers over in Iraq there couldn’t possibly be a bastard or two who likes running over dogs, is a dickhead to women or the locals, or is careless with multi-thousand (million) dollar military equipment. It’s just a bog-stupid position to try and argue.

  61. 61
    John Rohan says:

    John Cole Said:

    Running over dogs was not the real problem of that part of Beauchamp’s story. As I already said once, the bigger problem but that he said the driver constantly ran the vehicle into walls and concrete barriers:

    This is the best you got?

    The reason you attacked him was not because of the impossibility of it, but because that is was an outrageous libel and smear on the integrity of the soldiers.

    So the fact that it was impossible was just a coincidence?
    I know I’m asking for the unreasonable, but since you can’t read my mind, I’ll thank you to actually produce some evidence for the above, rather than just declaring what you believe my motivations are.

    Now, when faced with evidence that essentially the same damned thing has happened, you claim it is not the smear, but that it was impossible.

    You are an idiot.

    Wow, an ad hominem. What a brilliant response. I guess for some people, the same comeback they used back when they were only four years old, just never goes out of style. You certainly put me in my place.

    It’s ironic too… since I’m a troop, isn’t that “smearing the troops”? Haven’t you said many times that “wing nuts” only support the troops when they agree with them and smear them when they don’t? Well, time to look in the mirror, wingnut.

  62. 62
    over_educated says:

    I have to support John Rohan here. The numerous sand-box diagrams provided by the right wing blogosphere provide incontrovertible evidence that it is physically impossible for a Bradley to run over a dog.

    Sure, John Cole may have driven a Bradley in the military and find these claims ludicrous, but who are you going to believe? Someone who has actually served in the military, or one of our brave, brave right-wing bloggers using all their Scientafulic powers?

    Since John Rohan is a “troop”, we must assume that he speaks for the entirety of the U.S. military, thus any attempts to point out his (rather numerous) logical inconsistencies only helps the terrorists.

    John Cole: Why do you hate America?

  63. 63
    jake says:

    Shortest John Rohan: Waah!

    Jesus (NTZYM), what a sad little man.

  64. 64
    Vlad says:

    “I am now to the point where all I am going to do is throw shit in people’s faces until a Democrat is in charge of the White House.

    No day will be complete until I make one of these idiots mutter: ‘John Cole is such a fucking asshole.'”

    Does this mean that you’re now one of the Jane Hamshers of the left center, John?

  65. 65
    John Cole says:

    I am not going to stand for anyone questioning whether or not John Rohan is military or served admirably, so behave yourselves.

    John- the assertion that what Greater Wingnuttia was upset about was that the things described by Beauchamp were unpossible is absurd. It was the acts that were the smear, allegedly.

    To argue that what you were really upset about was that it was impossible to run over a dog with a bradley, and not the report that soldiers were casually running over animals is the height of absurdity. Besides, I contend it is still possible to run over dogs with a Bradley.

    Don’t make me google all the faux outrage about Beauchamp and the TNR ‘smearing our soldiers.’

  66. 66
    cleek says:

    WE CAN NOT ALLOW OBSIDIAN WINGS TO EMBOLDEN THE INSURGENTS WITH THIS SLANDER,

    never fear, the Yank has arrived at ObWi, to school them on all things Beauchamp. anyone doubt the guy’s got a Google Alert set up for “Beauchamp” ?

  67. 67
    BruceR says:

    Actually, I think John Rohan’s basically right. I can’t recall a single blogger who seriously argued that American soldiers *wouldn’t* idly kill a stray dog in a warzone. A lot argued for various reasons that they *couldn’t*, generally, in the circumstances described. If they did, well, that blogger really would be an idiot. But maybe I missed reading that particular idiot… lucky me.

    Still, good post, though.

  68. 68
    John Rohan says:

    over_educated said:
    I have to support John Rohan here. The numerous sand-box diagrams provided by the right wing blogosphere provide incontrovertible evidence that it is physically impossible for a Bradley to run over a dog.

    John Cole said:
    To argue that what you were really upset about was that it was impossible to run over a dog with a bradley, and not the report that soldiers were casually running over animals is the height of absurdity. Besides, I contend it is still possible to run over dogs with a Bradley.

    Arguing against a straw-man might make both of you feel good, but I never said it was “impossible” to run over a dog with a Bradley. I said it was “extremely difficult”. What really is almost impossible is a BFV driver continuing in his job while regularly running into walls and concrete barriers for fun.

    Incidentally, in OIF-I, I spent a considerable amount of time in Bradleys (although not as a driver). One of the photos I took is online here.

  69. 69
    Cyrus says:

    It’s ironic too… since I’m a troop, isn’t that “smearing the troops”?

    My name is Legion, for we are many.

  70. 70
    John Cole says:

    And now we go down the rathole again.

    So you are here to tell me that, what really upset you in the entire beauchamp affair was not that he was smearing the good names of all soldiers by telling tales of running over dogs, or not that he was clearly lying because it is impossible to run over dogs in a Bradley, BUT BECAUSE THEY RAN INTO WALLS.

    That is some ultra-refined bullshit.

  71. 71

    G’Kar is an interesting choice of name – he’s a character from the TV show Babylon 5, which ran for 5 years. He began as an aggressive warrior who wanted nothing but revenge for the atrocities his race suffered, and ended up a diplomat. “He” wrote some beautiful speeches (all from the illustrious pen of writer JMS, of course).

    I don’t think this choice of name is a coincidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G'Kar

  72. 72
    Jake says:

    BUT BECAUSE THEY RAN INTO WALLS.

    You’re still not getting it John; it’s because they ran into walls for fun.

    Leaving me to assume that if STB had written the driver ran into walls and shed hot tears of remorse afterwards, JotR wouldn’t have a problem.

  73. 73
    over_educated says:

    Everyone knows it is impossible for a Bradley to run into walls! More proof you all are part of the vast left-wing media conspiracy!

  74. 74
    r€nato says:

    if I could run over a dog with my civilian vehicle – a late model Corolla – why couldn’t a Bradley?

    (this is NOT to say that I have done so! but, unfortunately, I have indeed witnessed a passenger car accidentally running down a dog before)

  75. 75
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    If I can run over an owl in my wife’s Oldsmobile, why can’t a Bradley run over a dog?

  76. 76
    Dan S. says:

    BUT BECAUSE THEY RAN INTO WALLS.

    Really, it’s a metaphor for the whole enterprise . ..

  77. 77
    Batocchio says:

    Very well played!

  78. 78

    Wow, an ad hominem.

    Point of order! “You are an idiot” is a personal attack. An ad hominem would be “We shouldn’t listen when you label something “ad hominem” because you are an idiot.” Except in this case, because it is in fact true.

    See?

  79. 79
    John Rohan says:

    John Cole said:

    So you are here to tell me that, what really upset you in the entire beauchamp affair was not that he was smearing the good names of all soldiers by telling tales of running over dogs, or not that he was clearly lying because it is impossible to run over dogs in a Bradley, BUT BECAUSE THEY RAN INTO WALLS.

    Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem, but I will try to refrain from making fun of your disability.

    What bothers me is: 1) Beauchamp lied, 2) TNR lied (and still is), 3) The liberalsphere was just way too eager to believe it all, 4) When proven wrong, people like you, Sullivan, Greenwald, and Ygeslias go into defensive mode, and try to tell us it isn’t any big deal after all, compared to real atrocities going on. Funny thing is, when I tried to use that same argument (when comparing Abu Gharayb vs insurgent torture techniques of hacking off limbs or gouging out eyes), people like me were accused by people like Sullivan of “making excuses” and “whitewashing US crimes”.

    I guess I could say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh or Larry Craig, that if guilty, the stuff they did were pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. But apparently they were pretty important to you, since you wrote reams of pages about them.

    I think that you are smart enough to know that if TNR’s article praised George Bush, the soldiers, or the war, you would be one of the loudest critics if you found out there was a strong possibility the source made the article up. You would have gone after TNR and the author with long posts filled with obscenities, insults, and sarcasm. I don’t even think you can attempt to deny that…

  80. 80
    Jake says:

    people like me were accused by people like Sullivan of “making excuses” and “whitewashing US crimes”.

    A. Sullivan accuses J. Rohan of something = Kvetching in J. Cole and Tim. F.’s blog. Huh.

    OK, I get it. J. Cole needs to apologize to J. Rohan for what A. Sullivan said and J. Rohan will feel better.

    I don’t even think you can attempt to deny that…

    I know there’s a rule about invoking Hitler/Nazi in an argument, but is there a similar rule for using variations of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” in an argument? If so, Rohan just ran it over with a Bradley.

  81. 81
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    The mental gymnastics of J. Rohan is amusing:

    When proven wrong, people like you, Sullivan, Greenwald, and Ygeslias go into defensive mode, and try to tell us it isn’t any big deal after all, compared to real atrocities going on. Funny thing is, when I tried to use that same argument (when comparing Abu Gharayb vs insurgent torture techniques of hacking off limbs or gouging out eyes), people like me were accused by people like Sullivan of “making excuses” and “whitewashing US crimes”.

    Contrasting our actions at “Abu Gharayb” as being lesser than the actions of the insurgents IS whitewashing and/or making excuses. There is no excuse for the inexcusable, period. People like Cole, Sullivan, Greenwald, and Ygeslias were only stating the obvious, that what Beauchamp said really did not matter when compared to what has been going on in Iraq.

    J. Rohan, if you put all of the commentary about Beauchamp from both sides on a set of balance scales, what was said by by the Rabid Right snaps the scales in half. The left really did not care, it was the right who fanned the flames over Beauchamp. They threatened his life, encouraged others to threaten his life and chased him down like the baying hounds that they are. They kept his name out front and on target. They kept whipping the dead horse, long after the horse had been beaten into dust.

    We just sat over here and laughed our asses off at the tempest in a teapot (or more accurately, a tempest in a Koolaid pitcher…).

  82. 82
    Dreggas says:

    WAIT STOP THE PRESSES HERE’S PROOF THAT THE PERSON AT OB WINGS IS FULL OF IT:

    OUR TROOPS AREN’T EVEN DRIVING THEIR HMMWV

    WHY DO THESE PHONEY TROOPS ON PHONEY PATROLS HATE AMERICA?

    [ /SNARK ]

  83. 83
    JWW says:

    John,

    You never cease in lowering your standards, or feeding the asses that cling on for life. You only skill is rebreathing trash. Take pride, or maybe find some.

  84. 84
    JWW says:

    John,

    Should your vast host of followers, of say maybe 20 or 30 feel the shepherd has lead them to the truth. They follow a failure, in life, miltary service and for cause. You are so masquerade faced that your own reality is buried. You regurgite shit and they welcome the meal. I see Beauchamp has become a life giver for you and your host ao asses. He is no other than 1000’s before him. You play him as a hero, a hero in freedom of speech. He is a POS, you were the same, I see you looking in the mirror, the reflection of Beauchamp is you.

  85. 85
    JWW says:

    John,

    I see maybe your geritol group has gone too rest. Didn’t mean too rob you of your rest. If you would double up on the Ensure and triple weight Depends you could force a 9PM conversation. Since you have no way of getting beyond the tampons and Centrum Silver, though you are too old for one and haven’t a need for the other, you need them both. Maybe, as I stated many times before, you BS post’s are only worth a 24 hr response.

  86. 86
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I see, if it takes you more than 24 hours to come up with a witty retort, you give up?

    You might try some of that Centrum Silver yourself, I hear that the mind goes first. I would suggest that Preparation H might help too, but on some folks it is like vanishing cream. In your case, I would try it on a spot that you won’t miss.

    Just a couple of friendly suggestions. ;)

  87. 87
    John Rohan says:

    Hey folks – here’s a news flash for you:

    1) I’m not obligated to respond to every nitwit whose certain he knows how the world works. I’m sorry, that’s just the way it is. If I don’t respond to you, don’t be offended. That’s life. I have a full time job, a family, and a web site, so my time is limited.

    2) I live in Germany and I’m on Central European Time. So if you’re wondering why I’m not responding to your post at 4pm, it’s because I’m asleep. Not because I’m so old that I need a nap, but because it’s like 2am hereand I have to get up for PT at 6am. Yeah, I’m so decrepit that I ran 3 miles this morning. How is your physical condition?

    Now to respond to just one person:

    ConservativelyLiberal said:
    Contrasting our actions at “Abu Gharayb” as being lesser than the actions of the insurgents IS whitewashing and/or making excuses.

    Ok, I’ll agree with you for the moment, but then you have a problem:

    People like Cole, Sullivan, Greenwald, and Ygeslias were only stating the obvious, that what Beauchamp said really did not matter when compared to what has been going on in Iraq.

    But by your own logic, then you are whitewashing and making excuses for Beauchamp’s lies. So in one case, the comparison is “whitewashing” but in the other case, it isn’t? Excuse me, just what is your point again?

    J. Rohan, if you put all of the commentary about Beauchamp from both sides on a set of balance scales, what was said by by the Rabid Right snaps the scales in half.

    Basically true, although only because now that the left has egg on it’s face, they would prefer the whole thing would just go away (which, according to the drudge transcripts) is exactly what Beauchamp said.

  88. 88
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    I don’t see how it is whitewashing. They are not excusing his actions (or alleged actions), all they are saying it that in the totality of what has happened, it is inconsequential (to say the VERY least). Nor did they care about what Beauchamp said, in fact it was only mentioned here due to the right wing meltdown over it.

    Want it to go away? Hardly. Watching the right melt down over this has been a source of unending amusement for me, and many others. If you agree that the right basically breaks the scales here, why would the left have egg on their faces and want it to go away? That makes absolutely no sense at all. John’s observation was that we could not know if it was true or not, but the sandbox reenactment and blather from the right was something you would have to be blind to have missed and not comment on.

    I never cared a whit about what Beauchamp said, and my only commentary on it was in my observation of the right wing meltdown. Same with just about everyone else here.

    Mountain, meet molehill. Or is it Tempest, meet teapot…lol!

  89. 89
    John Cole says:

    Exactly, ConservativelyLiberal. I had never even read the diaries until the right wing freak-out. And then, my position was a decided ‘Meh.” who the fuck can get worked up about running over a dog when there is so much shit over there. We weren’t whitewashing- we were totally indifferent.

    On the other hand, who can look at comedy gold like this and not comment:

    I am looking now at a 1/32nd scale model of a Bradley, and I can say with some assurance that the driver’s hatch is on the left side of the vehicle. Immediately to the driver’s right is the engine compartment, the cooling grill of which rises above the level of the driver’s hatch, making it impossible to see anything on the right side of the vehicle. Even if the driver was head-out, he still couldn’t see anything to his right below the level of the top deck (all armored vehicles have significant blind spots close in, which is why they need dismounts to protect them from RPG guys in foxholes). So, if, as the blog says, the driver “twitched” the Bradley to the right, he must have used extrasensory perception in order to catch the dog. Because there’s no way he knew the dog was even there.

    The right wing has jumped the shark.

  90. 90
    rea says:

    “Cry ‘Havoc’, and run over the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial”–William Shakespeare, more or less . . .

  91. 91

    […] As a wise man once said, “Ruh Roh.” We know what happens when the wingnut narrative is in danger. At any rate, Tapper ends with this advice: […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] As a wise man once said, “Ruh Roh.” We know what happens when the wingnut narrative is in danger. At any rate, Tapper ends with this advice: […]

Comments are closed.