Thursday, July 26, 2007

Punishing Scott Thomas Beauchamp

The conservative blogosphere was outraged earlier this month when an article appeared in The New Republic that made the shocking claim that war can make soldiers cruel. Has anyone ever heard such a mendacious slander on our military? Who could believe that our military is not killing and torturing only people who really deserve it and with the utmost civility and the best of intentions? And even if there are a few bad apples in the military, doesn't the media have a duty to hush up their deeds so that it doesn't reflect badly on the military as a whole and endanger the war effort?

In the New Republic piece, called "Shock Troops," pseudonymous author "Scott Thomas," who claims he is a soldier in Iraq, tells some outlandish tales. He says he made fun of a woman whose face was badly scarred by an IED to the delight of his comrades, which made him feel "horrified and ashamed" afterward. He also claimed that one soldier donned a child's skull after uncovering a children's gravesite while digging to construct a new outpost and that another soldier ran down dogs with his Bradley. "Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?" the author said he asked the soldier. "'No,' he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste."

Of course, the idea that soldiers might become dehumanized by war and engage in macabre humor or cruelty to animals just didn't ring true to many bloggers. They suspected that not only was the story full of lies but that "Scott Thomas" didn't exist, just as AP source Jamil Hussein didn't exist, until it turned out that he did. And even if he did exist, it was unlikely that he was a soldier in Iraq. Author John Barnes even used very sophisticated "semiotic analysis" to prove that Scott Thomas was actually an MFA writing student.

But after some clever sleuthing by conservative bloggers, it turns out that Scott Thomas is Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, who is, in fact, a soldier in Iraq. Although Beauchamp actually outted himself, it was no doubt because conservative bloggers were closing in on his identity, despite the clever way he threw off the keyboard detectives by actually using his real name as a pseudonym, which would have fooled anyone. But even if Beauchamp really does exist and really is a soldier that still doesn't mean he isn't lying. As Hugh Hewitt reveals after a thorough investigation of Beauchamp's blog, Beauchamp is a fan of On the Road, a book I have not actually read, but which, according to Hewitt, "is thinly fictionalized autobiography," a damning piece of evidence Hewitt puts in boldface type. People who read fiction, especially autobiographical fiction, certainly can't be trusted to tell the truth.

As soon as Beauchamp's article was published, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard thought it sounded fishy. "One simple fact renders this tale highly implausible," he said of the maimed shaggy dog story. "Such erratic driving is likely to greatly increase a vehicle's exposure to roadside bombs, which insurgents frequently hide in the corpses of animals, or beside trash-strewn curbs." Who could imagine soldiers driving so recklessly? He put out a call to milbloggers, who set out like ducks to peck the story to death. Betsy at Betsy's Page called the New Republic's claims that they fact-checked the piece "incredibly lame." Gateway Pundit produced a letter from a military spokesperson that said, "There has been no operational reporting of the misconduct of Soldiers as reported in the article," which certainly cast a great amount of doubt on the allegations as it is difficult to imagine that soldiers might commit atrocities that go unreported. Michael Yon, whose impeccably sourced account of al Qaeda serving children to their parents for dinner has given him a high reputation for crack reporting, said the article sounded to his well-trained ears "like complete garbage." Jawa Report raised some very pertinent questions about the piece: "Do they think military members who might read it are idiots? Who is 'Scott Thomas?' Is he a liar, a sadist or both?" Ace of Spades, who recently unmasked a conspiracy by Google to hide his blog in the search engine from people who don't know how to use search engines, found an eerie similarity between the article's claims that soldiers ran over dogs and John Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony in which he claimed soldiers shot dogs. Coincidence? Dadmanly summarized the milbloggers damning evidence with a list of "multiple areas with high probability of falsehood."

When it turned out that some of their doubts proved false, for example, that there was a children's graveyard that soldiers dug up, and even though no one has proven a single factual inaccuracy, this did not discourage our brave milbloggers. Nor did the fact that Scott Thomas does exist and is a soldier do anything to give his story more credence. In fact, knowing the author's real name makes it even easier to discredit him. "Now that the TNR source has been revealed, the questions can now be asked of him and TNR," says My Pet Jawa. "Should he face charges for participating in alleged massacres and sociopathic behavior, for witnessing this kind of behavior without reporting it up the chain of command, or are the things he 'reported' merely exaggerations or at worst outright lies?" So Beauchamp has put himself in a Catch-22 situation: Either he faces charges for making cruel jokes and witnessing others' misdeeds or he admits that they are all lies. By outting Jamil Hussein, bloggers succeeded in getting him arrested, which discouraged other sources from coming forward with information that might reflect badly on the war effort. So what can be done to make an example of Beauchamp and give the milbloggers another notch on their belts?

"Publicly punishing" Beauchamp, said Confederate Yankee, whose excellent reporting on Jamil Hussein's nonexistence was marred only by the fact that it turned out he did exist after all, "might be the first step to recovering from this debacle." Some bloggers such as Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn are attacking his character. "In English libel law, Private Beauchamp would be regarded as a man with no reputation to defame," says Steyn, so bloggers have free rein to say anything they want about him, whether it is true or not. John at Argghhh! is hoping he'll be demoted. Before Beauchamp's identity was revealed The Mudville Gazette called on The New Republic "to stop covering up for this little dirt bag and turn him in to proper authorities." Now that he has been identified, he writes ominously, "the persecution begins."

But is shredding Beauchamp's reputation or demoting him enough punishment for our angry digital vigilantes and can we really trust authorities do what is necessary? Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive has a better idea on how to mete out military-style justice and support the troops. "I'll be honest I would pay good money to knock that freakin' smirk off his face," says Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo but unfortunately he can't do that from his living room. So he wants all of his readers to write to members of Beauchamp's company to offer them support and remind them of how bad Beauchamp has made them look. "Every unit has a Private Beauchamp who is more or less universally disliked as a whiny loser," Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo writes in a post called "Requiem for a Dung Beetle." "Now you need to get busy watching your back, 'cuz if you think you were disliked and unloved before......Heh." Of course, everyone knows what can happen to someone in a unit who is universally disliked. When Pat Tillman disagreed with President Bush's policies a little too vociferously, a little "friendly fire" just happened to come his way. Uncle Jimbo and his readers certainly wouldn't be too upset if Beauchamp accidentally got fragged by one of his fellow soldiers. That would teach an important lesson to any other potential squealers out there. Not that Uncle Jimbo is suggesting that anyone murder Beauchamp. Of course not. But accidents do happen. Heh, indeed.

Share This Post

blinkbits BlinkList del.icio.us Fark Furl LinkaGoGo Ma.gnolia NewsVine Reddit Shadows Simpy Spurl TailRank YahooMyWeb

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

75 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's that again about "Support the Troops?" Do we need to add fine print to exclude the "whiny little loser" contingent from this support? And what about those "few bad apples," should they be included or excluded? I'm getting really confused.

stevesh said...

"But accidents do happen."

Yes, sometimes half of a woman's face may be horribly burned.

A fellow may inadvertantly, against his better nature, mock her; an accident of the moment, given the cruelty he observes daily. He may share his mortification with a few comrades, never dreaming his raw emotions will be broadcast. After all, he is only a tourist putting together a slideshow for the gang back home in Mizzou.

Mike said...

Michael Yon, whose impeccably sourced account of al Qaeda serving children to their parents for dinner has given him a high reputation for crack reporting,

I.e, reporting while on crack.

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Swift,

Honestly, sir, I must object. It is inappropriate for you to compare a traitor such as Scott Thomas Beauchamp to such thrilling patriots as the Marine who sings "Hadji Girl"!

As for the video of soldiers throwing rocks at an injured dog, please note that the animal was not purebred and is therefore of no account.

Please correct this mistakes in your otherwise fine post immediately!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Nathan said...

Brilliant, as usual, Mr. Swift.

Anonymous said...

Our beloved RW....Support our troops, unless, of course, the troops aren't supporting the Republican mission. In fact, the best way to support the troops is to have an informational blackout and just forget they are there. Out of sight, out of mind.

bitchphd said...

Aren't a lot of these right-wing bloggers the ones who scream "coward" at anyone who posts something they don't like under a pseudonym?

Wonder why people might want their identities masked, with this lot after them.

Jason said...

Hey... What's wrong with a little dog blood for oil?

merlallen said...

so is he going to pay good money to a couple of guys to hold s.c. down so jimbo can hit him? and then run away real fast?

Anonymous said...

You know what would be another neat letter to write:

Dear Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry soldier,
How are you, sir? How is the weather in Iraq? Pretty hot I bet, and dusty, and dangerous too. Boy, I'd bet you'd really love to get out of that hell hole, no?
I think I have an idea for how you could make that happen sooner rather than later. See, there's this bunch of people who are really down with you guys' mission and they would be more than happy, I'm sure, to sign up for a tour of duty in the armed services so you people could rotate back home to get some rest.
These guys are so dedicated to success in Iraq that they talk about it non-stop. They are so committed to it that they get real mad if anyone even suggests that not everything is fine and dandy over there or that active duty in Iraq could cause serious stress to those serving there that would cause them to behave in ways that they would not have before they went over. In fact when a soldier, a member of your company actually, wrote to some magazine about his experiences, which he felt had changed him for the worse, these fellows got so mad at him that they began harassing him, some of them even using threatening language in their remarks about him, which was strange considering that he's fighting in a war they support so much (but haven't joined. yet.)
So my suggestion to you is to write to them. Tell them that their high moral would be a valuable asset for the war effort. And maybe tell them how you feel about their advocating violence against one of your buddies.

American Citizen said...

I love the brilliant brainstorm to demote a private.

Bulworth said...

Mr. Swift,

I'm worried that our media friends will not give the necessary attention to the brave reaction among conservative bloggers to this scandal and won't credit them with the support for our troops they display.

markg8 said...

American citizen: I'm surprised none of them called for him to be sent to Iraq.

One did call for him to reassigned to Alaska. If I'm Beauchamp - or any of those guys wearing body armor in the 120 degree heat riding around waiting to get blown up - Alaska would sound pretty sweet to me. But to these twits sitting in the basement watching "I Dream of Jeanie" reruns it sounds like hell on earth.

Jason said...

Wow, you can sure tell comments get removed here. You all have nothing to say against this guy- you're just full of spittle and venom. Nothing he wrote has been shown to be inaccurate.

You people are really laughingstocks all over the web. I'd change the subject if I were you.

Jon Swift said...

I almost never delete comments, Jason, as I encourage discussion from people of all viewpoints even those that disagree with my own reasonable conservatism. The only comments I have ever deleted have been spam, a few comments that revealed personal information about another blogger, a couple excessively obscene and offensive comments that I was embarrassed my mother might read and one Harry Potter spoiler. If you were a regular reader of my blog you would know that I value comments, whether they agree with me or not, even those of my most frequent commenter, "Anonymous," who is one of my harshest critics. I think this recent thread should give you a good idea of the free-wheeling discussion I encourage here.

I know this policy puts me at risk for being singled out by Bill O'Reilly as running a hate site, but it is a risk I am willing to take because of my deep respect for the marketplace of ideas.

The Kenosha Kid said...

Sheesh, nothing that Blackfive post "Requiem for a Dung Beetle" suggests that they want this guy dead!

Main Entry: re·qui·em
Pronunciation: 're-kwE-&m also 'rA- or 'rE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin (first word of the introit of the requiem mass), accusative of requies rest, from re- + quies quiet, rest -- more at WHILE
1 : a mass for the dead
2 a : a solemn chant (as a dirge) for the repose of the dead b : something that resembles such a solemn chant
3 a : a musical setting of the mass for the dead b : a musical composition in honor of the dead

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Swift,

Sure, when someone complains about your comment policy, you respond right away!

Yet when a poor widow petitions you for employment in a comment thread which you later cite for its fine nature, you ignore her like she is a mongrel in Iraq!

I am miffed, sir! Miffed!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

rqz said...

You make many excellent points, Mr. Swift. But I wonder, has anyone yet considered that this "Scott Thomas" is in fact an enemy plant? How do we know he isn't working for the sunnis? Or for that matter, for Bin Laden himself? I think this is an avenue worth pursuing. It's 'soldiers' like him who are giving our army-- and by extension, our president-- an undeserved bad name.

Also, please stop spelling 'outing' with two 't's. It hurts my eyes.

new day said...

Also, please stop spelling 'outing' with two 't's

Just who is the enemy plant? Only a damn liberal would notice the one word Jon spelled wrong rather than all of the words he spelled right. Why do you hate America, Mr. rqz?

purvis ames said...

Just when all the patriotic blogs had almost faded into oblivion, along comes Scott Thomas Beauchamp with a great big shot in the arm. As has been rightfully pointed out, Mr. Thomas is a traitor, pure and simple. As John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Joe Lieberman know very well, the chief activity of our brave boys in Iraq is to pass out candy to children and teach them how to play baseball. To mendaciously slander these good works is at best just plain rude.

I'm Cranky said...

I found all about 'Anonymous' in this Fox 11 report! Jon might want to think twice about being so indulgent toward them.

Anonymous said...

Jon:

"A reasonable conservative"? Give me a break.

When I read the "Scott Thomas" posts they seemed like BS to me. The conservative blogsphere thought so too and called TNR on it. Guess what--this little nugget came out when Franklin Foer was interviewed by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post: "Beauchamp did not provide any documentation for his three published columns. He is married to a reporter-researcher at the New Republic, Elspeth Reeve." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html

Now the later bit about the relationship from Beauchamp and Reeve was discovered by Ace through his source at TNR (who was promptly fired the next day). Foer had no choice but to disclose it to Kurtz. But it is also confirmed that TNR published Beauchamp's stories as fact without any backup (or qualification). The only fact checking was apparently that he was married to staffer at TNR.

We will find out soon enough how much of Beauchamp's writings hold water. If true, well I still think it was an unfair hit piece on the military but I will eat crow (and pass the plate to the rest of the conservative blogophere--execpt you of course because you are "reasonable"). But if Beauchamp's stories turn out to be BS, are you ready to enjoy a tasty dish of crispy crunchy crow?

Oh and on your comments about Michael Yon, you need to put his story about al Qaeda cooking Iraqi children in context. He reported that it was a third person statement (and it was obvious it was without any verification). Remember however that he was present when a real al Qaeda attrocity was discovered the day before. Photos, quotes, locations, time, and a village slaughtered (men, women, children, animals). http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWJmZDdmYTNjZTAyMTEzNTA1YjhlYWEyZmMzODcwYjc= You left that part out Jon.

So keep being reasonable Jon, you crazy conservative you.

Anonymous said...

The right-wingers are curiously exercised about Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "lies."

Not that they have proven that anything he wrote was untrue. They have merely declared Beauchamp's stories to be untrue, and that's good enough for them.

The Army, that bastion of credibility, backs up the right-wingers. Our soldiers would never do what this private says they did, a spokesman tells us.

Q.E.D., say the right-wingers, ignoring a long list of military and civilian lies: WMD, Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda, "we don't torture," the fabrications surrounding Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.

None of that matters, because we have a private in the Army to smear. Will John Barnes write an article on the semiotics of a smear campaign? Of course not, because that would involve looking into a mirror.

The right-wing blogosphere and their partisan "milblogs," which blend fiction from Iraq with domestic wingnut hobby horses, calls for an investigation of Beauchamp and his stories. Some of them go further and issue thinly veiled death threats.

The helicopter-on-the-roof moment approaches. The right-wing blogosphere hopes against hope that it will happen in February 2009, so they can blame another ignominious defeat on Hillary Clinton. And Scott Thomas Beauchamp, if he's not dispatched sooner.

Anonymous said...

Here's Beauchamp's sergent refuting the entire tale (granted I have not verified it, maybe it is BS too but here it is): http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/update-on-the-new-republics-man-in-iraq/

Here is what Foer said:
At least one soldier in the unit had already confirmed the events described, Mr. Foer said, but the magazine plans, “to the extent possible,” to “re-report every detail,” a task made more difficult now that Private Beauchamp cannot easily communicate with anyone overseas. Mr. Foer said that Private Beauchamp was married to a reporter-researcher for The New Republic, Elspeth Reeve. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/books/28diar.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=books&adxnnlx=1185658723-3S+trSljzk7do80HQ7h8BQ



I am putting my money on the Sergent!

Anonymous said...

Beauchamp's Sergent reports all the stories are fictional. Perhaps that email is false, perhaps he is lying.

Then again, perhaps Beauchamp is lying.

Anonymous said...

So Beauchamp's sergeant refutes the stories. Come on, wingnuts, you make a big show of how TNR should have been skeptical of Beauchamp's account and now you are curiously skeptical yourselves.

What the hell is that sergeant going to say? "Yes, we mocked a severely wounded woman, played with skulls dug up from mass graves, and ran over dogs with our vehicles?"

Come on. Grow a brain.

I'm not vouching for anyone's story. Not Beauchamp's or his sergeant's. What I am saying is the follwing:

1. The Army's denials have zero credibility. They've lied before, and done so recently. See Aesop's Fables, specifically, The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

2. Even if Beauchamp lied -- and again, I'm not saying he did -- the wingnut outrage is highly selective. You people say nothing about far more consequential lies, yet now swoop down with your claws out over some anecdotes that, in the larger scheme of things, true or false, are nothing more than the detrius of war.

So have your scapegoat, you twisted freaks. You obviously need one.

Anonymous said...

correction:

I should have written, " ... you make a big show of how TNR should have been skeptical of Beauchamp's account and now you are curiously UNskeptical yourselves ..."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

This conversation is rather Gollum-like.

But back to your comments: You say the military lies (recently) and then use Aesop Fables as reference? You must measure time geologically.

Twisted Freaks? Many of us doubted Beauchamp's tales and challenged the New Republic on that. Does that make us twisted freaks?

And before you bring up Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Abu Ghraib, spare us. I am no fan of any of that.

Anonymous said...

Aesop's Fables are timeless. The Boy Who Cried Wolf tells the story of a shepherd boy who repeatedly sounded the alarm about the big, bad wolf. It was all a prank. Then the wolf came, and when he sounded the alarm no one came to help him. The moral of the story is: No one believes a liar, even if he's telling the truth. I am likening the U.S. Army to the liar in that story. I didn't think I'd need to explain a children's story to you, but apparently I was wrong so I hope that helps.

What makes you twisted freaks is that you're willing to absolutely stomp on this guy -- to the point of very thinly veiled death threats on Blackfive, the most popular wingnut "milblog" -- for what at the very worst would be an inconsequential act.

And you're willing to do it without knowing what's true and what isn't. I think the wingnuts are displacing their rage and shame over their war failure onto this lowly Army private. That's sick and twisted.

I'm Cranky said...

Wow! Look at all that blather from
'Anonymous'! I told you so, Jon!

They'll be publishing your blogger password next...

Anonymous said...

I am sane anonymous. The other guy is crazy anonymous. Sarcastic crazy anonymous.

Stop using a collective "we" Crazy Anonymous. I do not wish Beauchamp any physical harm. To the extent he served honorably in Iraq I thank him. But let's look at the facts.

Either he is a guy who makes fun of a disabled woman

or

He made it all up.

So I can't think of him as a victim either. As for the military "lying," grow up. Yes individuals in the military have lied, but mostly as an institution it seeks to do the right thing. Occasionally it does not. But you sound angry, like when you realized your parents were no longer perfect.

Let me guess how this will play out for you, if the Army comes back and says Beauchamp made all that stuff up then it will be a huge consiracy.

Twistedly yours,

Sane Anonymous.

new day said...

This thread is making me twitch. For crying out loud, whether or not these particular stories were made up is a matter of small potatoes. The significant aspect is what happens to a person who is forced to kill or be killed for extended periods of time, particularly if he/she recognizes the circumstances to be as illegal and immoral as those in Iraq.

Do some research on the brain. Horrors such as these people face cause changes in not only the chemistry of the brain, but in the structure. Not to mention the damage to the soul.

In my home state, a soldier came back, shot his wife, than headed up to the hills with his sniper rifle. My best friend's son hasn't left the basement for six months except to go to the liquor store.

Those we send off to war do not come back. Their sense of self and their relationship to the world have changed.

And this need to get some vicarious sense of personal bravery and valor through the actions of others is wholly pathetic. You want our soldiers to be tough enough to shoot into a crowd of people, but tender enough not to run over a dog or poke fun at someone? If people weren't getting their sense of worth and identity from this galumph of a country we live in, they couldn't possibly respond to Beauchamp's writing with anything but compassion.

And speaking of identities, why don't you people pick a screen name for chrisakes.

Lord Straf-Bollinger said...

The MSM accuses the blogosphere of being vultures feeding on them and they in turn are the vultures looking for the juicy carcass in the first place.

At least with bloggers their reputation is shot but the MSM go on and on and on and on ...

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but the U.S. Army long ago rendered itself untrustworthy. They have made "Baghdad Bob" look like Joe Friday. It has been one lie after another with them.

The denial by his sergeant made me laugh my ass off. What the hell is the guy going going to say? That, yes, in our unit we mock the disfigured, run over dogs, and play with human remains?

There isn't really a "victim," at least not yet. If someone implements the death threats coming from the wingnut bloggers, then maybe Beauchamp will join Pat Tillman on the list of soldiers murdered by their own Army. Let's hope not, though.

And don't tell me that the Army usually does the right thing. It's the opposite. This is the same Army that stuck torture into its operations manual. It will be a very long time before they are worthy of trust.

purvis ames said...

These "anonymous" folks are giving me a sick headache. At least assign them numbers.

Anonymous said...

My Lai, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc. So what is the big deal with some stray dogs? The world must be laughing at the Malkinites now.

Anonymous said...

After reading through the blogs I noticed Matt Sanchez has, uh, inserted himself into this scandal. If someone with Matt Sanchez's impeccable reputation (at least according to the M4M review sites) thinks this Beauchamp fellow is an unsavory character, Beauchamp deserves whatever's coming to him.

Anonymous said...

I noticed Matt Sanchez has, uh, inserted himself into this scandal

Uh-oh, when Gay Whores For Jesus gets involved, better watch out!!

DarthJesus said...

You missed a couple of videos in your post Jon:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/200305dogshooting.htm
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54e_1182844511
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a5ee2d6eb

Anonymous said...

We'll have to keep an eye on Live Leak because Matt "Excellent-Top" Sanchez has his own propaganda channel over there. Since he's a proud member of the Beauchamp Lynch Mob, I'm sure he'll be tempted to post an attack video.

He'll become a laughing stock if he does, though, because Live Leak has a trove of disturbing videos showing the troops engaging in exactly the sort of cretinous behavior Beauchamp wrote about. The dog killing videos linked above are a good example of this.

http://www.liveleak.com/channel/MattSanchez

J. said...

"Uncle Jimbo and his readers certainly wouldn't be too upset if Beauchamp accidentally got fragged by one of his fellow soldiers. That would teach an important lesson to any other potential squealers out there."

You know, vent if you want, but this statement is beyond reckless. If we have troops who are inciting the insurgency through their bad and often illegal behavior, then that has to be stopped. You can hum louder and pretend that there aren't bad things happening in Iraq, and I am sure that most of our troops are good soldiers, but when you start talking about fragging, you're crossing the line. Straighten up and get your head oriented in the right direction. Instead of attacking individuals, why not focus on talking about the issues, such as why we should be spending billions for infrastructure that the Iraqis refuse to maintain? etc etc.

Bukko_in_Australia said...

NO SOLDIER IN THIS PATRIOTIC ARMY COULD GET FRAGGED BY HIS MATES!

I'd tell you to just ask Pat Tillman to confirm that, if it wasn't for those three bullet holes in his forehead, fired from 10 yards away. But Tillman would never do anything treasonous like write to TNR, or talk to Noam Chomsky, or reveal the thoughts in his diaries. Especially now that they've been burned...

(A conservative chuckle reminiscent of Dick Cheney's follows)

Anonymous said...

new day said...

<<< This thread is making me twitch. For crying out loud, whether or not these particular stories were made up is a matter of small potatoes. ...>>>

Spoken like a true progressive,
New Day. You twitch, others get headaches, you are all hysterical, and none of you care what is true.


<<< ...If people weren't getting their sense of worth and identity from this galumph of a country we live in, they couldn't possibly respond to Beauchamp's writing with anything but compassion. >>>

Whether it was true or not, right?


<<<... And speaking of identities, why don't you people pick a screen name for chrisakes. ...>>>

Why?

new day said...

... And speaking of identities, why don't you people pick a screen name for chrisakes. ...

Why?


Well, because if you had a name, then when we had our night out a week from Monday at the illegal alien baby restaurant, I could just say to the maitre d', "If (name here) comes in, don't seat him at our table."

As it is, I will have to say, "If some nameless, faceless guy comes in who looks like a self-righteous blowhard; and like he wouldn't sweat being lied into an immoral war that may destabilize the planet for generations, but grieves over the possibility that he's been lied to by a young man whose been turned into a killing machine; and who looks like he would make people twitchy and headachey; don't seat him at our table.

Pure expediency.

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

Bravo! Your post was hilarious! Who else by Anonymous could take a request for a screen name and turn it into an overgeneralization about progressives? Thanks for the laughs!

And Mr. Day,

Hear! Hear!!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

MarDivPhoto said...

Let's keep it simple- some of Beachamp's diarist entries on Iraq were written while he was still in Germany. He says he joined the military to get credibility for himself when he offers opinions, and to set himself up for a writing career. To those who know what visibility the Bradley driver has, and what 9mm cartridges look like, and some other topics he mentioned, his inputs are at the very least questionable.
All of this puts his credibility into very serious doubt, whether one likes, hates, or simply is grossly disappointed in Mr. Bush and the conduct of this war in general. Far Right will automatically attack the guy, Far Left will automatically defend him, but those who are more devoted to logic and data than political positions will find it hard to grant much credence to what he has written.
Any events in Iraq seem to bring out either ultraliberals in screaming anger and condemnation or seriously Rightist people with their own rabid agenda. It's too bad that we see far, far more heat than light in such exchanges.

Anonymous said...

Another strange thing about Matt Sanchez's involvement in all this is that some wingnuts have said Beauchamp's story sounds like something out of a bad Vietnam movie. That's exactly what I thought when I heard Sanchez's unsubstantiated claim that anti-war protestors at Columbia called him a baby killer. Did they burn their draft cards after they called him that?

It's also kinda funny how Sanchez is trying to destroy Beauchamp's reputation even as he tries to furiously spin his way out of damaging admissions about his own criminal behavior. Check the talk page on Sanchez's Wikipedia entry. He's trying to get Wikipedia to add references to his sliming of Scott Thomas Beauchamp. But at the same time he's trying to remove references to his admitted career as a "gay for pay" prostitute.

Anonymous said...

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
Bravo! Your post was hilarious! >>>

Dear Sincerely Doodle Bean,

No doubt you mean that compliment as sincerely as your frivolous little nature will allow.

But your constant giggling leads me to believe that you think nearly everything is "hilarious".



<<< Who else by Anonymous could take a request for a screen name and turn it into an overgeneralization about progressives? Thanks for the laughs!>>>

Then here is something that you should find really funny. The generalization wasn't directed at new day's complaint over screen names, but rather was based on new day's stated indifference to the truth value of Beauchamp's claims.

Thus, and to make it especially obvious for you, I quote here, Doodle:

" new day originally said...

<<< This thread is making me twitch. For crying out loud, whether or not these particular stories were made up is a matter of small potatoes. ...>>>

Anonymous then replied:
<<< Spoken like a true progressive, New Day. You twitch, others get headaches, you are all hysterical, and none of you care what is true.>>>

See Doodle? Let's give credit where credit is due. You were laughing at your own misunderstanding. "ha ha ha"





<<< And Mr. Day,

Hear! Hear!!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

7/31/2007 5:18 PM >>>


" ... whether or not these particular stories were made up is a matter of small potatoes ..." new day


Yeah, it's the thought that counts ... or in the case of the progressive kind ... maybe just the feeling.

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

More hilarity! I simply love your long-winded responses and your over-generalizations based on the most trivial information.

Thanks again for the laughs!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Anonymous said...

new day said...
<<<<<... And speaking of identities, why don't you people pick a screen name for chrisakes. ...>>>>>

<<<< Why? >>>>


<<< Well, because if you had a name, then when we had our night out a week from Monday at the illegal alien baby restaurant, I could just say to the maitre d', "If (name here) comes in, don't seat him at our table."

As it is, I will have to say, "If some nameless, faceless guy comes in who looks like a self-righteous blowhard; and like he wouldn't sweat being lied into an immoral war that may destabilize the planet for generations, but grieves over the possibility that he's been lied to by a young man whose been turned into a killing machine;... >>>


Oh gee. Here, knock yourself out.

http://parlorsongs.com/content/h/hrtsflrs.mid.


<<< ... and who looks like he would make people twitchy and headachey; don't seat him at our table.

Pure expediency. >>>


A rather contorted fantasy, just to establish that attendance at your leper's orgy is by invitation only.

Did you really expect many gate crashers?

new day said...

Gosh, anonymous, you're sounding kind of sour grapesish. I'll tell you what, why don't you go ahead and come by the party. While our menu and talking points are already laid out, we have yet to schedule entertainment. Maybe you could show us how you manage to type and thump your chest at the same time.

Lord Nazh© said...

It's truly amazing the logic here:

soldier prints 'bad' articles about Iraq, no verification, no proof... truth

soldier says those things didn't happen, verification only by other soldiers, no proof... lies

Kind of like how Jamail Hussein was real, but his stories weren't, yet the fact of the stories went away ...

JR said...

I recommend you take a look at my web site. There is a TON of evidence that Scott Beauchamp is lying.

If you are interested in some sobering facts, you can go here and here

Incidentally, I am also in the US Army and have spent a lot more time in Iraq than this fraud. Coincidentally, I also graduated from Mizzou.

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Day,

Sure, go ahead and invited Mr./Ms. Anonymous to your dead illegal alien baby party, but don't invite me!!

I told you I was available this Monday, but did you respond? No.

I am miffed, sir! Miffed!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a he-said, he-said story. Beauchamp's account is a stretch, but the Army regularly lies its ass off. I have no doubt that the Army will put Beauchamp's nuts in a wringer and force a retraction from him, using the threat of heavy legal trouble as a cudgel.

But it'll be about as credible as those confessions they've tortured out of people in Guantanamo. The bottom line is this will forever be a mystery.

new day said...

then when we had our night out a week from Monday


You are silly, Doodle Bean. Why, the whole event was scheduled around your availability.

Doodle Bean said...

Dear Mr. Day,

My apologies. The engraved invitation must have been lost in the post!

Sincerely,

Doodle Bean

MarDivPhoto said...

OK, so as of today we have the news that Beauchamp recanted all his postings as soon as the official inquiry began. So now many people will feel fully justified in their arguments against him, and the rest will assume he was tortured, threatened with life in prison, bribed, etc, etc. Going with the simplest explanation (often the best way to go), he is an over-aspiring would-be author with a flair for drama and a lack of devotion to truly factual reporting.
Does that mean no US soldier in Iraq has ever done something mean, stupid, or illegal? Well, unless the recruiting and training make saints of everyone who undergoes them, they are no more all saints now than our men in every other war we've ever fought in were.
But ask anyone in the world which military they would rather be the prisoner of, and it'll be the US 19 times of 20. Maybe there's some meaning there.

Anonymous said...

MarDivPhoto said...

<<< OK, so as of today we have the news that Beauchamp recanted all his postings as soon as the official inquiry began. ...

Going with the simplest explanation (often the best way to go), he is an over-aspiring would-be author with a flair for drama and a lack of devotion to truly factual reporting.>>>


Unfortunately you are probably overestimating the concern of Jon's fans for the truth of the matter.




" ... whether or not these particular stories were made up is a matter of small potatoes " new day


" ... at the very worst ... an inconsequential act." lefty Anonymous

Kevin said...

Point after point of his story proved false, and you wanted to stick by him.

Now he recants all his stories, and you still want to stick by him?

Good Lord you people are desperate.

Micgar said...

Different warring factions of dog packs are causing so much turmoil in Iraq. It needed to be done. I think this dog was an "insurgent dog":
http://tubearoo.com/articles/18655/US_soldiers_shoots_dog_for_no_reason.html

Micgar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Willy said...

Turns out that the "recantation" was a figment of The Weekly Standard's imagination, likely fed to them by their intrepid "reporter," Matt Sanchez. He has a history of telling his clients exactly what they want to hear, for $250 an hour in/$200 hour out.

Here's a link to his old escort site, whose existence he has unsuccessfully tried to erase from the Internet. Click the "Hear My Voice" link, and compare it to the voice on any of his on-line videos from the Mideast.

The "moral" of the story is that the Republican Party really ought to use more reliable sources. Matt and The Weekly Standard, you are SO busted!

thudlike said...

Jon Swift, on his blog:

"even though no one has proven a single factual inaccuracy, this did not discourage our brave milbloggers. Nor did the fact that Scott Thomas does exist and is a soldier do anything to give his story more credence. In fact, knowing the author's real name makes it even easier to discredit him [sarcasm]."

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信,徵信網,徵信社,徵信社,感情挽回,婚姻挽回,挽回婚姻,挽回感情,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信,捉姦,徵信公司,通姦,通姦罪,抓姦,抓猴,捉猴,捉姦,監聽,調查跟蹤,反跟蹤,外遇問題,徵信,捉姦,女人徵信,女子徵信,外遇問題,女子徵信, 外遇,徵信公司,徵信網,外遇蒐證,抓姦,抓猴,捉猴, 調查跟蹤,反跟蹤,感情挽回,挽回感情,婚姻挽回,挽回婚姻,外遇沖開,抓姦, 女子徵信,外遇蒐證,外遇,通姦,通姦罪,贍養費,徵信,徵信社,抓姦,徵信,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信公司,女人徵信,
徵信,徵信網,徵信社, 徵信網,外遇,徵信,徵信社,抓姦,徵信,女人徵信,徵信社,女人徵信社,外遇,抓姦,徵信公司,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,女人徵信社,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,女子徵信社,女子徵信社,女子徵信社,女子徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信,徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信,外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信,外遇, 抓姦徵信外遇抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信尋人大陸抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回婚姻挽回大陸抓姦尋人大陸抓姦,徵信,徵信社

Escorts London said...

A professional London Escorts agency booking service with more than 50 girls available 24/7 for high class elite girls for in call and out call availability. For professional dating of London Escort girls.

crazyloko said...

cell phonesThis phenomenom is typified by mobile phonethe rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesale “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that cheap cell phones wholesale from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.cosplay costumes
cheap cell phones
cheap cocktail dresses
Cheap Wedding Dresses
cheap jewelry

crazyloko said...

I’m a Wholesale Polo Shirts huge fan of Fiber Gourmet pasta’s; Cheap Ed Hardy clothingthey taste great and Air Max Chaussures are healthy not only for you but your entire family. Polo shirtThere’s really no difference in the taste between thisTn Requin pasta and your standard pasta, Chaussures SportI couldn’t tell the difference, Polo shirt
neither could any member of my family including my picky children. chaussure sportIt’s nice to know that even while dieting and watching my calorie intake there Chaussures Nikeis an alternative out there that allows me to eat the pasta I want, Wholesale Polo Shirts
when I want without the guilt.

Anonymous said...

Hardy clothing
has really took the Louis Vuitton Speedy sketch and made a different yet horrific edition. It seems that ED Hardy Shoes
mens Hoodies was trying to touch new heights with feet. The tattoo designs work lovely on the hardy shirt
. The hardy shirt
mens Jeans La Dolce Vita Bianca Satchel features flag.

تقنية said...

watch out people here you going very hard talk now why don't you just make it reasonable talk and solve all this ?

Anonymous said...

http://uggshoe.bravejournal.com
http://uggloveshoes.bravejournal.com
http://www.flixya.com/user/warmugg
http://www.flixya.com/user/uggshoes7
http://uggloveshoes.wordpress.com/
http://uggloveboots.wordpress.com/
http://uggloveshoes.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://warmugg.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://blogs.bigadda.com/ugg5069869/
http://blogs.bigadda.com/war5070558/
http://blogs.bigadda.com/ugg5070561/

longge said...

Several styles of covers signs Pandora jewellery uk grant and many different Negro spiritual symbolizations which attain pandora silver necklace these charms fit to many devout actions. You fire give these cheap pandora charms to mortal on these social function discount pandora bead . Many other styles of charms also stage which become completely eccentrics of consequences.

pathrecords said...

Pretty effective data, thanks for the article.

london escort agency said...

Good point Mr Swift. People can be cruel but they can be like that without ever going to war. Soldiers are often misunderstood by people who simply never experience what they have to.
high class london escorts

Mobile Price in Pakistan said...

Video of soldiers throwing rocks at an injured dog, please note that the animal was not purebred and is therefore of no account.

Google