Kuwait = Whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia on or around Christmas = "Beauchamp can't be trusted"

OK, sure Beauchamp was truthful. But was the truthy? That's the real question. We shouldn't ask what's true, we should ask what we know in our gut to be true....

Reaction from the "used to being called a troop-hater" left?:

Yawn.

Reaction from a realist:
These are normal human reactions to being in a horrible, brutal, nasty, lawless environment. Unfortunately, when these guys rotate back to the states, they'll be filling out job applications to be the guy who's responsible for pulling your teenage daughter and her stoner girlfriends over in your H2 doing 90 on the way back from the mall. Good luck with that.

Steering Yoke Bitches!

Who the @#$@#$ cares? This was a big Right Wing Scandal anyway. The only people who gave a rip about this were the Hannity crowd. Why do we go back and forth with the false moral superiority battles? Let it go. Let Hannity's People Go.

These guys live to kill the messenger, frst and foremost. They know that truth, or reality, or whatever you want to call the empirical world, is their enemy, so they will always shoot it down, often before even (barely) discerning what the message is.

As with Al-bot etc hereabouts, the important thing is to keep asserting what tribe you belong to, and that it is the most powerful. That warlord mentality has taken over the United States, and it will take some hella DDT to drive it out again.

More violence means the war is going well. As does less. Those telling the truth about the war are traitors. Those telling lies about the war are traitors. Being a wingnut means never having to say you're sorry. Or wrong about the war, or wrong about labeling someone a liar and a traitor.

TNR has just put up their investigation into Beauchamp's piece

Which doesn't prove anything AT ALL. TNR's statement boils down to "a bunch of anonymous people say it's true, so therefore it's true". No, that doesn't cut it either. Where is the confirmation of his unit ON THE RECORD agreeing with him? Nowhere to be found. After all these years of saying "Bush lied", "Gonzales lied", "Cheney lied", TNR deserves to have the same question asked on whether they're lying.

So what's TNRs rationale for running this story, I wonder?

Are they trying to ingratiate themselves to the "left" again, after alienating them by cheerleading "wars against Arabs" for so many years?

Right on time, Al! You're really a kind of genius as making a fool of yourself, aren't you?

As usual, we will take your flummoxed silence as assent that you are hopeless, laughable tool of criminals who don't give two shits about you.

. . .Where is the confirmation of his unit ON THE RECORD agreeing with him? Nowhere to be found. After all these years of saying "Bush lied", "Gonzales lied", "Cheney lied", TNR deserves to have the same question asked on whether they're lying.
Posted by: Al on August 2, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Well, since the President is the Commander-in-chief, that means the military is part of the Executive Branch, so these guys all get Executive Privilege, and they don't need to go "on the record".

Asshole.

I have not yet received my personal phone call from Beauchamp and his fellow soldiers in which they swear upon a stack of Bibles that they are telling the truth. Until I receive that phone call, I know that Beauchamp is a lying lefty swine, and TNR hates the troops.

Which right-wingers have mentioned the Nation article in which vets, instead of speaking anonymously or pseudonymously, actually give their names and tell their stories ON THE RECORD? Which right-wingers have mentioned that article and said, thoughtfully, hmm, maybe there's something to this? Shall we count them?

Reaction from the right? One order of "bad apples" coming up!

This Al is a self-satisfied parody-troll havin' a larf (and probably a wank as well)!

The result? They "all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously."

Whoops.

I guess all those commenters who have been draggin Kevin over the coals over this one have been pretty full of shit.

The only error they uncovered was that one of the incidents apparently took place at an Army base in Kuwait, not Iraq.

I guess he just forgot where he was when it happened.

Yeah Al, the sky is not actually blue until it swears on a stack of bibles.

What about the story doesn't seem plausible. It sounds just about right for troops stuck in a shooting occupation. "War is Hell" isn't hyperbole. It is the truth. Only people who have never experienced war would think twice about Buauchamp's stories.

I know men who lived their entire lives suffering nightmares about WWII. My father wouldn't talk about his experiences until he was well past 75. There are still men who haven't gotten over Vietnam.

When those guys come home they are going to need all of our support, and they are going to need it for years. Like I said "war is hell." Nobody ever really comes all the way back from hell.

Corpus juris;
my wife's great-uncle died three years ago. He had been an Austrian farmboy, who was drafted into Hitler's army.

In fact, he had hidden from the troops who came around to round them up, and got caught. The punishment for that was summary execution by firing squad. But they were nice, and let him get inducted instead. He lucked out, and got stationed in France. (his brother went to the Eastern front, and was never heard from again - MIA). When he was captured, he was sent to prison, and served a horrific four years in a french coal mine.

He was always happy to talk about his years as a POW. Starving, working 18-hours a day, no days off, being underground 6 weeks at a time, with no breaks, having dysentry, etc.

He never talked much about the time he served, until after he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He didn't see much actual combat, because his time was mostly sitting on an antiaircraft battery until the allies invaded and captured them (they didn't fight, they happily surrendered). But in the time he was shooting down British bombing missions, the terrible things his fellow soldiers did to the survivors, and to the French civilians, were pretty horrifying. He had a shoebox full of photos he had kept hidden, with some pictures of posed, dead British airmen.(nothing Abu Ghraib-ish) (no idea how the pictures survived the POW experience - the family gave them to an historian).

>>Let Hannity's People Go

Didn't Moses say that?

Ever since the 2004 election, which featured OFFICIAL mocking of the Purple Heart award by the official nominee of the Repukeliscum Party, we know that the Repukeliscum Party HATES the enlisted man, and HATES all heroic accomplishments.

Anon at the top got it in one.

The idiot "media" guy at the Corner (not linking even if I owed you money) said that his conflation of Kuwait with Iraq regards to the deformed woman made Beauchamp a liar in regards to the "war is hell" motif of his piece because they weren't yet in the Iraq theater. So, the "logic" goes, how could he be so cruel if his morality hasn't even been worn down by war yet?

Right. Because how could basic training ever strive dehumanize anyone enough to fight a war?

Its as if people have been walking around with a Kick Me sign on them for years, yet still wondering why strangers come up to boot 'em on the ass.

Al: "After all these years of saying 'Bush lied', 'Gonzales lied', 'Cheney lied', TNR deserves to have the same question asked on whether they're lying."

And after all these years of listening to you and your fellow GOP apologists egbert / forsythe, ex-liberal and the now-banned American Hawk re-write history by dissembling on long-established matters of fact and public record, you deserve to know that nobody here really gives a rat's ass anymore what self-deluding bullshit artists like you think about these issues.

>Reaction from the right? One order of "bad apples" coming up!

Few, many, or all soldiers are responsible? Pick one, genius.

Few, many, or all soldiers are responsible? Pick one, genius.

Do you fucking moronic assholes have your Purple Heart bandages ready again? Not only are Repukeliscum conservaboobs physical cowards, but they hate and despise all actual heroes.

Well, I said that the thing that really didn't ring true with me was the Bradley/dog thing. Now that it's been explained, I can see it. It wasn't a matter of chasing the dog, so much as faking it out so that it ran into street.

He's still a dick for the incident with the wounded woman, but it being in Kuwait even explains that a bit. Nobody at Falcon saw her because it didn't happen there and since I take it this was his first deployment, he hadn't seen any IED wounds yet.

I don't know what to say about the skull/bone thing. I originally pictured a complete skull or at least a large part of one. Then again, I had a loadmaster once joke about how many human remains we were carrying in the aircraft. He didn't know I was listening and I let it go without comment, since he changed the subject right away.

The issue has been whether the very liberal Howard Dean supporting Beauchamp was: (1) a jerk who thought it was funny to mock a disfigured female IED victim but who told the truth about others in his diary; (2) a jerk who thought it was funny to mock a disfigured female IED victim but who lied about others; or (3) a liar about everything, including his own horrendous and disgusting conduct.

You guys now rejoice about the fact that 3 apparently has been eliminated as a possiblity?

Everyone should call the guy a jerk. The TNR report seems to be a little bit less than solid confirmation of his stories, but the only remaining question is to what extent, if any, this highly offensive jerk is a liar.

A PFC, possibly scared shitless over what he has gotten himself into, mocking a disfigured woman is pretty disgusting. But it doesn't hold a candle to a governor mocking a woman whose death warrant he has signed. I have never seen you condemn that action by aWol, brian, so your protestations ring rather hollow.

Just sayin.'

Actually brian,

The issue in the jingosphere has been:(1) that since a solider would never do the things he said and TNR had plagiarists in the past he doesn't exist(2)If he does exist and is a solider, he's lying because there's no way a tank could split a dog in half (3) If he does exist and is a solider and isn't lying...Actually, it wasn't until your post when I saw what the right now has to fall back on. Nothing, basically.

EXTRA NOTE: No one. And I mean NO ONE, 'supports' what the guy did. The difference between your obtuseness and reality is the gulf we're trying to bridge. Soldiers do fucked up things in war. This is a particularly fucked up war. What do you find so difficult to get?

Few, many, or all soldiers are responsible? Pick one, genius.

Since I'm predicting the "bad apples" defense, I'll go with "few." The bad apples defense is always associated with the behavior of a few.

Genius.

Pick one, genius.
Posted by: VRWC on August 2, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

The one in charge of all the rest.

And the 60 million bad apples who put him in charge.

blue girl,

Thanks for the honesty about the disgusting nature of Beauchamp, even if you felt the need to partially exonerate him as being scared. (Remember, he wrote about it as seeing her every day in Iraq at war and attributed it to the effect of war. when in fact it was while he still was in Kuwait before he went to war -- so he seemed to lie about the context of it perhaps because it wanted to portray it as a consequence of war.)

I only vaguely remember the story about President Bush allegedley mocking the murderer on death row. If he did it, I think it was offensive. I don't know about your comparison though. Mocking a disfigured IED victimm seems worse to me than mocking a convicted murderer.

So can I say I'm still confused what the big scandal was about. I mean, these soldiers are described as behaving in disgusting and irresponsible ways, but none of this is War Crime /Abu Ghraib level stuff. I never found it horribly surprising that soldiers were behaving this way. Not because they're bad people, mind you, just, people start acting really weird when they're being shot at regularly.

For instance: the guy wearing the skull on his head, I had read several times that playing around with body-parts of dead people was a fairly typical response to combat stress. Not that everyone does it or anything, but it's listed as one of the typical symptoms of someone who's seen a lot of violence and been forced to shoot at people.

That's not meant to excuse the behavior or anything either. Obviously the superior officers should be trying to prevent it. But could someone please explain to me why reports of this are making the right livid? Is it the revelation that warfare doesn't involve chivalric heroes meeting each other on the field of honor?

By the way, Barlett leads the "critique" of TNR and Beachamp at TownHall. Some of it is persuasive, particularly on fact details. Other parts are overstated. It is true the TNR report on its investigation is pretty vague and not worthy of the somewhat triumphant tone. They ought to admit it was a mistake to give a partisan like Beauchamp such free reign in providing a perspective of the troops.

The Kuwait location of the disgusting mocking is somewhat significant in terms of the dishonesty of Beachamp -- he charactered the situation as one where he saw her every day in Iraq and implied his inhumanity was the result of the pressure of war. It also seems like TNR has transformed a pattern of Bradley vehicle conduct into "one incident." It seems pretty clear Beachamp is to some extent a liar. So at this point, he seems to be both an admitted highly offensive jerk and a likely liar.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/07095fb7-061f-4949-889a-59fd547d2153

But could someone please explain to me why reports of this are making the right livid?

Because outrage is their addiction and they'll do anything for a fix.

But could someone please explain to me why reports of this are making the right livid?

Because they are chickenhawk dicks.

This stuff is all par for the course, as anyone who has been in battle or has ever bothered talking to someone who has been in battle will tell you.

DBake: But could someone please explain to me why reports of this are making the right livid? Is it the revelation that warfare doesn't involve chivalric heroes meeting each other on the field of honor?

Reports like this make me livid because our soldiers are something like "chivalric heroes." They're volunteers, risking their lives and well-being, fighting in uncomfortable conditions for low pay. They're fighting with effectiveness and discipline. They're fighting groups who we all despise, primitives who rejoice at slicing the head off an innocent reporter. And, they're fighting to protect you and me, DBake.

The conduct selected for report by this author unfairly belittle the entire group of heroes. If the items are inaccurate, that's worse yet. But, even for the items that might be accurate, these stories are selected to present an unfair, slanderous picture of our heroic fighting men and women, for whom we shoould all be hugely grateful.

brian, my stance hasn't really changed. Here is what I said in the initial thread on this topic. (Here and here.)

I don't know if the right is "livid" but it seems logical that the right would criticize a liberal magazine for printing an annonmous "diarist" writing bad things about troops. It turned out the right's suspicions were justified in terms of the guy's very liberal politics and at least some inaccuries in his story. He does seem like one very odd and disgusting fellow, so in that sense TNR in hindsight at least should not have hired him. When TNR saw his story about mocking the disfigured woman, shouldn't it had said "no thanks" to the guy?

brian wrote: "They ought to admit it was a mistake to give a partisan like Beauchamp such free reign in providing a perspective of the troops."

Yeah, it is just crazy to allow an individual to provide a personal account and express opinions in an opinion magazine.

DBake asked:

"But could someone please explain to me why reports of this are making the right livid? Is it the revelation that warfare doesn't involve chivalric heroes meeting each other on the field of honor?"
_____________________

I can only speak for myself, but I saw it as just another plank in the look-what-we're-doing-to-these-kids, they're-all-gonna-be-psycho anti-war platform. Even minor stuff like this swirls around and stains all soldiers, not just some rookies on their first deployment. That's particularly unfair today, as our men and women are much more disciplined than any army we've ever had. Very much more caring and as humane as anyone can expect in combat, as well

I know people do weird things in war. Hell, they do weird things on Mainstreet, USA. I think that all the military people commenting on the blogs wanted it known that it didn't sound like common behavior to them, because Beauchamp's hijinks or something similar were all too likely to be attributed to them and their troops in general. Guilt by association. Nobody likes the thought of that happening - again.

Ex is right, to a point -- but only to a point.

Beauchamp is an asshole -- anybody dispute that? So stop acting like it's insignificant.

We owe the women and men of our military our gratitude, our support (and a shitload of money for their health care unto the generations).

But we do NOT owe them a suspension of our judgment, neither of the stupidity of the war we (yeah, "we") require them to fight, nor of the morality of the way they (yeah, "they") fight it.

Rumsfeld is far more culpable than Beauchamp -- but that doesn't let him off the hook, much less the guys at TNR who enabled Rumsfeld.

A good friend of mine served 18 months in Vietnam, mostly in the Ashau Valley. He got decked in a bar one night in 1972, I think it was, after he had been back long enough for his hair to grow long, when he told some guys who had NOT been to Vietnam, that they should have brought Calley back to the village -- and hanged him.

I dunno that I would have wanted Calley hanged (nor Beauchamp humiliated), but I know whose side I'm on in that barfight.

It appears more than one person here thinks the TNR is a reliable antiwar publication. Odd.

Thanks for the honesty about the disgusting nature of Beauchamp, even if you felt the need to partially exonerate him as being scared.

I didn't. I said A PFC, possibly scared shitless over what he has gotten himself into, mocking a disfigured woman is pretty disgusting. But it doesn't hold a candle to a governor mocking a woman whose death warrant he has signed.

That is not a "partial exoneration" and I have never flocked to either side on this. I have, from day one, taken a "lets wait and see how this plays out" position.

These people are maddening, and I HATE them. They are such a bunch of clowns.

*headdesk*

brian, the truth is that the right-wingers were worked up into an emotional frenzy claiming that TNR was perpetrating and fraud and that Scott Thomas was lying and/or non-existent. Quite honestly, I really couldn't care less what anyone on the right thinks of the issue. Furthermore, as Bush supporters, none of you are actually in any position to make moral judgments about the misdeeds of others.

Guess you kinda missed that whole part where Scottie Beauchamp made an "error" in claiming a warzone encounter with a burned woman in Iraq was actually a not-yet-deployed encounter in Kuwait.

Reads so much better, you know, when he can claim his viciousness was due to Bush's war instead, you know, being bored hanging around on peaceful base, training, eating chow.

never a liberal: But, even for the items that might be accurate, these stories are selected to present an unfair, slanderous picture of our heroic fighting men and women, for whom we shoould all be hugely grateful.

And the difference between you and us is that we can see them behaving inhumanely, even monstrously, and still be grateful to them because we strive to be clear-eyed and honest about what war does to people.

You, on the other hand, can only "support" troops as part of your sanitized, tidy vision of war and soldiering. You don't respect their sacrifice because you've stuck your fingers in your ears and your hands over your eyes so that you won't have to have any fucking idea what that sacrifice really is.

You goddamned tool.

I can only speak for myself, but I saw it as just another plank in the look-what-we're-doing-to-these-kids, they're-all-gonna-be-psycho anti-war platform.

Ah, those crazy libs, always making shit up:

"Prolonged periods of deployment among Britain’s armed forces is associated with mental health problems, finds a study published on bmj.com [British Medical Journal] today."

I know people do weird things in war. Hell, they do weird things on Mainstreet, USA.

What the fuck kind of town does he live in where people wear body parts on their head on Main Street? Well, wherever it is, I sure don't want to live there...

Yeah, you're right, ace. Hanging around a base waiting to be deployed is all fun and games. No anxiety involved whatsoever! No psyching yourself up or divorcing yourself from seeing people as people.

Is it the revelation that warfare doesn't involve chivalric heroes meeting each other on the field of honor?
Posted by: DBake on August 2, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

The correct answer is:

These valiant young heroes are professional soldiers. They represent America to the rest of the world. They represent Western values. They represent civilization. They symbolize why we are fighting. We expect that for the obnoxious amounts of money we're paying for this enterprise, that each and every one of them, no matter where they came from, no matter what their education background, is trained to be an effective killer, an effective defender of Liberty, and a kind, adult, just, professional, example of why Iraqis should want their country to be more like ours and less like theirs.

If our soldiers step out of line in that situation - then they are only human.

And also, if our soldiers step out of line in that situation, their superiors FAILED them - they failed to train them properly, and they failed to set the proper standards, and they failed to set a good example.

And also, if our soldiers step out of line in that situation, then the very highest ranks, especially including the civilian planners and advisors, and the commander in chief failed them AND FAILED US - THE TAXPAYERS, because they failed to make sure that our military was properly organized, funded, and informed, to professionally conduct its mission.

To say that a soldier's job is to be an armed thug - and nothing more, is sheer stupidity. A soldier must be much more than that. You either believe that the mission was about "Democracy Promotion" - or "killing and oil". Since BushCo failed so miserably at this, and I mean - they failed so bad, in almost every way you could imagine, and in ways even my sick mind couldn't imagine before the war (and trust me, we haven't even heard a fraction of everything that's going on there) - that one needs a very active imagination to accept that incompetence, rather than systematic malice was to blame.

"we strive to be clear-eyed and honest about what war does to people."

What war does to people?

Which war?

Scottie was in Germany before he viciously attacked a disfigured woman. he was NOT in Iraq when this happened, but Kuwait.

Is there a war in Germany that so dehumanized him?

Oh, I'm sorry, that's right-- Kevin Drum "forgot" to mention a major correction/retreaction by TNR.

It just slipped right past him.

Never mind -- you're getting all the important information -- or at least what he figures you can handle.

blue girl,

I don't want to be too critical of you because your response was much more honest and respectful that what I normally receive here, but you did for some reason throw in the qualification that Beachamp was "possibly scared shitless" before agreeing he was disgusting. I think this has "played out" enough so everyone can call Beachamp a jerk without qualification.

And the difference between you and us is that we can see them behaving inhumanely, even monstrously, and still be grateful to them because we strive to be clear-eyed and honest about what war does to people.

It's more subtle than that. He believes that all publishing about the war should and must be in support of The Party. Republicans are congenitally attached to the concept that all art and journalism must serve as a conduit for propaganda in support of the glorious party mission.

After all these years of saying "Bush lied", "Gonzales lied", "Cheney lied", TNR deserves to have the same question asked on whether they're lying.

What a perfect, telling remark. In Wingnut World, a magazine "lying" about some insignificant detail is equivalent to the president of the United States lying his way into war.

It turned out the right's suspicions were justified in terms of the guy's very liberal politics and at least some inaccuries in his story.

I find that passage highly offensive brian. My husband and i are both liberals. He is retired Air Force, and I am retired from the GSA after reserves duty. Is our service somehow less because we are liberals? Should we forgo our monthly retirement since our politics differs from yours? Just say the word, because I don't want something you think I don't deserve since I'm a loathsome liberal.

For the record, I never took an oath to a person or a party in my life, and never would. I did take one to the Constitution though. Watching it's abrogation apologized for and excused makes me a hell of a lot more livid than some scared kid telling war stories.

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

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

trashhauler:

While I can't speak for liberals as a group (liberal is a political position, not a personality type), I can say that reading about incidents like those Beauchamp described don't make me think less of troops. It's like hearing about high divorce rates among cops or high smoking rates among air traffic controllers. I assume these are really stressful jobs, and people probably freak out as a result of performing them. The soldiers Beauchamp describes probably need a break from combat and some time talking to a therapist.

OBF:

I have not seen combat but I've read a few books on psychological effects of it. I'm not sure it's possible to raise an army that doesn't occasionally behave as these troops are reported to have done. That might be an argument against democratizing nations with the army. I don't know. I wouldn't assume that any of these guys are thugs though, just because they behave badly after having seen combat.

Come on, are you kidding? Do you really fully accept TNR's "investigation." Are you really going to label anyone who isn't buying it as some right wing nut? Seriously, all politics aside, this guy's "Iraq diary" is a fabulist handbook, TNR's anonymous sources and "oops, it was Kuwait, not Iraq" doesn't wash, and anyone who argues otherwise just really, really wants it to be true, but knows in that tiny part of rational mind he has left that it's total nonsense. Come on. Get real.

It turned out the right's suspicions were justified in terms of the guy's very liberal politics

The "right" was correct to suspect that a truth-teller about the war would be possessed of liberal values, since the knee-jerk reactionaries and self-described conservatives have been lying about it to themselves and others all along.

Do you really fully accept TNR's "investigation."

Pretty much.

Are you really going to label anyone who isn't buying it as some right wing nut?

Yup. They're the only ones worked into a froth over it.

Seriously, all politics aside

Don't make me laugh.

Look, a right-wing blogstorm was cooked up by a bunch of right-wing fanatics. They got duped into following the lead of Michelle Malkin and ended up with egg on their face. The lesson: don't get caught up joining right-wing lynch mobs.

What's revealing about this incident is that rightwingers share the same mentality as regular terrorists: The rightwingers' reaction to an otherwise inconsequential diary by an obscure writer in an ideologically confused magazine was to try as hard as they can to terrorize everybody associated with it.
___________________________

Kevin...
The result? They "all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one soldier, heard about contemporaneously."

Nothing to celebrate here on either side. It smears all military, liberal or conservative, no matter. And I agree with Osama Been Forgotten that it represents a failure in leadership. It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation. I'd have preferred Scott had acted like the soldier in Abu Ghraib and reported the incidents correctly, but there it is.

When I read the story I am reminded of the quote, "Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it."

blue girl,

I'm sorry you found my statement offensive but I don't really undertand why. I said, "It turned out the right's suspicions were justified in terms of the guy's very liberal politics and at least some inaccuries in his story."

I don't see how my statement has anything to do with you and your husband. Its not like I said liberals are jerks like this guy or liberals lie (neither of which I think is generally true). I thought I was stating a fact. The "right" thought "Scott Thomas" was an anti war liberal and, unfortunately for liberals, that turned out to be very true. As to Beauchamp, as far as I know, neither he nor TNR are claiming he was scared or traumatized into his horrendous behavior or his writings; he apparently joined the Army for the purpose of enhancing his writing credentials (that didn't turn out too well). TNR is still essentially vouching for his writing, when they should be expressing regret they ever published him.

It seems to me that this whole episode is bad for liberals because, whether you agree or not, Beauchamp will be remembered as the liberal guy show slimed the military. I think liberals should cut their losses on Beachamp and declare that regardless of whether what he wrote about others was true or not, his own conduct was highly offensive and you want no part of him. All these liberals defending him seems to be another example of how parisanship clouds judgment.

The "right" thought "Scott Thomas" was an anti war liberal

The "right" thought "Scott Thomas" didn't exist.

TNR is still essentially vouching for his writing, when they should be expressing regret they ever published him.

Why?

It seems to me that this whole episode is bad for liberals because, whether you agree or not, Beauchamp will be remembered as the liberal guy show slimed the military.

How?

All these liberals defending him seems to be another example of how parisanship clouds judgment.

They've been defending his existence and the veracity of TNR's accounts. The "right" has argued the opposite and proven to be wrong.

If the right is so concerned about the morality of what is published in TNR, how come they haven't been raising a stink about Marty Peretz?

We've seen this script before:
Capt. Jamil Hussein doesn't exist.
Capt. Jamil Hussein is lying.
Capt. Jamil Hussein is despicable for telling the truth.

We're at Stage Three. Again.

It's the mirror image of:
We're winning the war.
We're losing the war because the liberals are lying.
We're losing the war becausse the liberals are telling the truth.

tyro,

you can't just say the right said he didn't exist. very few made that assertion.

it seems to be denial to think that having beauchamp disclosed as a howard dean liberal does not hurt liberals. the guy mocked a disfigured woman and laughed about it. he laughed about a guy wearing the skull of a dead child and claimed everyone in his unit was laughing about it. he slimed his entire unit. things probably certainnly will get worse for him as more information comes out.

you think it is wise to be vouching for his veracity. what does a liberal anti war guy have to do before you will abandon him.

brian: you can't just say the right said he didn't exist. very few made that assertion.

As I pointed out the other day, you are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

In five minutes I found 7 links to seven different right-wing blogs or similar forums calling him a fake.

That is not very few and if you need dozens then you are setting the goal posts deliberately higher than you would for saying that very few left-wing posts made this or that claim.

The fact that you think his liberal beliefs are something suspicious is further proof of your intellectual dishonesty and bias, particularly in light of the rampant serial lying by the WSJ, the NRO, Drudge, Instahack, and the Bush administration that's been going on for the last 6 -7 years.

you can't just say the right said he didn't exist. very few made that assertion.

Plenty made that assertion. Then they said he was lying. Then they said he was a bad guy. Some are saying merely that he's not a good writer. Until his identity was revealed, no one was complaining about his character; they were complaining that TNR was publishing something they thought was fraudulent. The goal posts kept moving and moving and moving. It's cute and sweet that you have finally managed to settle on a set of talking points after being wildly all over the place. It wasn't longer than a week ago the stupids on the right were trying to argue in minute detail how a dog couldn't possibly have been run over by a Bradley. It would have been embarassing how stupid they were acting were it not for the fact that such stupidity is expected of the Malkin-reading Bush-voters on the right.

Interestingly, the right was not howling about Abu Ghraib (fraternity pranks, they said). Nor were they howling about Marty Peretz. They howl about this guy because he didn't paint a pretty picture.

It's kind of funny that you can think that the right-wing blogstorming lynch mob let by lunatics like Michelle Malkin have any expectation of being listened to, given how blindingly wrong they turned out to be about Beauchamp. Maybe you're angry that he opened a window into a world of the military that you would rather the world not see.

You didn't answer my questions though: why should TNR regreet publishing him? Because theyv should be afraid about the hostile, angry right-wing hordes? Or should they be embarassed that they were correct about the accuracy? SHouldn't you regret being associated with the right-wing lunatics who got proven so unbelieveably wrong about their assertions? Are you that shameless?

I think that all the military people commenting on the blogs wanted it known that it didn't sound like common behavior to them.

Nice try trashballer. The honest military
"people" called bullshit on you bullshiters from the start. Punk.

brian: it seems to be denial to think that having beauchamp disclosed as a howard dean liberal does not hurt liberals.

According to your logic, Beauchamp having been disclosed as a soldier must hurt soldiers and the military as a whole.

Thanks for dissing the entire military, brian.

Pretty par for the course from the Right, which has abandoned our military by supporting cuts in their medical benefits and hazard pay, the failure of the Bush administration to provide timely armor, and the failure of the Bush administration to train our soldiers, put enough in the field from the start, and to have a post-invasion plan in place to protect them from the predicted violence and chaos that Bush ignored.

The fact that you are willing to use logic that condemns our entire military just to get a jibe in at liberals makes you a pathetic partisan lying assh*le.

But we knew that already.

Thanks for the confirmation, though.

Brian the answer to your question about what a liberal guy has to do before the left abandons him is...

Say he supports President Bush. This is the only thing which really crosses the line. Everything else is okay.

Orwell: Brian the answer to your question about what a liberal guy has to do before the left abandons him is...

Well, let's see, Ann Coulter has called for the death of numerous liberal politicians and judges on numerous occasions and the right hasn't abandoned her.

Bush has utterly gutted military medical care and abandoned the troops, held up armor shipments in order to save money, tried to cut their hazard pay, ignored advice (that turned out to be entirely accurate) about post-war planning, denying the troops proper training or guidance, made the troops accessories to torture and human rights violations, hid their bodies when they return to their country in caskets manufactured by Bush policies, took back their signing bonuses when they had to retire early from service because of body mutilations, sent bill collectors after their bonuses when they didn't pay them back figuring their country owed them for the limbs Bush made them give up, and so on and on and on, but the Right still hasn't abandoned Bush.

You are the bowl calling the basin white, a hypocrite of extraordinary dishonesty, and a lying piece of excrement.

brian, your typical ignorance is showing. Thomas isn't "Howard Dean" he's a fucking soldier. He's a real person and, it appears, that the stories he told were true. Finding fault with trivial details doesn't make your whining any more valid.

The truth is that getting people to murder other human beings does bad things to them. Hell, we have a guy on this board who is so bloodthirsty that he thinks a woman and her child are valid targets if they are too near someone he imagines needs killing. That's far more loathsome than mocking a disfigured woman. That's a disregard for human life that is beneath contempt. And this moron thinks that his attitude is, and should be, shared by those still serving. Of course, that idiot is a disgrace to the uniform he once wore.

So, stop whining about how this soldier is some kind of blight on the left. The truth is no one on the left (okay, I haven't seen every single person, maybe there was someone who did - but if they did it was unsupportable) said he was a blight on the military and you don't have the credibility to pin his behavior on your political enemies.

The only thing revealed here is that the right, demonstrated by people like you, hates the troops and the truth.

If I thought the right-wingers were that smart (which they aren't), I'd have speculated that they started the whole "Scott Thomas doesn't exist/Scott THomas is lying" claims to get everyone else (sane people) to defend the veracity of TNR's journalism so that when it was shown that his accounts were true all along, they could smear TNR's defenders with, "see how sleazy they are! they're defending messed up guy like Beauchamp who does awful things in the military!" The right wingers are not, however, that smart, and they merely grafted themselves into the "liberals love military-smearing sociopaths like Beauchamp" because it was the only place left they could move the goalposts to.

The right wing in this sense is very similar to the million monkeys on typewriters. In the set of all possible assertions, we can expect them to inevitably make all the remaining insulting ones that are left after their other ones become unavailable.

RSM at 9:55 PM: ... It smears all military....
No, it doesn't and it is not a smear. If they didn't commit the acts, there would be nothing to tell.

brian at 10:02 PM: ....this whole episode is bad for liberals because....
What a pantload, the Republicans run the biggest smear&lie campaign in politics. Beauchamp not more slimed the military than Kerry did. It is the continued McCarthyism of the right that whines victimhood in one moment and slimes the veracious in the next. You are a perfect example. When someone blows the whistle on improper behavior, you first reaction is to slime him and defend the improper behavior instead of condemning it as well. This is typical of Republicans who always put party over country and invent any rationale to excuse their fellow partisans no matter what the offense.

ex-lax at 8:09 PM ...Reports like this make me livid .........
What should make you livid are the actions of the American president that kills innocent civilians, destroys their infrastructure, and ruins their county. Everyone knows that some people abuse their position of power when they have the power of life and death over the public.
No one is served by a knee jerk defense of wrongdoing. It only encourages more of the same.

The US is not fighting the murders of Danny Pearl, they are fighting Iraq insurgents. You are committing the worst offense of all: dehumanizing Iraqis. That is racist and disgusting. The people fighting and defeating the US are people fighting an illegal occupation and war. They did not ask nor deserve to be invaded by Bush, who told every lie he thought he could get away with to justify his actions to the American people.

This war is not to protect you, me or any American. It is an illegal, immoral, unjustified war that endangers all Americans because it is wrong: the wrong war in the wrong country for the wrong reason. It is the shame of American that crackheads like you support the destruction of Iraq, Iraq society, and the Iraqi people.

brian at 8:15 PM ... least some inaccuries in his story....
The only inaccuracy was disremembering an incident as happening in Iraq when it happened in Kuwait. That is trivial when it shows the contempt that some soldiers show for civilians.

trashhauler at 8:17 PM: ...they're-all-gonna-be-psycho anti-war platform....
Plenty of soldiers return with problems. It doesn't do anyone any good to go into denial about the actions that occur during wars. If you haven't the guts to confront and deal with them, then stuff a sock in it.

mike,

you are just seeing it your way. the iraq/kuwait "inaccuracy" is not trivial and it shows the contempt of BEAUCHAMP and his buddy, not the contempt of the miliary. the reason it is not trivial is that Beachamp claimed he saw her every day in Iraq after he was placed in the war zone and it showed the effect of being at war on military people. "disremembering?"

also, the worst of the reported conduct was Beauchamp's conduct. he is sliming himself with respect to his conduct.

tyro
I said from the outset that Beauchamp and the liberals defending him were both in a lose lose situation. he is a jerk and, at least to some extent, the author of inaccurate information.

heavy,
sorry, but I think most people believe Beauchamp's mocking of the disfigured woman is a blight on the military and, since he is a lefty, I suppose he could be viewed is a blight on liberals (although that is going far) -- I just think liberals should state their disgust with his conduct, as blue girl did earlier.

brian, fascinating that you don't see any losing consequence to making false claims. You're only saying that this "smears liberals" because that is the only defense you have left after every other assertion the right has made proved wrong. And that assertion of yours isn't even correct.

If you're claiming that liberals are smeared because, once again, they were right about something (previously, we were right that invading iraq was a bad idea, and you were wrong), well, that once again demonstrates that right-wingers like yourself are stupid.

Though, nice setup you have in your mind where if right-wingers attack anything that says stuff they don't like to hear, they "win," even when they are wrong in their assertions. Like ex-liberal, you live in a warped fantasy world.

shortstop: And the difference between you and us is that we can see them behaving inhumanely, even monstrously, and still be grateful to them because we strive to be clear-eyed and honest about what war does to people.

It didn't work that way in Vietnam, shortstop. The troops were vilified, sometimes accurately, sometimes not. Their valor and bravery was not always reported. The net impact of this tuype of coverage was that the American populace as a whole was not grateful to the troops coming home. In fact, a few people even spat on the troops.

ex-liberal:,/b> "Reports like this make me livid ..."

Oh, puh-LEESE.

You're always livid, because someone like you lives to be angry. And if you're not provided with an excuse to denounce something or someone, then you'll simply make up a rationale.

I'm feeling sorry for you right now, because that's really a damned pathetic existence.

No brian, we aren't puppets to have our opinions handed to us by dimwitted supporters of the mass slaughter of Iraqi people (that last phrase would be you). If we are talking need to apologize then the supporters of this unprovoked assault on the people of Iraq must be first in line.

Get it brian?

Dead is worse than disfigured.

Creating dead people is worse than denigrating the survivors.

Creating hundreds of thousands of dead people in an optional war is a war crime.

Supporting those who commit war crimes is far worse than anything Thomas wrote about.

Want to apologize for your part in making Thomas' story true?

ex-liberal, like many conservatives, you think that the only purpose of art and journalism is to serve as propaganda for The Party. The diary from this soldier made you livid because you're like a toddler screaming "no! it's not true! it's not true!" when you hear something that makes you uncomfortable. That you want the troops to be depicted as "chivalric heroes" at all times only shows that you're really still an immature juvenile.

You're more upset that the media told phony stories about Jessica Lynch fed to it by the government than you are that TNR printed the diary of someone who told things that were true.

I said from the outset that Beauchamp and the liberals defending him were both in a lose lose situation.

They were defending TNR. Funny that you don't think that the unhinged Malking-lead brigades of morons musing on tread lengths and how none of the events could have possibly happened have "lost." But then, right-wingers were never known about being concerned about accuracy or being correct-- only about their propaganda positioning. And even here, we have another situation in which the republicans raised hue and cry over something that they turned out to be totally incorrect about. So where's the "lose" for the people who looked those lunatics on the right and told them they were full of crap? Or are you just going to move on to your next outrage of the day (I already forgot-- you did-- I tihnk it had something to do with Obama's speech that you were wetting your pants over).

It's funny how you're not really ashamed about hanging around with such a manifestly stupid and uninformed group of political cohorts and how you get so angry and unhinged with TNR commits brazen acts of journalism.

Kevin's update on his prediction is interesting, but accurate only if alls we have is a "slight exaggeration." Also, in view of Beauchamp's admitted conduct, it is hard to make much the prediction/accusation that the right is dragging his character through the mud. He was pretty muddy already. I also don't think Kevin predicted he was the editor of a very liberal student newspaper and big Howard Dean supporter. I know you folks want to stay away from his politics, but it seems to be part of the story.

The net impact of this tuype of coverage was that the American populace as a whole was not grateful to the troops coming home. In fact, a few people even spat on the troops.

You intellectually dishonest, loathsome neocon toad. The only documented cases of spitting were American Legion members spitting on their "less successful" brothers. The right turned their back then, and they are honing the stab-in-the-back meme already.

You are a sad, pathetic, withered little man, you really, really are. You make me sick.

tyro: ex-liberal, like many conservatives, you think that the only purpose of art and journalism is to serve as propaganda for The Party.

Not that it matters, by FYI I'm a member of SFMOMA. I've been on the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra. I'm a fan of the legitimate theatre.

I don't want to see art used for propaganda. I dislike the TNR articles, because I think they were designed to be propaganda. I think they were designed to show the American soldiers in a bad light.

brian,

Why can't you agree at this point the principal issue is whether he was telling the truth?

Why don't you agree that we should focus on whether the guy was telling the truth? It seems like a simple proposition.

Why have you not answered my question of "why don't you agree that we should focus on whether the guy was telling the truth?

And never forget: "Truth is the anecdote(sic) for all this."

tyro,
I don't think all the facts are in yet about the accuracy of his stories. We'll see. But it seems either he is a bad guy and reported other bad guys, or he is a bad guy and lied about other good guys. Hard to see how it is not lose lose for him and his supporters.

he is a jerk and, at least to some extent, the author of inaccurate information.

Clearly you're talking about George Bush or Dick Cheney here. Or is it Donald Rumsfeld?

Scott Beauchamp may have misrepresented an immaterial fact. If so, it hurt no one, and the kernal of the story is reflective of the inarguable truth that many soldiers have come to see Iraqis as inhuman due to the stress of a situation where they don't know who the enemy is.

OTOH, Bush and Cheney have engaged in a full-on deception and coverup that has resulted in tens of thousands dead, more wounded, even more displaced, has created jihadis, and has cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

And yet you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the latter behavior is a million times worse than the former. Tell me, have you been to any Republican hypnotists lately?

I dislike the TNR articles, because I think they were designed to be propaganda. I think they were designed to show the American soldiers in a bad light.

Funny, I dislike your posts because I think they are designed to be propaganda. They are wildly innacurate, ignore the hard truths about this war, and are practically rabid to show any poor decision by Bush in a good light.

I dislike the TNR articles, because I think they were designed to be propaganda. I think they were designed to show the American soldiers in a bad light.

They were designed to relate a soldier's diary, actually. Simply because you are a very, very sensitive person who can't handle reading it without throwing a fit over how this "smears the troops" is hardly my problem. I can't be responsible for your emotional and maturational deficiencies. The immediate assumption from the right wing was that he didn't exist or he was lying. It's hard to tell-- the goalposts kept getting moved. I can hardly keep track of what the right-wing hate brigade is upset about on any given day. I have an understanding now of why parents spank toddlers-- you can't reason with the irrational tantrum throwers.

But to claim that a notoriously pro-iraq-war publication was publishing propaganda to smear the troops is a much, much worse smear. You got very morally offended by the diary, and you let loose with some very inane juvenalities about war itself... yet not once have you ever condemned the morally egregious rantings of Marty Peretz that appear in TNR. The same group that was saying Abu Ghraib was no big deal is all outraged now. So spare us your pearl-clutching. It reflects quite badly on you.

brain,
I don't think all the facts are in yet about the accuracy of his stories.

The right-wing fanatics have been pretty much wrong so far. But I'm sure if you keep moving the goalposts somewhere, you'll hit on something. Maybe you guys should go back to breathless speculation about Bradley vehicle tread lengths and maneuverability. Or find something else to get outraged about. But the well is dry on this one, for all of the fanatical blogstorms whipped up by the right wing loons.

brian: "I know you folks want to stay away from his politics, but it seems to be part of the story."

No. You want to make it part of the story. First, your ilk was saying that it never happened. That didn't work, so now you're saying that even if that happened, it was exaggerated. Since that isn't going anywhere, you're hanging for dear life on an irrelevant point about geography. And just in case, you're saying that none of it matters anyway because the guy's a Democrat. You're flailing.

ex-liberal: "I dislike the TNR articles, because I think they were designed to be propaganda. I think they were designed to show the American soldiers in a bad light."

Right. Never mind that this stuff actually happened. You much prefer the propaganda that shows the soldiers in a good light.

It doesn't do anyone any good to go into denial about the actions that occur during wars. If you haven't the guts to confront and deal with them, then stuff a sock in it.
_____________________

It doesn't do anyone any good to play them up for more than they are, either. Of course, you know that, too, but you're not about to say it.

ex-liberal: "It didn't work that way in Vietnam, shortstop."

Yeah, well, very little worked in Vietnam. That's what almost always happens whenever your ostensible rationale for taking military action is based upon inaccuracy, untruth, or delusion -- or any combination thereof. Maybe, one of these light years, you'll understand that concept.

junebug, you talk about covering stuff that really happened. Here's a story about something that really happened in Iraq. Does anyone think Beauchamp covered this one?

CBS/AP) At a moving ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President Bush on Thursday made a posthumous presentation of the nation's highest award for valor to Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham. The 24-year-old lost his life two years ago in Iraq during hand-to-hand combat with an insurgent who released a hand grenade.

"Corporal Dunham did not hesitate. He jumped on the grenade, using his helmet and body to absorb the blast," Mr. Bush said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/11/iraq/main2351853.shtml

brian: "

"I don't think all the facts are in yet about the accuracy of his stories."

What you think is irrelevant. His story has been verified. Give it up already.

"But it seems either he is a bad guy and reported other bad guys, or he is a bad guy and lied about other good guys. Hard to see how it is not lose lose for him and his supporters."

The point of the piece is that war has a dehumanizing effect on soldiers. For whatever bizarre reason, you & the loony right feel the need to disparage that notion. Go right ahead. But at least offer some facts on your behalf. Nobody here has disputed the fact that the guy did reprehensible things. And nobody -- not you, not your heroes who make up the right wing noise machine -- has been able to point to where he lied about anything.

brian: "I don't think all the facts are in yet about the accuracy of his stories."

Facts and accuracy never stopped you from teisting the truth before. Why should now be any different?

Here's a story about something that really happened in Iraq. Does anyone think Beauchamp covered this one?

Well no, because his story was a diary of his own experiences as a soldier. He's not a reporter, you flipping idiot.

The fact that the medal story made CBS news and the Beauchamp story did not further undermines your own argument that "good news" isn't being reported.

ex-liberal: "junebug, you talk about covering stuff that really happened. Here's a story about something that really happened in Iraq. Does anyone think Beauchamp covered this one?"

Sheesh, you guys are unbelievable. You don't believe him when he relates his own experiences on the battlefield, and now you're criticizing him because he's not reporting on something he never even fucking saw. But you'd believe him if he reported that, because it confirms your naïve worldview.

You're growing stupider by the minute.

Does anyone think Beauchamp covered this one?

Well, CBS News and the Associated Press obviously covered it (which seems to counter your constant harping about the media not telling us the whole story in Iraq).

Beauchamp covered what he, himself, witnessed.

Jesus Christ, I want this whole fucking issue to go away. Nobody is coming out of this in any danger of looking too good, that is for damned sure.

Since nobody else is saying it, I will, and I hope Trashhauler will back me up on this...pretty much the only people who get off on war stories don't have any of their own to tell. People who can truly relate die a little inside when these tales are trotted out.

By the way - anyone who has ever given or transmitted an order would like to put a boot in his ass. It's just bad form to take to the pages of a national magazine before you talk to your top kick about the issues you might be having.

trex, you claim "his story was a diary of his own experiences as a soldier." Yet, Beauchamp included rumors he hadn't experienced, rumors that put soldiers in a bad light.

E.g., Beauchamp reported, “I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs… (The dog’s) front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.”

So this was not Beauchamp's experience. It allegedly happened to someone he knows.

Incidentally, although TNR claimed to have verified what they call "this incident", they only verified a single case of a driver running over a dog, not multiple dogs, as alleged by Beauchamp. Nor did they verify his claim that this driver intentionally took out "curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market"

Andrew Sullivan:

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

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

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

I'm sorry, did I miss your apology brian? I'm sure you must have given it, since those of