somewhere, there's a conservative blogger playing with a pair of GI Joe dolls, two shoeboxes and a piece string, proving conclusively that there's no way Beauchamp could've made that call.

Enough! This one incident is meaningless in the enormity of the mistake that is our occupation of Iraq.

The only thing anyone of any conscience should be writing about now is pleas to our (mostly) elected officials to get us out of the mess in the next few months.

reading some of the reichwing commentary that balloon juice has posted, i truly fear for the safety of this kid.

Fact question: isn't it up to Beauchamp, not the Army, whether TNR gets the key documents it claims to be seeking? Cuz TRN has acknowledged that they ASKED Beauchamp for 'em -- and he refused.

We got military guys who read this stuff: isn't it the case that BEAUCHAMP can release those documents anytime he wants, and the Army CAN'T release 'em without his approval?

Fact question: Can TNR sue Beauchamp for fraud, if he provides those documents in which he swears under oath that his stories for TNR were lies and distortions? That would certainly explain why this guy would be saying one thing to the Army, and another to TNR. Since he's stated under oath to the Army that he was bullshitting, and he's agreed to serve out his tour: that's that, so far as they're concerned.

And so long as he exercises his privacy rights to refuse those sworn statements to TNR, well: it's a character check for THEM, isn't it?

Michael Yon: "...what struck me as most important was not that Beauchamp wrote some bad
combat stress fiction, but that a media organization printed it as truth.

And what of Beauchamp? Because he was the man who originally wrote the lurid overwrought
fable of puppy-killing among the grave-desecrating cretins who made fun of a woman
disfigured by bombs, the tepid outcome left many people unhappy. Especially those
who wanted to see him humiliated (he has been plenty humiliated). Beauchamp was
allowed to stay in the Army and suffered only a minor administrative setback.

I was at a reconciliation meeting between Sunni and Shia in the West Rashid district
of Baghdad on 24 October, and it happened by complete coincidence that I was with
Beauchamp’s battalion. In fact, I was with his old company commander for much of
the day, although I had no idea for most of it that I was with Beauchamp’s old company
commander.

At the reconciliation meeting, Beauchamp’s battalion commander, LTC George Glaze,
politely introduced himself and asked who I wrote for. When I replied that I just
have a little blog, the word caught his ears and he mentioned Beauchamp, who I acknowledged
having heard something about. LTC Glaze seemed protective of Beauchamp, despite
how the young soldier had maligned his fellow soldiers. In fact, the commander said
Beauchamp, having learned his lesson, was given the chance to leave or stay.

The reality of war is hellish enough: the IED that left this massive crater in the
road in Mosul also killed four soldiers and an interpreter.

It can be pretty tough over here. The soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit have seen a lot
of combat. Often times soldiers are working in long stretches of urban guerrilla
combat dogged by fatigue and sleep deprivation. This is likely one of the most stressful
jobs in the world, especially when millions of people are screaming at you for failures
that happened three years or more ago, and for decisions to invade Iraq that were
made when you were still a teenager. Just as bad is the silence from the untold
millions who have already written off your effort as hopeless. Add that to the fact
that buddies are getting killed in front of you. (More than 70 killed in Beauchamp’s
brigade.) I see what these young men and women go through, and the extraordinary
professionalism they nearly always manage to exude awes me on a daily basis.

Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s
not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a
mistake.

Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always
been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and
he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously
injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He
faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have
gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted
to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.

So much depends on soldiers who are sometimes all too human.

The commander said I was welcome to talk with Beauchamp, but clearly he did not
want anyone else coming at his soldier. LTC Glaze told me that at least one blog
had even called for Beauchamp to be killed, which seems rather extreme even on a
very bad day. LTC Glaze wants to keep Beauchamp, and hopes folks will let it rest.
I’m with LTC Glaze on this: it’s time to let Beauchamp get back to the war. The
young soldier learned his lessons. He paid enough to earn his second chance that
he must know he will never get a third.

Though Beauchamp is close, I’m not going to spend half a day tracking him down when
just this morning I woke to rockets launching from nearby and landing on an American
base. Who has time to skin Beauchamp? We need him on his post and focused.

As for The New Republic, some on the staff may feel like they’ve been hounded and
treed, but it’s hard to feel the same sympathy for a group of cowards who won’t
’fess up and can’t face the scorn of American combat soldiers who were injured by
their collective lapse of judgment. "

So is Franklin Foer is asking us to discount testimony from Beauchamp's sworn statements, a formal investigation, the sworn statements of roughly a dozen of his fellow soldiers, and even civilian experts that state emphatically these stories were false?

And to top it off, Foer publicly states that Beauchamp is essentially stating everything Beauchamp said in his sworn statements is false, setting him up for a potential court martial which would end his military career and ruin his civilian future.

I'm not sure if were watching idiocy here, or payback.

I'm ordering preemptive pie now before this thread gets too far underway.

Finishing Orwell's thought

"... and anyone who says otherwise will be smeared, retaliated against and silenced."

Good name choice, though.

And thank god I did.

Orsmell: Lies like [the] ones John Kerry told turned the population of America against the soldiers.

If you are speaking of the alleged Vietnam atrocities that Kerry communicated to the military and American people, Kerry did not lie, since he never made any claim that he knew the truth or falsity of the stories and made perfectly clear that he was merely passing on allegations made by others.

Yours is just another example of the dishonest conservative process of lying about anything and everything, including lying by falsely claiming some liberal has lied when they in fact have not.

Orsmell: Lying loud enough long enough has been perfected by the liberal talking heads.

You are a black pot calling a white kettle black!

There's a scene in Guys and Dolls where gangster Big Jule rolls dice without any spots. He tells Nathan Detroit that he remembers which spots were where. Naturally he wins.

Similarly, TNR's editors claim that they verified Beauchamp's stories, but they won't say with whom they allegedly verified them. Naturally their anonymous verification support their position.

The leaked info shows that Beauchamp swore under oath to the Army that his stories were fallacious. It shows that he refused to support their veracity when talking to TNR. That ought to settle the matter. It's time for the ownership of TNR to replace the magazine's editor Franklin Foer and end this farce.

Confederate Yankee isn't even subtle about the retaliation threat.

What wee need to be outraged about is the gross politicization of so many in the officer ranks of the military that scary folks like Confederate Yankee thinks is O.K.

Ex-lib it's time to replace you with a human being.

theAmerican'tist: . . . isn't it up to Beauchamp, not the Army, whether TNR gets the key documents it claims to be seeking . . .

No.

. . . isn't it the case that BEAUCHAMP can release those documents anytime he wants . . .

No.

However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.

If this is your "evidence" that Beauchamp "refused" to provide the documents, you are a liar.

I have found no statement by Beauchamp or alleged by TNR to have been made by Beauchamp that would constitute a "refusal" to himself supply the records.

It is interesting that you quote Yon, also, as "proof" that Beauchamp is not being truthful.

Yon himself, being embedded with people whose protection he requires, can't be trusted to tell the truth about Beauchamp or the soldiers he depends on, even if he wasn't already known for being a Faux News stooge with a far right military bias.

The horrific freak show called "The Americanist" writes:

Though Beauchamp is close, I’m not going to spend half a day tracking him down when just this morning I woke to rockets launching from nearby and landing on an American
base.

You woke up to the sound of "rockets?" You are being fired at by insurgents, sir? Are you actually claiming that you are in Iraq and that you have the capacity to go and interview this serial liar?

I thought I had heard everything, but now we have a wanton freak like the Americanist claiming to be IN IRAQ and claiming that he IS BEING AWAKENED BY THE SOUND OF ROCKETS.

I suspect you are lying and that you are not in Iraq. Worse, you probably smell bad.

ex-liberal, current-mentiroso: The leaked info shows that Beauchamp swore under oath to the Army that his stories were fallacious. It shows that he refused to support their veracity when talking to TNR.

With a figurative gun held to his head.

You must've missed the story of Higazy and all those stories of alleged criminals exonerated years after convictions based "confessions" were coerced by the police threatening no more than what the Army threatened Beauchamp with.

That ought to settle the matter.

Sure, for liars like you, the Army, and the Drudges of the world it would.

More circumspect people who like to base their conclusions on the full set of facts, not speculation and selective cherry-picking of leaked "facts" of questionable authenticity or veracity, are of a different opinion.

It's a shame that "Confederate Yankee" and other bloggers are not considered notable by wikipedia standards. Regardless of how often Bob Owens has been provably wrong, and Bob's role in this hoax and Jamail Hussein and many others, the wikipedia editors will not let people document the utter crap that spews from Owen's keyboard as if it were his colostomy bag.

LOL -- man, you're pitiful:

"Scoblic: You told Ellie (TNR staff member Elspeth Reeve and Beauchamp's wife) that you were trying to get those statements.

Beauchamp: I was going to do and I talked to... I did talk to my lawyer. And I can still get those. I'm working on getting those. And I have one statment... I can get copies of any legal documents that pertain to me.

Scoblic: And can you share those with us?

Beauchamp: Um... probably.

SSG Preiszler: Yes, you can share it with them.

Beauchamp: Yeah, I can.

Scoblic: Scott, I mean we've been asking for those statements for weeks and you told us you were trying to get them and you told your lawyer you were trying to get them. And, now you're saying taht you haven't tried to get them."

Confederate Chainyankee: So is Franklin Foer is asking us to discount testimony from Beauchamp's sworn statements . . .

. . . obtained under duress like hundreds of alleged "criminals" in the US who have been subsequently exonerated . . .

. . . a formal investigation . . .

by a military that repeatedly produced investigations of Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that were incomplete and deliberately false . . .

. . . the sworn statements of roughly a dozen of his fellow soldiers . . .

. . . no different than the sworn statements of soldiers, such as those involved in the Abu Ghraib atrocities, subsequently convicted of crimes in Iraq when the military was pressed to prosecute them . . .

. . . and even civilian experts that state emphatically these stories were false . . .

. . . experts who are biased in favor of the military, the war, and conservative support for the war . . .

Yeah, there's no problem here.

Confederate Yankee = Load-of-Crap Chain-Yanking Kool-Aid Drinker

I assume that someday, somehow, Beauchamp will actually be allowed to leave Iraq.

Maybe we should wait until then before we expect to get a story out of him we should not discount simply because of potentially coercive acts by the military?

If, at that point, he retracts his story, or can't rebut the accusations of fabrication and distortion made against him, then maybe then it's time to reject his account.

Would it just kill the right wing bloggers and the Americanist and ex-liberal to wait that long?

Silly me, of course it will. They need to release their inner gas and hot air, lest their bubble heads explode.

theAmerican'tist: LOL -- man, you're pitiful

This from someone who thinks 3 = 4.

What a hoot!

However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.

Making you a liar, your selective, out-of-context, and misrepresented quote notwithstanding.

You are free, however, to highlight the word "refused" used by either Beauchamp or TNR in the text you cite as proof that Beauchamp "refused" to provide copies of his records.

BTW,

"And, now you're saying [that] you haven't tried to get them."

Beauchamp never said this anywhere in the quoted material.

So, even stretching this sentence to the breaking point and falsely interpreting it to mean that Beauchamp was "refusing" to provide copies of the statements, Beauchamp himself never said anything of the sort and Scoblic's interpretation is unsupported.

Beauchamp: I'm working on getting those.

Not a "refusal."

Not even, "haven't tried to get them."

Once again, you are proven a liar and provide the proof yourself.

I suspect you are lying and that you are not in Iraq. Worse, you probably smell bad.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Norman, on the other hand, is bathed every day by the orderlies in the ward. So, which personality did you use today to trick them into giving you a day pass?

Beauchamp is completely full of shit.

Brian: Beauchamp is completely full of shit.

Brian is completely full of shit.

Sorry, but I just had to correct your typo.

anonymous: More circumspect people who like to base their conclusions on the full set of facts, not speculation and selective cherry-picking of leaked "facts" of questionable authenticity or veracity, are of a different opinion.

anonymous, what facts support Beauchamp's stories? Beauchamp denied them under oath. Not a single witness has been identified who supports them. You say I've cherry-picked. What do you see as the missing cherries?

Despite the fact that the military twice filed false reports stating that no abuse had occurred at Abu Ghraib and only opened up and completed a (mostly) truthful third investigation after they knew the jig was up and that dozens of commissioned and noncommissioned military personnel repeatedly lied about what went on at Abu Ghraib, falsely denying incidents later proven by photographic and testimonial evidence, something also brought to light by a single brave soldier who, despite overwhelming proof of his truthfulness, including convictions, is still despised by the Right for telling the truth, wingers like Brian and ex-liberal continue to insist that they do want the truth and that it is the military that is telling it.

LOL, a-holes.

So, which personality did you use today to trick them into giving you a day pass?

No day pass. Ever since they banned cigs on the ward, the only way they have found to control the "residents" is by granting and withholding inet privs.

current-mentiroso: anonymous, what facts support Beauchamp's stories? Beauchamp denied them under oath. Not a single witness has been identified who supports them. You say I've cherry-picked. What do you see as the missing cherries?

I've never said that Beauchamp is telling the truth or not telling the truth, and that is not the issue.

It is you who are selectively relying on Beauchamp's coerced "confession" and refusing to wait for all the facts which is exactly what is being pressed on you.

Since you know you are not being asked to believe Beauchamp, but merely to be circumspect about believing a military system that has been proven time and again to be a lie-machine and coercive against soldiers who report military misdeeds and wait for all the facts to come out, I can only conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts and the issue at hand because you are an inveterate liar without a shred of moral awareness or integrity.

Your strawman is aflame.

Better find some H2O.

Anonymous,

What evidence do you have that Beauchamp's confession is coerced? Shouldn't you wait for that fact to come out as well? You may believe it prudent to disbelieve the military but why on earth would you take at face value the word of a TNR editor who (1) obviously has a personal stake in the story and (2) offers only a blanket assurance of a unrecorded, unestablished phone call as basis for his 'facts.'

"Ex-liberal" worte, again, Beauchamp denied them under oath.

You were told, upthread, that Beauchamps's denails were arguably made under duress. Yet, true to your bad-faith form, you ignore any argument you find inconvenient and simply repeat your assertion as if it hadn't been challenged.

The moderators, earlier, indicated that they were beginning to find your repetition in lieu of debate sufficiently annoying. Your continuing to do so only proves the insincerity of your earlier apology and your determination to argue with your betters in bad faith.

So, if Beauchamp is a liar, then this totally vindicates George Bush 100% and Iraq was the right thing to do and they really did have WMDs and the Iraqi people are so glad we are there to help paint their schools and the oil will pay for the war etc etc etc etc

theAmericanist on October 26, 2007 at 2:23 PM:

LOL -- man, you're pitiful..

LOL...No, what's pitiful, tA, is when you selectively quote material, ignore rebuttals to your weak points, and basically pull everything but your head out of your ass like you did on the previous thread discussing this topic.

And here you are, back at it again. What exactly about this minor dustup redlined your freakometer?

Look; Either Beauchamp and the people who corroborated his Diarist articles lied to TNR (including Beauchamp's wife) or Beauchamp and the people who couldn't confirm his articles lied to the military. You can talk about motivations, but face it: We don't know what they are...And all your meandering mendacity and hyperventilation does is prove Normie's right for once: You come off like some horrific freak show.

Sit down and wait for the story to play out... Christ...

He may be lying or not, I don't know. What I remember of being faced with an Article 15 (on land) and a Captain's Mast, is that as a young inexperienced "government employee", confronted with a plethora of stripes and gold braid, made me try to judge what would get me away from so much attention. Faced with charges of possession and use of dangerous drugs (per Lenny Bruce, that's a lie, they're not, they're friendly) which is different perhaps than StB's case, I was very careful in what I said and how I said it.

Coerced? Pressured? Depends on who you're talking to and, more importantly, who's listening.

Lemme get this straight.

The narrative you guys believe is that the husband of a TNR staffer, who bragged on his blog about how war experience was gonna jumpstart his writing career, filed these impressive stories under a pen-name from Iraq which were fully fact-checked by TNR before they were published.

Even when it turned out that some folks doubted the stories, you believed this guy. Kevin, f'r example, said that he might have made an error here or there, but nothing important: running over dogs in a Bradley, wearing a kid's skull like a hat, mocking a wounded soldier cuz combat does that to you -- all true.

When it turned out that the central theme, how combat makes you cruel and callous, was false, cuz mocking the scarred soldier happened BEFORE combat, you accepted the error as... minor.

And yet -- TNR didn't. Scoblic is incredulous when he finally confronts Beauchamp about it. That's when Beauchamp refuses to stand by his stories.

But YOU do.

And do I have this right, also? You buy TNR's line that they were going to "re-report" everything in the stories.

So when TNR said that they had checked with the company that makes the Bradley, you believed 'em and their un-named source.

But when a skeptic talked to the guy, showed him the article (which TNR had not), and he said (with his NAME in the article) that's 'suspicious' -- how exactly does this fit into your narrative? When the guy explained, quite reasonably I thought, that the guy who would have seen the dog isn't the guy who would have been steering to hit it, and that this sorta manuever would damage the vehicle which IS after all in a war zone, so damaging the vehicle isn't just the sorta thing that requires paperwork it also sorta kinda puts your life at risk -- um, how does that fit into what you believe about these stories?

When the Army produces a report (his unit has a named commander, etc.) that documents pretty thoroughly that Beauchamp is full of shit, citing dates and places and TNR says, um, we talked to anonymous soldiers who confirm it: you believe TNR.

Ya know, the Stephen Glass magazine.

And when Beauchamp says TO that same magazine that he won't stand behind the stories anymore: you don't believe him. You believe TNR.

I bet in the last thread that TNR wouldn't challenge the accuracy of the transcripts -- and heard a lot of hooting from Frankly and Grape about it. And yet -- Chait and Foer have AFFIRMED the transcript is accurate.

How does that square with what you guys believe?

The Army has this extensive set of documentation, including sworn statements by Beauchamp stating that his stories were based on lies and distortions. (Exhibit E)

When (with TNR's handpicked lawyer for Beauchamp on the call), Beauchamp says he can "probably" get those statements for TNR, his staff sergeant says, flatly: Yes, you can.

How's that fit in with your narrative?

The TNR guys on the call are the ones who say that Beauchamp hasn't exactly been eager to deliver 'em.

Is that in your understanding of the story?

Yon mentions being with the guy's unit, talking to his commander -- who OFFERS to introduce them. How's that fit with your narrative?

Somebody says that it's cuz Yon depends on these guys to protect him -- like that's a BAD thing? It seems to sorta sum up what you believe: that anybody in the military has to be untrustworthy cuz, after all, they rely on each other.

So you believe Beauchamp will only defend his stories by whispering it to Foer in the dead of night with no witnesses because Army is holding Beauchamp HOSTAGE? Holding a gun to his head, perhaps literally?

LOL -- like the Army isn't gonna know when TNR refuses to do the right thing, and pull the plug?

You do know, right? that the Army has said quite publicly, and often, that he could have voluntarily left his unit -- and chose not to do so. Beauchamp himself, AND his wife, have said (through TNR, mind) that he volunteered to serve out his tour.

You've gone into Elvis walks among us territory, folks.

A prayer for Beauchamp's safe return home, with a higher respect for his comrades than you guys evidently have.

The Right was utterly humiliated when their claims and predictions about the invasion of Iraq were ALL proven to be lies/wrong.

The Right was utterly humiliated when their claims and predictions about Abu Ghraib being a fabrication were proven to be lies/wrong.

The Right was utterly humiliated when their claims and predictions about the attorney firings were proven to be lies/wrong.

The Right was utterly humiliated when their claims and predictions about the culture of corruption biting the Dems as hard as the GOP were proven to be lies/wrong.

The Right was utterly humiliated when their claims and predictions that Bush and the GOP would pay no price or no greater price than the Dems on the failures in responding to Katrina were proven to be lies/wrong.

The Right was utterly humiliated when their lies about Kerry's medals were proven to be lies/wrong.

-----------

The Right is so desperate from their multitude of humiliating defeats and the continual exposure of their lies and inaccuracies, that they must grab onto even the thinnest reeds of possible misdeeds on the Left, and even lie about those alleged misdeeds, exaggerating or jumping to conclusions to stretch the issue into one in their favor.

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to enjoy double-digit leads in the generic congressional poll, Bush continues his polling slide into ignominy exceeding even the Right's favorite whipping boy Jimmy Carter in his depth of disapproval, and the Left continues to out-poll the Right on virtually every single top-10 issue facing the nation.

Whoo-hooo!

Keep up the good work, ex-liberal and Brian.

It is people like you on the Right (arrogant, self-serving, self-centered, hate-filled, morally diseased, and dishonest) that best serve the cause of the Left, turning off moderate voters left and right with your billious spewage of vile falsehoods, false logic, and mendacious, mean-spirited policy preferences.

SChip and Iraq are going to eat your ass.

Gregory, you say Beauchamp's denials were arguably made under duress. Yes, that allegation was made, but there's no evidence at all to support it. The only "argument" that Beauchamp perjured himself because the Army pressured him to do so would be someone's imagination.

grape_crush: Either Beauchamp and the people who corroborated his Diarist articles lied to TNR (including Beauchamp's wife) or Beauchamp and the people who couldn't confirm his articles lied to the military.

There's a third possibility, which is more likely, namely: Nobody corroborarated the Diarist article to TNR. That is, TNR fibbed when the said they had corroboration.

The reason I like this possibility is that TNR has refused to name a single one of their alleged corroborating witnesses. Nor did the Army find any corroborating witnesses. Also, as I posted on an earlier thread, blogger Bob Owens located an allegedly corroborating person from the firm who manufactured the vehicles that supposedly ran over dogs. This person told Owens he had not provided the corroboration TNR claimed he had.

Gregory, you say Beauchamp's denials were arguably made under duress.

No, "ex-liberal," I didn't say that at all. I pointed out that others made this point, and you completely ignored it in favor of repeating your assertions, per your usual pattern, without acknowledging their rebuttal. Sadly, your history here favors deliberate dishonesty, and not a stupefying lack of reading comprehension, as the more likely explanation. As your continued dishonesty proves, you only post in bad faith.

Still, the notion that you, of all people, would be bothered by "no evidence at all to support it" is almost as funny as your citing Treason-in-Defense-of-Slavery Yankee as a source.

You get your kicks by making bad-faith arguments here, but that post must have given you a special, sick thrill. Why the moderators tolerate your pissing on the floor in here is indeed a mystery.

Hacksaw: What evidence do you have that Beauchamp's confession is coerced?

Fair enough:

It is you who are selectively relying on Beauchamp's possibly coerced "confession" assuming that such a "confession" actually exists, seeing as the military has refused to release the alleged document and the only evidence of its existence is an anonymous military source.

-----------

theAmerican'tist (aka, Mr. Three-Equals-Four): Lemme get this straight.

You can't even get is straight that 3 does not equal 4.

LOL.

. . . When the Army produces a report (his unit has a named commander, etc.) that documents pretty thoroughly that Beauchamp is full of shit . . .

Would this be similar to the first two military reports that found that claims about abuses at Abu Ghraib were "full of sh*t?"

The TNR guys on the call are the ones who say that Beauchamp hasn't exactly been eager to deliver 'em.

A misrepresentation of the conversation, but I know that doesn't bother you at all, as you do it all the time.

A prayer for Beauchamp's safe return home, with a higher respect for his comrades than you guys evidently have.

The same respect you demanded of those eventually convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Well, we know where your loyalties lie.

Protect conservative soldiers who lie and commit crimes against humanity, rather than honor the majority in our military who perform heroically without sacrificing their honor and integrity.

. . . his staff sergeant says, flatly: Yes, you can.

Yeah, an Army staff sergeant would never lie or do anything immoral.

Hey, weren't some of those convicted in Abu Ghraib staff sergeants?

Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

Hmmmmmmmm.

re Abu Ghraib: Sergeant Javal Davis pled guilty February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.

Hmmmmmm. A lying staff sergeant!

Who would've thought!

--------------

current-mentiroso: Nobody corroborarated the Diarist article to TNR.

Nobody has corroborated the alleged recantation, right?

So, why do you cite it as fact?

theAmerican'tist: It seems to sorta sum up what you believe: that anybody in the military has to be untrustworthy cuz, after all, they rely on each other.

Blue wall; green wall.

It sorta sums up what you believe: anything that is convenient to what you want the outcome to be, not what is reality.

But, ask Pat Tillman about how necessary it is to rely on your fellow soldiers and what can happen to you if you get crosswise with them.

theAmerican'tist: You've gone into Elvis walks among us territory, folks.

Is that the same place where 3 equals 4?

Maybe Elvis is teaching math to theAmerican'tist there.

On the other hand, theAmerican'tist's math is better than his logic!

'ymous, you really are a piece of shit. Look up what I've said here about Abu Ghraib.

ex-liberal on October 26, 2007 at 3:29 PM:

There's a third possibility, which is more likely, namely...

And why is that more likely? Because it fits the narrative you favor?

That is, TNR fibbed when the said they had corroboration.

Yes, that is a possibility.

TNR has refused to name a single one of their alleged corroborating witnesses.

And subject them to the same treatment Beauchamp is getting? Shit, TNR would never get an exclusive again...

Nor did the Army find any corroborating witnesses.

Not surprising, since they would be admitting that they either did some pretty nasty things or neglected to report their occurrence. Think a little, willya?

AGAIN, the point is: There's some lying going on, and none of us has enough information to form an accurate conclusion...So move on to another topic, and we'll all yell at each other about this when everything plays out. Geez.

'ymous sez: "The TNR guys on the call are the ones who say that Beauchamp hasn't exactly been eager to deliver 'em.

A misrepresentation of the conversation"

That would be THIS conversation?

"Scoblic: You told Ellie (TNR staff member Elspeth Reeve and Beauchamp's wife) that you were trying to get those statements.

Beauchamp: I was going to do and I talked to... I did talk to my lawyer. And I can still get those. I'm working on getting those. And I have one statment... I can get copies of any legal documents that pertain to me.

Scoblic: And can you share those with us?

Beauchamp: Um... probably.

SSG Preiszler: Yes, you can share it with them.

Beauchamp: Yeah, I can.

Scoblic: Scott, I mean we've been asking for those statements for weeks and you told us you were trying to get them and you told your lawyer you were trying to get them. And, now you're saying taht you haven't tried to get them." "

In the American version of English taht I speak "you're saying that you haven't tried to get them..." = "hasn't exactly been eager to deliver 'em..."

'ymous, what color is the sky on your planet?

The reason I like this possibility is that TNR has refused to name a single one of their alleged corroborating witnesses. Nor did the Army find any corroborating witnesses.

No. The reason you like that possibility is because a) it supports a conclusion at which you've already arrived, and b) you have a fascination with pulling shit out of your ass. The reason that TNR hasn't named their corroborating witnesses is that they want to protect them from coercion or retribution. If it turns out that Beauchamp is, in fact, being coerced by military officials to say (or not say) specific things about his article, then TNR will have had very good reason for withholding the names of those corroborating witnesses.

I wonder if the TNR will lose its belief in the war and the nobility of American might.

Look up what I've said here about Abu Ghraib.

Which is irrelevant as to whether you learned from that incident that soldiers lie in droves and their commanders lie to protect those soldiers as well as themselves, even to the point of created investigation reports containing falsehoods and coming to false conclusions.

In the American version of English [that] I speak . . .

Apparently a version that is as different as your version of algebra.

In any event, Scoblic's characterization of what Beauchamp said is not supported by the text you cite, even assuming that Scoblic's characterization is proof of what Beauchamp has actually refused or not refused to do.

You also ignore this from Beauchamp:

"I'm working on getting those."

which is inconsistent with a refusal to get them, as is "haven't tried getting them" which is directly contrary to Beauchamp's assertion that he is "working (trying) to get them."

So, Scoblic clearly mischaracterizes Beauchamp's statements and you then knowingly rely on a clear mischaracterization as PROOF that Beauchamp has outright REFUSED to give TNR the documents (even though it is clear that Beauchamp doesn't even have all the documents which would be necessary to refusing to give them up).

If anyone is a sh*t, it is you for your deliberately bad algebra and your dishonest semantic dissection of the text you reproduce.

. . . what color is the sky on your planet?

On a sunny, cloudless day it is blue on my planet.

What color is it on the planet where you and Elvis use bogus rules of textual interpretation and equally bogus rules of algebra?

Having been an anonymous source and having used 'em, I wanna clarify something that I don't you guys GET.

The reporters who know me recall that I would always say 'strictlyonbackgroundnotforattributionorquotation" when we talked, but ALWAYS on the premise that you can go confirm whatever I tell you, cuz after all, that's WHY I'm telling you. So I'd leak to the Washington Post, for example, what the refugee #s were gonna be for next year, and arrange for my guy to be in the paper saying what a righteous thing this was for Soviet Jews. It's a SOP.

Likewise, when I was a reporter and somebody said 'not for attribution' to me, I'd understand that they had a message to send, which for one reason or another they didn't want to be quoted, sending.

Anonymous sourcing is an invitation to spin, so it is a REQUIREMENT to verify.

The worst thing you can do with anonymous sources, is single source a story: "this one nameless guy told me..."

In the end, that's what TNR is doing. Their only on-the-record source is Beauchamp, and HE was first under a pen-name, and then, he refuses to stand by the stories -- except, ya know, when the tape recorder isn't running.

That's not GOOD enough -- and every professional journalist with standards knows so.

Folks seem to forget that it wasn't anonymous sources who broke Abu Ghraib, nor My Lai.Ya may ahve wanted those investigations and punishments to go up higher, you may have wanted 'em to have started earlier: but it was the US Army who put the perps in jail, using EXACTLY the same procedures that produced the documents that you're now insisting were coerced out of Beauchamp.

Like I've said over and over again, the ultimate theme of Beauchamp's stories is just Beauchamp -- he's not Ernie Pyle, who was all but missing from his best work, which focused on the grunts he was writing about. (And was NOT the uncritical cheerleading of the war, neither: his writing from North Africa got at least one general fired.)

So it's just not legit for TNR to insist that anonymous sources validate Beauchamp's stories. It's unworthy of the profession.

To boot, American'tist, you also claim as fact an alleged recantation that hasn't been produced and for which the only evidence is apparently an anonymous military source from the same military that lied about Abu Ghraib and Pat Tillman.

So, you claim as fact that Beauchamp REFUSED to provide the documents, something that can only be INFERRED by horribly stretching and twisting the cited text.

And add to that a claim as fact an alleged recantation that has yet to be produced . . .

Well, your whole theory of Beauchamp's supposed dishonesty is built on a house of cards.

Discerning minds, however, are weighing the evidence and credibility of the players as a whole and waiting for confirmation of such alleged facts as the "recantation" before making a decision.

You and ex-mentiroso on the other hand are pushing the envelope on an incomplete and unconfirmed set of facts and portraying the matter as complete and beyond the need for further investigation.

You've out-DanRathered Dan Rather.

So it's just not legit for TNR to insist that anonymous sources validate Beauchamp's stories. It's unworthy of the profession.

And the willful obtuseness continues....

So it's just not legit for TNR to insist that anonymous sources validate Beauchamp's stories.

But it is legit for Beauchamp's critics to rely on anonymous sources to validate the claim that Beauchamp signed a sworn recantation, when in fact it appears he did no such thing.

At least the military has not produced this alleged-to-exist recantation despite producing a voluminous report refuting Beauchamp's story.

You'd think that something so important as a recantation would have appeared in the report.

So, where is the recantation ex-liberal and theAmerican'tist?

Or are you just falsely spinning Beauchamp's statement in the report as a recantation just like you are falsely spinning the above conversation into an alleged Beauchamp refusal to provide certain documents?

Someone more honest than you wrote:

The Investigation Report. It concludes that Beauchamp's stories are either fabrications or gross exaggerations crafted from kernels of truth. However, (as much as I agree with the report's conclusions), Beauchamp's sworn statements (Exhibit E) do not appear to contain a recantation of his stories or an admission that he made them up. The statements seem only to confirm that he did not personally witness the Bradley vs. wild dog incidents, and that the bones he saw were animal, not human bones. The bulk of the basis of the investigation's conclusions appear to be from statements from other witnesses in which they deny that what Beauchamp reported happened.

So, technically, it was inaccurate for Drudge to suggest that the documents he posted were confessions, retractions and admissions from Beauchamp himself. I think that's why Drudge yanked them and his description of them.

Did Beauchamp lie or exaggerate?

We don't know for sure as to all aspects of his story, but we do know for sure that the military has repeatedly lied to protect soldiers who have committed atrocities, we know soldiers have lied to protect other soldiers from being caught having committed atrocities, and we know wingers have lied to protect the lying military and those lying soldiers.

We also know that whatever Beauchamp's sins, if any, his claims if false would pale beside the literally millions of falsehoods being tossed around like confetti by conservatives through e-mail chains, on blogs, and in political ads (see, e.g., Swift Vets for Untruth), not to mention that dozens, hundreds, thousands of falsehoods being disseminated by the US military and the Bush administration.

Too bad you are not nearly as upset at those proven lies as you are about the as yet unknown veracity of most of Beauchamp's claims.

Kevin, ya GOTTA put these guys out of their misery: "an alleged recantation that hasn't been produced and for which the only evidence is apparently an anonymous military source..."

Um... that would be the Memorandum that Kevin himself archived from the Department of the Army, Task Force 1st Battalian, 18th Infantry, 2nd Brigade, 1st battery Division, FOB Falcon, Baghdad, Iraq? It even has a zip code.

The one that starts FOR Commander 4th IBCT, MND-B, FOB Falcon, with the subject heading Investigate AR 15-6 Report- RE: Allegations of Soldier/Unit Misconduct?

Whatever else that is, an "apparently anonymous military source' ain't it.

There's a signature, too -- William J. Johnson, CPT, JA, Operational Law Attorney.

The witnesses who testifed Beauchamp was full of shit are named, yanno: Pribyla, Preszler (same guy who was on the call, I believe), King, Duncan, Reinhardt, Long, Franz, Moon, Cunningham, Gutierrz, Brown, Bauer, Gabriel, Showman, Martin, Hancock, McLauglin, Whitmore and Ilgenfritz.

This is the same document that note: "(5) Sworn statements from Private Beauchamp stating he did not hit or target dogs as a driver of a Bradley nor did he see a "mass grave" but did find
animal bones during the initial occupation of Combat Outpost Ellis (Exhibit E)."

It is also signed, by one "John D. Cross, Maj, IN, Executive Office, 1-18IN"

It includes his email address, but I will spare him.

Just how is this "anonymous"?

Seems to be an awfully big effort to discredit what someone has said, if what that someone said is, in fact, untrue. Sorry, but this smells like a minor cover-up that just grew and grew and grew.
Should what Beauchamp has written reflect anything like what does occur in Iraq, the Army PR flacks would do just about anything to prevent it from getting out. And that would include legal threats against fellow squad members to ensure they follow the "official" line on this.
As for independent corraboration; people should remember that there really is no such thing as a "free" press in Iraq. We see and hear the bare minimum; only what the Army feels it absolutely has to put out and nothing more.
Personally, I think what Beauchamp wrote is probably close to the truth; and judging by the reactions of the Iraqis to our presence in their country, apparently they do as well.
D.E. Stamate
USN (ret)

Kevin, ya GOTTA put these guys out of their misery: Posted by: theAmericanist

Yes, Kevin, you gotta put us out of our miseries!

tA, if not a troll, is annoying beyond belief (and probably a liar). He just doesn't know when to stop. If he was a gambling addict, you would have found his sorry remains long ago somewhere out in the weeds in the Meadowlands.

I can't believe "liberals" are taking sides in this discussion. It's TNR one one side and PR flacks on the other. Who really wants to take one side or the other?

Bunch of neo-con nutcases (with one or two not nutty writers thrown in). vs. ,well, used car salesman.

In some cases there are two wrongs in a controversy, and this sure appears to be one case of that.

theAmerican'tist: Just how is this "anonymous"?

An anonymous military source stated to the Weekly Standard that the military had a signed recantation by Beauchamp.

Said recantation has not been produced.

None of the documents Kevin has posted constitute a recantation by Beauchamp as described by his critics.

Thus, the only evidence of a recantation is by the anonymous military source quoted by the Weekly Standard.

Try to keep up, American'tist.

And isn't THIS a recantation?

""(5) Sworn statements from Private Beauchamp stating he did not hit or target dogs as a driver of a Bradley nor did he see a "mass grave" but did find
animal bones during the initial occupation of Combat Outpost Ellis (Exhibit E).""

According to one of your own cohorts, no.

But, hey, in your world 3 = 4.

Besides, you are portraying the recantation as applying to each and every claim Beauchamp made.

No one defending Beauchamp or advising waiting for more information has said that Beauchamp's story doesn't contain some discrepancies, although they may disagree about the significance of those discrepancies, but you have claimed it contains NO truth.

So, you must point to evidence showing EVERY thing that Beauchamp has alleged is false or that he has withdrawn or recanted ALL of his claims.

Again, you are cherry-picking statements that are limited in their scope and applying them to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF BEAUCHAMP'S CLAIMS.

All those arguing for waiting or defending Beauchamp have to do is to point to claims that he has not refuted and that have not been proven to be definitively false.

It's your problem for jumping the gun and making a broad-ranging claim that NONE of Beauchamp's story is true in ANY significant aspect and basing it primarily on soldiers and a military that just like at Abu Ghraib have every reason to lie.

Don't blame me because you painted yourself into a corner.

From Brian Cloughley:

Looking back to my military past I remember what the infantry did. Their duty -- their ethos as soldiers, when engaged by the enemy -- was described something like this: "To close with and kill the enemy in any weather and in any terrain by day or by night." That's the way soldiers were trained in the long-ago.

But now it appears the slogan is "If you think you're being shot at, blaze away at anything that moves or, better still, call in airstrikes that will kill lots of people, many of whom will be women and children."

After machine-gunning a dozen or so civilians you call in a Public Relations' media strike that says you only fired two or three rounds that couldn't have hit anyone. Or if you gave the jet jockeys employment by calling for a few thousand-pound bombs that smashed houses to rubble and killed a dozen or so women and children, it doesn't matter a bit, because the PR robomouths will declare that you didn't do it.

(snicker) You've never actually DONE this sorta thing, huh?

It works like this, or at least it's supposed to: somebody writes a story, sez they joined Outward Bound so they were out there in the wilderness where the souls of men grow bleak and icy, where he saw Bigfoot and ate his heart blood raw, using the shirt of the guy next to him as a napkin.

The editor is SUPPOSED to say -- wow, that's a really good story. Ya got the name of the guy? How about a picture of his shirt?

Turns out, TNR didn't actually DO any of that. Never got the name of the guy whose shirt it was. No picture of Bigfoot, OR the shirt.

But they ran the story anyway. The guy's word was good enough.

How's that working out?

Then the guy sez -- oh, did I say Bigfoot? I meant... um, a moose. That was it, a moose.

So the editor calls him up, with the Outward Bound counselor on the call, and says: Hey, where's that shirt, the one you used as a napkin?

And the guy says, umm.... I don't want to talk about it.

So the editor sez: Wait, we ran this story, a big drawing of Bigfoot on the cover, and you with a bloody shirt for a napkin. You told us you were gonna get us the shirt. You even told us you were gonna give us the name of the guy whose shirt it was.

The Outward Bound guy says: his name was Fred. He says it never happened. Not even with a moose.

Editor sez: yo, dude, do you still stand by your story? That you were out there in the wilderness where the souls of men grow bleak and icy, where you saw Bigfoot and ate his heart blood raw, used what's his name, Fred's shirt as a napkin?

Writer says, no.

Outward Bound guy says: Fred says no, too. And I got a statement the writer signed, says he lied about Bigfoot. And the shirt....

How much longer you wanna string this out, 'ymous?

NAMED witnesses, one after another, who state flatly that Beauchamp lied.

About the scarred woman. About the dogs. About the skull as a hat.

LOL -- I'm not on the one in a corner, dude. Everything I've said (including my bet that TNR would acknowledge the accuracy of the transcript, back when you were insisting it was a fraud), has proved out.

Whaddayou got? 'well, it MIGHT have been Bigfoot...'

theAmerican'tist: How much longer you wanna string this out, 'ymous?

As long as you keep dissembling or I find something more interesting like reruns of I Love Lucy.

. . . back when you were insisting it was a fraud . . .

Since I insisted no such thing, I guess that proves again what a liar you are.

Bottom line: you choose to believe the military's report, despite proof that the military lied twice (and 3 times if you can't the watered down third report) about Abu Ghraib, a situation in which there were many soldiers against one, and about which the Right loudly and longly proclaimed there was nothing to the story and that many soldiers and two military reports were proof enough of the lie of the one soldier.

But that soldier had pictures, forcing the military to acknowledge (at least to the extent of throwing some scapegoats to the public) the bald-faced lied they had told.

As for Beauchamp's alleged confession, recantation, or however you want to characterize it, the number of people exonerated of convictions based on false confessions, confessions obtained in many cases by confronting the suspect with witnesses not backing his story and promises of leniency, are legion.

Beauchamp's "confession" obtained by a military system that can and will, as proven time and again, coerce soldiers into saying and doing whatever they need them to say and do through all kinds of credible threats, isn't worth the paper its written on.

You have no independent proof that Beauchamp lied and as his statement which was given under the full pressure of a dishonest and dishonorable military system of justice adds nothing to your nothing.

Still, for someone who believes 3 = 4, any delusion is possible.

anonymous: You have no independent proof that Beauchamp lied

Actually, the burden of proof is on TNR to verify that what they publish is accurate. We're not supposed to have to prove that their articles are false. Since TNR doesn't have sufficient verification, they should admit it.

BTW there's no question that Beauchamp lied to someone. His sworn testimony to the Army contradicted his articles.

I for one am convinced that no GI ever drove over a dog, living or dead, on purpose or by accident, or engaged in any kind of gallows humor at any earthling's expense. Now can we pls get these poor bastards out of the oily sanbdbox and home to electronic surveillance and unaffordable health care, where they belong?

Guys, trust me on this one:

You DON NOT want to fuck with theAmariwuss! He will right a novel sized comment filled with regurgitated, disingenuous arguments till hell freezes over. And if you get the upper hand he will move the goal post and there is nothing you can do about it!

He will beg you to email him and when you do he will call you a stalker and threaten you and all like...... "I'll get the FBI to kick your ass!"

Pease, don't take a chance with this guy!

A detailed analysis disputing TNR's response can be found here

One of several points is that the Army could not muzzle Beauchamp:

They can't toss him into a Gulag for talking to the press. He can be dishonorably discharged; he can spend six months on shit burning detail while he waits to get out. But then he gets out - there's a fat book contract waiting for him, a lecture circuit, and he can understudy for William Arkin. No commander is going to put him into combat, he's not going to get fragged. The Army cannot enforce his silence for very long. And so there's no way a stonewall by the Army makes any sense, because it will collapse soon - and it will be career ending for the officers and NCO's involved when it does.

It's not like the Tillman lies - the interested party there was dead, his survivors and those who benefited from the coverup were the ones who pushed the issue; here Beauchamp is very much alive and has a whole lot to gain by not only publicly standing up to repression by the Army but by becoming a whistleblower on Army wrongdoing.

Elmo: you're deranged. That's why I forwarded your emails.

'Ymous: You're posting as "anonymous", and I suppose you're not the only one. I recall an "anonymous" posting that the transcripts were a fraud. If it wasn't you, next time pick a more unique fake name. I suggest "malificent".

There are just three basic elements to Beauchamp's stories:

1) Running over dogs.

2) Mocking the scarred soldier.

3) Wearing the kid's skull as a hat.

He's already said himself he got #2 wrong, and the Army went further, interviewing everybody who would have known, and found NOBODY to back up the story -- including, let the record show, the scarred soldier herself. No such person.

Hasn't it ever occured to you assholes to wonder about HER? Like the Army couldn't find a soldier who was female, scarred in the face, and at a particular place at a particular time in Kuwait? Ya think Dana Priest (just to pick a Washington Post reporter with pretty good sources for wounded Iraq vets) might not have been interested in talking to her?

Ever occur to you that the FIRST folks to ask about her, as in 'was there somebody at this base at that time who fits this description' are folks who (contra Elmo) would have been only TOO happy to tear an REMF like Beauchamp was at the time a new asshole for mocking scars, that never felt a wound. The medical folks who would have been able to track HER down would have no vested interest in protecting a couple undisciplined assholes.

Ask Blue Girl how long she would have kept quiet if the Army HAD found the scarred woman, and asked Blue Girl to help shut her up about the asshole Beauchamp and his buddy, who didn't just mock her in KUWAIT, but in an (ahem) prestigious magazine.

Ya think that the fact the Army couldn't find her, couldn't find anybody who remembered her being there, much less sat there with Beauchamp and mocked her until she fled, just MIGHT mean something about the story?

It wasn't just the Army, it's the manufacturer of the Bradley that points out that #1 doesn't make sense. Even the mighty Elmo understands that soldiers driving armored vehicles in combat areas are sorta careful about the machines that keep 'em alive in firefights.

And the Army has a sworn statement from Beachamp himself that #3 is bullshit.

So folks, enough with the passive aggressive 'we did SO not claim he was ever telling the truth' act.

It is simply not possible for a reasonable person to claim that 'it might be so' that Beauchamp was telling the truth to TNR, that we 'can't know' what REALLY happened.

EVERY counter-instance you describe, like Abu Ghraib, actually proves that while the US military ain't perfect, it IS an American institution full of free citizens who will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted every other option.

Give it up already: the guy lied, TNR is snared in their own failures, and y'all have lost your marbles.

You've started to channel Joe McCarthy, waving a blank piece of paper proving the Army is a 'conspiracy so vast'... that it leaves no trace.

Nope. I'm not anonymous. Never have been. But here you go bashing grunts again...

All we need to know is that the stories pale in comparison to the things we know for a fact happened in Iraq.

actually, americanist, the missing marbles belong to you, because you somehow think this case proves anything other than a guy maybe didn't run over a dog. by the way, if you care so much ab. real scarred soldiers why do you tolerate an administration and a rancid dying political movement that gave no shit whatsoever ab. wounded troops festering in shoddy GI wards? let me guess ... you're a bushist, the ideology of blind willful arrogant stupidity. how's that working for you?

Earth to theAmericant! No one cares if he fibbed or not(well, all but you chickenhawks). HE IS THERE. And you are not. Pinhead.

When are you going to give us your "so called" Democratic background you're so proud of? Because I've never heard of a "Paul Donnelly".

theAmerianist: "Give it up already: the guy lied, TNR is snared in their own failures, and y'all have lost your marbles."

Scott Thomas Beauchamp's fifteen minutes are up. And, hopefully, so are yours.

Whether you agree with Paul or not, whether you can get past this issue or not, he certainly does have a record to stand on, and is one of the sanest voices on immigration reform out there. Here is an op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post, and here is an article for The American Prospect. If I am not mistaken, I think I he was quoted in a New York Times article about a month ago. A quick google ought to verify if I am correct on that account...

Yes, I did recall correctly. Here is the link to the Times article.

(I see my post from a couple of minutes ago is hung up. It will be along...I thought I cold get away with two links.)

Hey BG, I'm home. I left my real email address. In case theAmericantoto forgot.

Thanks, BG, but this ain't about me.

As a rule in my experience when folks in a dispute over somebody's credibility start saying "No one cares if he fibbed or not...", they've lost the argument.

And they know it, they just lack the grace to admit it.

Elmo: I wasn't referring to you, cuz so far as I know, you don't post as "anonymous". I was referring to the guy who posts as anonymous. IIRC, an "anonymous" posted in an earlier thread that the transcripts were frauds.

IIRC, he did that after I had placed a bet that TNR would acknowledge they were accurate. They did acknowledge they were accurate. "Anonymous" insists he didn't say they were frauds. (shrug)

So evidently, Elmo, you have reading comprehension to add to your extensive list of issues to deal with, since somehow you read all posts to be about ... you.

It's curious how the Beauchamp case fits your own odd blindspot, though, Elmo: you brag about what a great soldier you were, and how you kept your guys in line... but when folks find it hard to believe Beauchamp about how undisciplined he and his unit was, you dis THEM.

You brag about how YOU kept your unit's business among the members of the unit -- but when folks are skeptical of Beauchamp at least partly cuz he was writing about his unit's lack of discipline for the whole world, under a pen name: you dis THEM for being skeptical, without a word against the guy who was making his comrades look like assholes to the world, and hiding behind a pen name to do it.

Like I said, you got issues -- and whatever they are, the Beauchamp case ain't about you, nor them.

Many of us have argued with the Americanist all over the internets, and on a wide variety of topics. Whatever the merits of his views on immigration reform may be, those who have argued with him know (and frequently have proof) that his batting average for accuracy varies much more widely than his confidence in the correctness of his assertions.

Uh-huh.

Tell us, another, what's this mean?

"(5) Sworn statements from Private Beauchamp stating he did not hit or target dogs as a driver of a Bradley nor did he see a "mass grave" but did find animal bones during the initial occupation of Combat Outpost Ellis (Exhibit E)."

And while you're at it, another, kindly explain what all these guys have in common: "Pribyla, Preszler, King, Duncan, Reinhardt, Long, Franz, Moon, Cunningham, Gutierrz, Brown, Bauer, Gabriel, Showman, Martin, Hancock, McLauglin, Whitmore and Ilgenfritz."

Lord knows I poke folks in the eye around here for fun, so fair's fair: but it is REMARKABLE how fast folks seem to want to change a thread about Beauchamp and TNR and the Army into literally ANYTHING else.

Americanist,

The point that you have been repeatedly challenged on is that you are harping on this:

A: "Scoblic: Scott, I mean we've been asking for those statements for weeks and you told us you were trying to get them and you told your lawyer you were trying to get them. And, now you're saying taht you haven't tried to get them."

However, just a few lines before, in your own posting, this statement is completely contradicted:

B:"Beauchamp: I was going to do and I talked to... I did talk to my lawyer. And I can still get those. I'm working on getting those."

From (B) it would appear that Scobolic's statement (A), as well as your continued reiteration of it, is false.

A few other points stand out. The first is that you do not reference your "excerpt" or where it comes from. By your standards this would be enough to reject it out of hand. Secondly the excerpt appears to be redacted - at least that is one interpretation of the ellipses. Thirdly, the fact that Beauchamp's response to Scobolic's final statement is missing indicates that the excerpt, if accurate, has been truncated to show Beauchamp in the worst possible light.

Other than that, I would say that the veracity of the Beauchamp incidents has not been proven or disproven. TNR did make a good faith effort to verify them by contacting other soldiers who supported them, but their fact-checker could have been hoodwinked. Nor should you be so blindly complacent about the Army's investigation, unless you've never heard of a guy named Tillman.

@theAmericanist

I applaud your use of logic and your ability to make a coherent argument. I'm pleasantly surprised to see those characteristics from a self-professed progressive. I noticed something interesting...you can't even display those skills without being called a Bushist. We probably disagree on many other issues; however, it is refreshing to see some sanity from the other side.

It appears to me that as your argument becomes increasingly validated, that the original issue becomes less important to many of the people here. I wonder why that is? (Damn it! We can't bash the military on this one!) I think you understand why the left's argument appears so insincere to most on the right. You still have people here reaching all the way back to Abu Ghraib to find anything that even remotely resembles a reason to denegrate.

I believe in criticism where it is due. But, it seems to me that liberals must often put together a looong line of assumptions and assertions to see things that they want to be true--which COULD be true, but not necessarily. That's the problem with conspiracy theories. I believe in innocence until PROVEN guilty. Well, there also tends to be a difference between the left and right on what "proof" is? I personally don't consider, for example, a YouTube video of a chaotic combat seen showing soldiers returning fire in the direction of what APPEARS to be civilians because they are wearing civilian clothes. If that's the level of proof that is sufficient for many here and throughout America, then we truly have a problem.

Now, as far as this comment goes:
You've started to channel Joe McCarthy, waving a blank piece of paper proving the Army is a 'conspiracy so vast'... that it leaves no trace.
Posted by: theAmericanist on October 26, 2007 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

McCarthy's argument would have been helped significantly by the Venona documents that were first released in 1995. I know there is a debate about those documents also. Maybe, another place at another time...

Ciao!

Hacksaw:
What evidence do you have that Beauchamp's confession is coerced?

Anonymous:
Fair enough:

It is you who are selectively relying on Beauchamp's possibly coerced "confession" assuming that such a "confession" actually exists, seeing as the military has refused to release the alleged document and the only evidence of its existence is an anonymous military source.

How about letting us take this a step or two further back? How about letting Beauchamp PROVE his story is true...especially when he has included other soldiers in it? This is what would be required in any sane court of law. But no...let's jump ahead and put the burden of proof on the military. It really is just that simple. I can't even fathom that some are trying to debate this otherwise. I hope none of you end up on jury duty. Jeez.

According to many here, any soldier can concoct a story about war atrocities, and the military must prove it wrong. This is the same type of reasoning that gets the media caught with their pants down trying to push stories like those of Jesse MacBeth's. Can we put the horse BEFORE the carriage?

The same respect you demanded of those eventually convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Well, we know where your loyalties lie.

Protect conservative soldiers who lie and commit crimes against humanity, rather than honor the majority in our military who perform heroically without sacrificing their honor and integrity.

How in the hell do you know the idiology of any soldiers convicted of any crimes? What an idiot! (Not name calling...just stating the IQ level that comment reflects)

. . . his staff sergeant says, flatly: Yes, you can.

Yeah, an Army staff sergeant would never lie or do anything immoral.
Hey, weren't some of those convicted in Abu Ghraib staff sergeants?
Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
Hmmmmmmmm.

Here we go again...that great liberal logic rearing its ugly head. Again, aT is right, with stuff like this you just give more ammo to the right.

So, let me get this straight. Since one staff sergeant was convicted of a crime, all other staff sergeants word must be called into question by default. If this is the case, then please be consistent: If Jesse MacBeth lied, then...(do I need to finish this point?) You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well, my comments will probably be deleted again anyway.

Ooops, sorry. I hope this is a bit clearer.

Hacksaw:
What evidence do you have that Beauchamp's confession is coerced?

Anonymous:
Fair enough:
It is you who are selectively relying on Beauchamp's possibly coerced "confession" assuming that such a "confession" actually exists, seeing as the military has refused to release the alleged document and the only evidence of its existence is an anonymous military source.

How about letting us take this a step or two further back? How about letting Beauchamp PROVE his story is true...especially when he has included other soldiers in it? This is what would be required in any sane court of law. But no...let's jump ahead and put the burden of proof on the military. It really is just that simple. I can't even fathom that some are trying to debate this otherwise. I hope none of you end up on jury duty. Jeez.

According to many here, any soldier can concoct a story about war atrocities, and the military must prove it wrong. This is the same type of reasoning that gets the media caught with their pants down trying to push stories like those of Jesse MacBeth's. Can we put the horse BEFORE the carriage?

The same respect you demanded of those eventually convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Anonymous:
Well, we know where your loyalties lie.

Protect conservative soldiers who lie and commit crimes against humanity, rather than honor the majority in our military who perform heroically without sacrificing their honor and integrity.

How in the hell do you know the idiology of any soldiers convicted of any crimes? What an idiot! (Not name calling...just stating the IQ level that comment reflects)

. . . his staff sergeant says, flatly: Yes, you can.

Anonymous:
Yeah, an Army staff sergeant would never lie or do anything immoral.
Hey, weren't some of those convicted in Abu Ghraib staff sergeants?
Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
Hmmmmmmmm.

Here we go again...that great liberal logic rearing its ugly head. Again, aT is right, with stuff like this you just give more ammo to the right.

So, let me get this straight. Since one staff sergeant was convicted of a crime, all other staff sergeants word must be called into question by default. If this is the case, then please be consistent: If Jesse MacBeth lied, then...(do I need to finish this point?) You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well, my comments will probably be deleted again anyway.

Here's the problem the American military faces - it has committed war crimes in the unprovoked assault on the people of Iraq. It has demonstrated that, when faced with criminal acts among its members that it will lie, cover up, and otherwise obstruct the revelation of the truth in order to protect its image. It has no credibility. Not because one sergeant lied, but because the entire infrastructure conspired to conceal its complicity in multiple war crimes. These stories represent nothing. Compared to a full scale assault on the civilian population of Baghdad mocking a woman's disfigurement is just so trivial as to be ignored in the normal course of events.

Indeed, it isn't the progressives who have difficulty with logic and reason, but the assholes who still, after four years and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, believe that somehow in some way that Iraq represented a threat to American national security. These aren't people for whom logic and reason are a natural home. Evidence is an anathema to such cretins. TheFascist is merely trying to apologize for an organization that has descended into monstrous behavior in the slaughter of Iraqis.

For those who think otherwise, when was the last time a member of the United States military gave his life for the national security of the United States? Certainly not in Iraq. Not in Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, or Vietnam.

Here's a little secret. The United States Military does not deal in national security. At best it does world policeman duties. At worst it is the tool of self-aggrandizement for petty thugs like George W. Bush.

Heavy nails it! The U.S. military is an undemocratic and ultimately, fascist, organization. It exists, in the final analysis, only to kill other human beings. You can put all these flowery, high-sounding justifications around the reason for it's existence (e.g. "preserving democracy", "protecting our freedoms", blah, blah, blah) that you want, but it is not Christian and it is unAmerican.

Read The Federalist Papers - our Founding Fathers did NOT want a standing army. They knew it would ultimately undermine democracy, NOT sustain it. The example Kevin cites is proof of that. We need to defund the military, not gorge it, as Bush and Cheney want us to...

ex-liberal, current-mentiroso:
The leaked info shows that Beauchamp swore under oath to the Army that his stories were fallacious. It shows that he refused to support their veracity when talking to TNR.

anonymous:
With a figurative gun held to his head.
You must've missed the story of Higazy and all those stories of alleged criminals exonerated years after convictions based "confessions" were coerced by the police threatening no more than what the Army threatened Beauchamp with.

ex-liberal:
That ought to settle the matter.

anonymous:
Sure, for liars like you, the Army, and the Drudges of the world it would.
More circumspect people who like to base their conclusions on the full set of facts, not speculation and selective cherry-picking of leaked "facts" of questionable authenticity or veracity, are of a different opinion.
Posted by: anonymous on October 26, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

More circumspect people? This coming out of the corner of champions like Dan Rather and the MSM in general. Have I been posting comments in the Twilight Zone?

Once more, one case--Higazy--is supposed to prove/support that of another unrelated case--Beauchamp. Does anyone see what is wrong with this line of reasoning? Somebody? It makes me call into question anything Anonymous has to say about ANYTHING.

@ex-lib

Congratulations for taking the red pill. I've been there too. Sometimes it seems that life would have been much easier, and remain ignorant, by taking the blue pill.

Bravo Heavy and The Conservative Deflator! At least a couple of leftists are not afraid to show their true colors. With all your high-browing, faux-intellectual bloviating, you just continue to build the right's case.

I save several copies of websites like this for record. You make great fodder. Especially, when those who run this site delete comments that I've already saved.

Hey guys, have you ever considered another possibility why the military tries to keep its investigations of ALLEGED war crimes under the radar? Could it be that they know what happens to information when it gets into the hands of the media and those with political agendas? Naaa, couldn't possibly be...right? Oooohh, that evil GW!

"Indeed, it isn't the progressives who have difficulty with logic and reason, but the assholes who still, after four years and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, believe that somehow in some way that Iraq represented a threat to American national security. These aren't people for whom logic and reason are a natural home. Evidence is an anathema to such cretins."

Oh yes. So much logic and reason has been expressed here. Wow, am I overwhelmed. This is classic stuff. I've heard the same crap regurgitated many times...but never so elequently.

McDruid, not to confuse you with the calendar or nothing, but I took it for granted that folks would notice that when Scoblic was bitching at Beauchamp for having failed for "weeks" to get documents that he had promised TNR, and Beauchamp mumbled something about how he was 'trying', which Scoblic manifestly did not believe...

... that was SIX weeks ago.

TNR still doesn't have the documents that the Army pointed out that Beauchamp can get, and provide to TNR, whenever he wants to.

So I've concluded he doesn't want to. Seems reasonable to me. What seems reasonable to you?

I've even suggested a REASON, upthread: he doesn't want TNR to sue him. Beauchamp is still stuck between a rock and hard place, especially given the nasty little corner into which TNR has painted itself cuz they stopped caring about the truth to focus on their rep: now they got neither.

The guy told stories to TNR, on which they have staked their shitstained reputation and for which they paid him. AND he has told the US Army, under oath, that the stories aren't true, for which they have punished him mildly.

Others have pointed out, by publicly stating that what Beauchamp recanted is actually his sworn statements to the Army, they've put the poor bastard into considerable real legal jeopardy. If Foer is telling the truth (and more to the point, by making it public) that Beauchamp told him the stories are, so, true, then Beauchamp committed perjury to the Army.

Progressives seem to think for some bogus ideological solidarity that they should BACK this guy, cuz after all, the Army is 'coercing' him. This is an astonishing hallucination: there ain't NOTHING that would be better for an ambitious young writer's career than to have written a bit of courageous truth-telling, been punished by the military in some picturesquely harsh manner, then return home to a book and the talk shows.

Hell, that was clearly what Beauchamp was hoping to do ... until the guys who are actually there WITH him read his stories, and called him on how bullshit they are.

What strikes me as more important is that TNR may have indicated to Beauchamp through the lawyer THEY hired for him, that if he recants the stories their options include suing him for fraud. But they can only do that (it would be a sorta petulant way to try to scrub the stains from their reputation, and I doubt it would work) if he lets 'em see the documents in which he swore under penulty of perjury that the stories were lies and distortions.

Which, oddly enough, are the same documents that SIX WEEKS AGO, Scoblic was complaining that Beauchamp wasn't exactly eager to provide and which, SIX WEEKS LATER, the New Republic still ain't got.

Even though the Army has said: far as we're concerned, they're all yours -- it's up to Beauchamp.

What seems reasonable for you to conclude 'bout that, particularly since TNR knew about the transcribed conversation the day it happened -- yet didn't promptly report 'our writer won't back up his stories any more'?

What seems reasonable to you to conclude about the way TNR asked Beauchamp not to talk to the Post or Newsweek, so they could 'control the story' -- which they didn't report on until somebody ELSE did, with THESE documents that TNR had known all about for six weeks, whose accuracy they acknowledge?

Yanno, I think beyond the specifics here, what ought to trouble both journalists and folks who care about politics (not to mention our guys in Iraq, and, um, the Future of the World), is that: this is what Beauchamp evidently thought writers DO. Move an event from one country to another, make something that happened before, happen after, and hell, just make stuff up wholesale.

Apparently he really figured that the proper subject for a soldier going to war was his own feelings about it, and he was clearly encouraged in this by what used to be considered a major progressive magazine which allowed him to use a pen name and tell sole-source stories, with no names or specifics to check. It immediately got to the point that, again and again, Beauchamp lied and distorted what had actually happened to Tell The Larger Truth.

I get the impression that it never occurred to him when he described an undisciplined, callous and cruel, and in fact inexperienced unit, he was describing REAL people, guys he actually knew to be unlike the stories he was telling -- and that they would find about before he got back to that American book contract that the "Scott Thomas" writing in TNR was Pvt. Beauchamp at FOB Falcon.

The Beauchamp case has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. It has nothing to do with the Tillman case. It is not about My Lai. What this guy said is not any more, or less true because Bush cooked the books to start the war.

Why does somebody like Donald From bitch that he hopes both Beauchamp and my 15 minutes are up? (It ain't ABOUT me, already. All I've done is insist from the beginning, and every single frigging piece of evidence that turns up backs me up, that this guy was full of shit.)

Face it, you guys have a lot emotionally invested in this CUZ YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS TRUE. Think about that -- ain't it odd that you're not RELIEVED to find out that no, there was no scarred soldier being mocked by her comrades? You're not happy to learn that there wasn't a guy with a weapon wandering around Iraq who thought it would be fun to wear a kid's skull on his head?

Hell, even Elmo oughta ask himself why he isn't confirmed in his faith in the infantry that it turns out they're NOT so stupid as to damage Bradley's by joyriding after dogs in combat.

And hell, as I keep pointing out, if you DO believe that Abu Ghraib and the Tillman case are typical, you should be MORE skeptical about Beauchamp and TNR, not less.

God forbid that some REAL whistleblower should need support from opinion journals like TNR and the Monthly anytime soon, cuz you're just pissing your cred away for nothing.

theAmericanist on October 27, 2007 at 8:10 AM:

..stopped caring about the truth to focus on their rep: now they got neither.

Pot, meet kettle.

You ever hear of a commenter here who posted under the name of Don P.? You act a whole lot like that person; completely unable to engage in a good faith debate while continually demanding attention.

All I'd need to convince me that you are the one and the same would be a really poor WWII analogy or some way to relate some anti-choice crapola to this topic. Really.

"It's not about me."

Well, we can be excused for thinking it might be, given that so many of your posts in other threads contain phrases like, "Do you KNOW who I AM?" (Sorry, Senator Craig! We didn't recognize you till we saw your business card.) or "Google me!" or "My [article, essay, insane rant] on subject X, which is totally unrelated to the topic of this thread but which I'm crowbarring into this conversation anyway, is probably still around online."

Okay. So we can all use Google. And if I had a buck for every time you've gratuitously and hamhandedly aggrandized yourself here, I could give it to your (presumably) current employers, who are doing good work, and they could meet your consulting fee instead of announcing online that they need donations to keep you on the payroll. (Doing anything else at all these days besides obsessing at Political Animal 24/7?)

Anyway, we appreciate your newfound humility, Paul, late in the game as it is. Now you might consider doing something this weekend besides producing increasingly hysterical screeds in this and so many other threads. (That last bit won't prevent you from trying to pretend I just defended Beauchamp, but others with reading comprehension and honesty will be able to follow along.) As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, you really are behaving like a batshit insane man to complement your usual M.O. of rank assholity. Take a walk, join the anti-war rally, read a novel, call your kid, do anything to break your cycle of crazy here, buddy.

Didn't it always seem surprising that Beauchamp had experienced or witnessed so many events worth writing about during his few months in Iraq? Army life isn't a National Lampoon movie. The most interesting parts are battles, but TNR wouldn't publish articles about American soliders fighting bravely against the enemy.

To get published in TNR, Beauchamp needed to write about soldiers screwing up, and doing so in interesting ways. So, he started with urban legends like vehicles running over dogs. Or he started with some ordinary event, like finding animal bones in a grave. Then, he embellished the story until it was interesting enough to publish. That's a technique that John Irving and other writers have done so well, but they called their writings "ficion."

"Yanno, I think beyond the specifics here, what ought to trouble both journalists and folks who care about politics (not to mention our guys in Iraq, and, um, the Future of the World), is that: this is what Beauchamp evidently thought writers DO. Move an event from one country to another, make something that happened before, happen after, and hell, just make stuff up wholesale."

Actually, Beauchamp just mimicked the practices of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld and the rest of the 24 percenters' heros and role models by MAKING IT UP AS HE WENT ALONG. After all, to paraphrase the immortal Cosntanza, "it's not a lie if you want to believe it." But of course or "americanist" et al., one can easily say (to use his own words): "Face it, you guys have a lot emotionally invested in this CUZ YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS TRUE."

Petard, meet hoist.

"real" is catching on: "Beauchamp just mimicked the practices of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld and the rest..."

Now, repeat after me: "That's not a good thing, that's not a good thing, that's not a good thing..."

Shortstop, it's up to you whether you like me or not, but I really do try to keep myself out of this crap, except insofar as it sheds light on one point or another in an argument. I note that *you* aren't particularly interested in keeping me out of it, with a series of posts that attack me, my profession, and my family. You've turned into a digital version of Whack a Mole, showing up to dis me just for the sake of... what?

Oddly, I find it helps to know what you're talking about -- so when I DO, I don't leave that out.

F'r instance, now and then, I'll note the Rule of Four, where the electorate is polled to be strongly this, sorta this, sorta that, or strongly that. I do that for a REASON -- it measures how to move votes from against you, to sorta for you. When I've cited the Rule of 4 in threads, it's cuz I've seen it work.

Have you?

Then why are you complaining that somebody who knows how it works, uses it as an example? The Beauchamp story is an example of how it works -- lots of folks who are 'sorta' in favor of just getting the hell out of Iraq, are moved to be 'strongly against' folks who reflexively dis our military. That's why I've spent so much goddam time on this one (less than you think, I'm the fastest writer I've ever met: 100 words a minute off the top of my head, easy): it's IMPORTANT.

That's why, in THIS thread, I've noted that I've been an anonymous source (and an on the record one, including in the Monthly, in fact), AND I've been a reporter whose used anonymous sources.

Seems sorta relevant to a series of stories and their defense that rely on anonymous sources, don't ya think?

YOU ever been an anonymous source, quoted in the media? Ever written for the media, using an anonymous source?

Then why are you complaining about how that experience is relevant to a discussion about anonymous sourcing?

However odd it may seem to you, some folks think knowing what you're talking about has a place in a discussion.

In the end, the most salient feature of all the crap that you guys focus on me when we argue, is summed up by "real" -- he somehow thinks that cuz I recognize Beauchamp is full of shit, I must somehow have defended Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Somebody should check the story about Rumsfeld in Lebanon in 1983, how it led directly to the death of 223 Marines, IIRC. You ever told that story, "real"?

I suppose probably the most self-righteous thing I've ever said here (contents may have settled during shipping and handling, your results may vary) is to note, once in a blue moon, that I have better progressive credentials than most folks who post here. The reason I SAY that, when I do, is cuz it seems like an absolute NECESSITY for y'all to hallucinate that anybody who talks clean common sense must be one of Cheney's minions.

That ain't healthy. Grow up.

Much ado about very little
…The other thing to note is that the easy way out for TNR would be to just throw Beauchamp under the bus, since nothing of any significance turns on the veracity of his stories (contrary to the myths being spun about these cases, nobody cared about his diaries until right-wing bloggers made a big deal about them, and nobody's case against the war turns on the bad behavior of some individual soldiers), especially since it's not as if the magazine is against the war anyway. I think Foer deserves credit for backing up his writer until actual verifiable evidence that further aspects of his stories are false (and "they don't sound right" or "no soldiers would ever do anything against the rules" certainly don't count) emerges.
UPDATE: A correspondent points out that Beauchamp didn't even retract his story to the military, but simply refused to say anything.

…that I have better progressive credentials than most folks who post here….theAmericanist at 11:19 AM

@theAmericanist and ex-liberal

Don't you guys ever get the feeling that trying to explain things--that are fundamentally easy to understand--to some people, is like trying to rake together a pile of leaves on a windy day?

The comments from grape-crush, shortstop, and "real"Americanist (very original) add absolutely nothing to the debate. TA, you did a great job, and probably spent a lot of time, trying to be reasonable...but, as you see, to no avail. Now, you see why it is difficult for us to speak to your side. Don't get me wrong, I know some eggheads on our side too...but man, go back and read some of this stuff. Unbelievable. I feel like taking some of them over my knee and spanking them.

"real"Americanist, this works both ways,"it's not a lie if you want to believe it."

Mike: it'd help if, before you posted something, you caught a clue.

It's simply NOT true "that Beauchamp didn't even retract his story to the military, but simply refused to say anything."

Exhibit E.

Shortstop, it's up to you whether you like me or not

It's like this, Paul: virtually no one likes you. Your chosen manner of conduct alienates you from almost every single other being with whom you come in conduct. And that's a damn shame for you, because you know something about a few subjects, and imagine what you could've accomplished if you hadn't opted to gratuitously insult people at every turn, argue so erratically and represent other people's viewpoints so dishonestly.

When one's behavior is so out of control that it eclipses whatever it is one is trying to say, it really does become all about the behavior. And you've heard this before plenty of places besides Political Animal.

but I really do try to keep myself out of this crap

It would probably take me but a few minutes to come up with 100 examples of you not "keeping yourself out of this crap." You self aggrandize more frequently than wild hares fuck, to borrow from the thread above. What is the point of pretending that you don't, other than maintaining a self image that has been correctly observed by dozens to be horrendously out of step with reality?

a series of posts that attack me, my profession, and my family.

One out of three ain't bad for you. Of course, you can't produce a single post in which I've denigrated your profession or your family. In fact, mentioning that the organization that employs you does good work and suggesting that you call your kid as a healthy break from nonstop, unfocused online ranting are, to the minimally rational and emotionally stable, both objectively non-attacks.

The rest of your post is, like virtually all of your wandering diatribes, an attempt to reinforce points you think are important that, of course, have absolutely zero to do with what the person you're responding to actually said. Honest, the voices you hear in your head are not the same as the text you see on your screen. If you don't believe me, print them both out and have someone else compare them side by side sometime.

Walk. Call. Read book. Sleep. Exercise. Anything. You'll thank me later when you're in better shape.

Apropos of whether Beauchamp retracted his statements to the military, we get this from TNR:

The next day [after the recorded conversation], via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

On September 14, we also spoke at length with Major John Cross, who led the Army’s investigation into the Beauchamp case. Contrary to reports in The Weekly Standard and other outlets, Cross explicitly said that Beauchamp “did not recant� his article in the sworn statements he had given the Army. Moreover, although the Army’s investigation—which declared that the claims in “Shock Troops� were false—purported to be conclusive, Cross conceded that there were at least a dozen soldiers in Beauchamp’s platoon whom he had not interviewed. TNR pressed for clarification:

Scoblic: So you didn’t get statements from everyone in his platoon, then?

Cross: We got statements from everyone in his platoon that was available that day we were conducting the investigation.

Scoblic: At a later point did you follow up with any of the people that weren’t available that day?

Cross: No.

Foer: Ellie [Elspeth Reeves, Beauchamp's wife] sent me an e-mail to tell you it's the most important thing in the world for her that you say that you didn't recant.

Beauchamp: To say what?

Foer: I think, I don't wanna ... You're obviously in a very uncomfortable position in that your wife is involved in this, and I wish she wasn't involved because I, I ... trust her, I care for her, I don't want her to get hurt in all of this. But, she just sent me a note to tell you that it's the most important thing to her that you say you didn't recant. And I don't ... I feel that (unintelligible) in saying that to you because it puts me in an awkward position, but it's what she wanted me to convey to you.
----------------------------------------------

No pressure/coercion from Foer there...nnaaa.

Btw, the Army DID interview 13 from 25 soldiers. They have all signed sworn statements refuting Beauchamp.

Furthermore, where does the burden of proof fall here?

(snicker) So, let me get this straight: Pribyla, Preszler, King, Duncan, Reinhardt, Long, Franz, Moon, Cunningham, Gutierrz, Brown, Bauer, Gabriel, Showman, Martin, Hancock, McLauglin, Whitmore and Ilgenfritz, they don't count.

"at least a dozen" un-named guys, DO count.

Dayum, you're a sucker, Frankly. I should call you up and sell you free range coffee filters.

TNR's 'defense' is all windup and no pitch. Note that they didn't say "we know of a couple guys, the ones we interviewed, and somehow THEY weren't included in that named list.'

Why didn't they say that? Seems relevant. Hell, if it was true, it would be the strongest circumstantial evidence for the coverup that you all hallucinate is the only explanation.

The long list of folks the Army interviewed, and cited by name, begs the question: Were any of THEM the soldiers whom TNR interviewed, who backed up Beauchamp's story yet declined to be identified?

Makes ya wonder, don't it? Although you are remarkably incurious about stuff that happens outside your blinders, Frankly.

Seems to me that an honest person constructing TNR's defense would surely point out that somehow the Army had failed to interview THEIR witnesses, the ones whom they claim corroborated THEIR story. Unless, of course, it didn't happen, and they DID interview the guys whom TNR had relied on as anonymous corrobators -- if they existed at all.

It seems a helluva lot more likely that the Army DID interview the guys whom they claim backed up Beauchamp -- if they existed at all. So integrity would require that TNR come clean to note that, like Beauchamp himself, they've told the Army under oath that what they told TNR wasn't true.

So which is it? I don't see a third possibility: do you? Either TNR, particularly Foer, under the most intense scrutiny of what is proving out to be a distinctly unpromising career, somehow forgot to include the best evidence he's got that he's not a fool and fraud -- or else he left out the part where EVERYBODY ELSE bailed on the story, and not just Beauchamp.

"at least a dozen" says that TNR is not trying to protect one or two anonymous sources, as they've claimed they have.

That's more than enough cover to make the definitive "they didn't interview our guys", while the NINETEEN NAMED GUYS is plenty to protect the one or two whom (as TNR insists) corroborated Beauchamp.... that is, before he confirmed that he got that whole Kuwait/Iraq thing wrong...

... not to mention the before/after his first experience of combat thing...

...and then there's that taking back the Bradley story...

and, oh yeah, the way he swore on his oath that the mass grave thing was phony, too:

Exhibit E.