Jul
26

Faster, Chickenhawk! Kill! Kill!




Posted at 19:59 by Gavin M.

1) WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor.

2) WingNet proven wrong.

beauchamp45.jpg
Above: TNR contributor Pvt. Scott Beauchamp

3) WingNet backfills, engages motorized goalposts, attacks with redoubled fury.

3.5) Developing: WingNet completely loses narrative; forms digital lynch mob; redefines success to mean utterly destroying the targeted person by any means available, short of leaving the safety of their heavily-farted computer chairs.

4) Upcoming: WingNet brags about triumphant victory over forces of anti-American calling-them-wrongness which are blatantly in league with the terrorists, enjoys brief period of tumescence, finds new victim.

124 Comments »

  1. DeadlyShoe said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:18

    their flailing around is pretty sad… especially the hotair link.

    isn’t there a law against that many post updates?

  2. TomMil said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:22

    You left off,

    5.) Repeat as necessary.

  3. over_educated said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:23

    Malkin, Hewwitt an RedState have gone into full swiftboat mode… Pretty much everything this guy ever put on his blog is now being taken out of context to make him look like Che Guevara.

    I mean I’m used to this kind of stuff from the wingnuts, but there current screed has the most blant “1984″ overtones I have ever seen.

  4. Uncle Jimbo said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:27

    He was trying to be a modern day Che. Revolutionary, writer, healer of civilization.

    Bottom line is he is a liar and a punk, and I never questioned that he was a soldier, just whether he was a good one. His own blog answered that…..dung beetle. Thanks for the link to Blackfive.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

  5. El Cid said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:35

    Faster ChickenHawk! Spill! Spill!!!

  6. Sarcastro said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:37

    Similarly Jimbo, we have never questioned wether you are a human, just wether you are a good one.

    There’s a little ditty from a Mystery Science theatre that comes to mind. It goes:

    “Loser, loser, complete and total loser. Loser, loser, LA LA LA.”

  7. mikey said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:39

    “If you don’t agree with me about everything, right down the line, if you have the temerity to take a position that I’ve made it CLEAR I disagree with, if you have an opinion that runs counter to mine, well then you are a liar and a punk.

    “What? Other possible options? Other possible belief systems that are not either full-throated agreement with my obviously correct beliefs or lying punk? I’m sorry, I can’t visualize how that could be possible.”

    The false binary. It’s not just for breakfast anymore…

    mikey

  8. Gavin M. said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:41

    Faster ChickenHawk! Spill! Spill!!!

    Oh god, I shouldn’t do this, but I’m changing the post title.

    [!!!]

  9. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:43

    I support post title change. Nice one, El Cid.

  10. Duros62 said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:44

    First off, why do they hate our troops so much?

    Secondly, why is it that when John Yon writes about (how he heard from a guy who knows a guy whose cousin was there and he saw the whole thing, I swear to fuckin’ God, dude!) baked stuffed children, it’s all taken as fact at face value but this soldier’s very existence is brought into question?

  11. Duros62 said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:45

    Nice one, El Cid.

    Hear, hear!

  12. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:50

    Duros62,

    1) Start from the assumption that you are right about everything.

    2) You are all for blowing up / bringing freedom to Iraqis (which of those changes, depending on which best serves 1).

    3) Anyone who challenges 1) must be an islamohomomexifacsciliberal who either doesn’t exist or is lying.

  13. El Cid said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:52

    It came to me in a momentary flash, an insight. It was the Voice of God. Or something like that.

  14. over_educated said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:56

    Uncle J-

    Were you born retarded, or did you become retarded as the result of some sort of accident?

    I mean doesn’t being proven wrong, repeatedly, mean anything to you?

    To quote john Cole-
    “First they claimed Beauchamp’s unit never discovered a mass grave. They were wrong.

    Then they claimed he was not really soldier. They were wrong.

    Now they are arguing whether or not a Bradley can run over a dog. Any guesses as to how this is going to turn out?”

    Seriously how the $%^@ do you have any idea what this kid saw you @$$-talking chickenhawk mutha-$#@%#%?

  15. His Grace said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:56

    I think that the holy grail of wingnuttia at this point would be to tie this all to Jamil Hussein.

  16. Derelict said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:56

    The day will soon come when these lunatics find themsleves having to accuse the vast bulk of the U.S. military of not existing, and then admitting that even though most of the military exists, they’re all a bunch of leftist terrorist-sympathizing commies.

    But I guess you do what you can when every minute of every day brings more solid evidence that your entire worldview is completed fucked.

  17. Gavin M. said,

    July 26, 2007 at 20:56

    [bowing to El Cid's greater powers]

    I just thought a Harlan Ellison reference would be, you know, hip or something.

  18. mikey said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:05

    It’s obviously all a lie. The Bradley driver was Michael Vick!!

    mikey

  19. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:10

    Russ Meyer is pretty hip, too. Or bosom maybe.

  20. Jake H. said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:14

    Whatever, he’s still made up, Ward Churchill was paid to write those diaries by George Soros and something something Hillary something haircut something something fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here something something clash of civilizations GLARBLE AAAAAAIIYYEEEEE!!!!

  21. NobodySpecial said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:23

    I think that the holy grail of wingnuttia at this point would be to tie this all to Jamil Hussein

    Think about it. Jamil Hussein doesn’t exist. This guy doesn’t exist.

    Nonexistence has a liberal bias!!!!!

  22. Sadly, No! » Weapons Of Math Obstruction said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:31

    [...] three monumental achievements towering out of the daily whooping wrongness and mortification of everything else they ever say, practically down to the level of words such as ‘and’ and [...]

  23. Sadly, No! » Weapons Of Math Obstruction said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:31

    [...] three monumental achievements towering out of the daily whooping wrongness and mortification of everything else they ever say, practically down to the level of words such as ‘and’ and [...]

  24. Legalize said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:38

    Goalpost Movery / Insanity 101, from the comment section of Gateway Pundit:

    DCM said…
    I still think the greater issue here is not whether Beachamp exists or are his stories true of false but what can be done to New Republic / Foer for runnng these stories hoping to sell a few more magazines and help turn American public against the war even though our troops will pay for it with their blood. If not technically and legally aiding the enemy in time of war, it is certainly that in fact. If there are any readers here (which there probably are not)that subscribe or advertise in New Republic to cancel their subscriptions or advertising.

    10:10 AM

  25. Sophist, FCD said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:41

    And predictably (in typical leftist fashion), Scott Thomas is calling everyone questioning the veracity and factual accuracy of his highly suspect ‘reporting’ a “chickenhawk.” That’s right. The milbloggers, many of whom have served in Iraq and others that are career military men, are “chickenhawks.”

    Funny how the definition of chickenhawk, as defined by the left, morphs from “never served yet supports the fight against terrorism” to “is serving in Iraq/Afghanistan or has served and doesn’t agree with the Democrat Party.” Pathetic.

    So Scott Beauchamp is “The Left” now? Sweet! The next time some wingnut starts blathering on about “The Left” this and “The Left” that, I can say “Oh, that’s not us anymore. You want Scott Beauchamp. I think I have his email address around here somwhere, if you want to take it up with him…”

  26. KingCranky said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:49

    Interesting and amusing, on page 54 of the book “Samuel Johnson’s Insults”, we get this definition of the word “Malkin”

    Malkin {from Mal, of Mary, and Kin, the diminutive termination}

    A kind of mop made of clouts for sweeping ovens; thence a frightful figure of clouts dressed up; thence a dirty wench

    And for even more fun, just punch in the term Definition of “Malkin” on a search engine, and one of the definitions that comes back includes the term “slattern”, which also translates to Slut, Prostitute

    I’d say Michelle picked a pretty appropriate last name in her case

  27. Lesly said,

    July 26, 2007 at 21:51

    Ya’ll don’t understand. Our 101st Fighting Keyboarders can’t rightly recommend keeping more troops in Iraq if the character of our finest succumbs to the daily atrocities. Only pussies are unable to put up with the carnage and carelessness of war.

  28. Uncle Jimbo said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:17

    Wow you guys are much too smart for me to deal with, I shoulda stayed safe with my wingnet buddies.

    Since apparently none of you read what I wrote I’ll share. I said all along that he was probably a soldier, just a punkass whiner. I think his blog pretty much validates that one hundred percent. He joined to get some cred for his “writing” career, self-admitted again and I also said that something like what he described happened in each case, but not such open idiocy tolerated by all around. Doesn’t work that way, even Abu Ghraib came out from a member of the unit.

    So little Private Beauchamp is a dung beetle, and while nowhere near as smart as you intellectuals, I have the advantage of knowing WTF I’m talking about.

    Cordially,

    Uncle J

  29. Some Guy said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:22

    “His Grace said,
    July 26, 2007 at 20:56

    I think that the holy grail of wingnuttia at this point would be to tie this all to Jamil Hussein.”

    Plus Vince Foster, Kos, or Al Gore.

  30. Some Guy said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:26

    Wait, so, he’s right, but he’s still a scum-bag loser dung beetle because he doesn’t write very well.

    Gotcha.

  31. J— said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:29

    Media Mythbusters Blog is on the case.

    The National Review posted a statement from Scott Thomas Beauchamp identifying him as the Baghdad Diarist whose stories have recently sparked controversy and raised numerous questions.

    Yes, that “The National Review” link goes to The New Republic. Keep up the good work!

  32. a different brad said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:29

    From the Jawareport-
    “Now that the TNR source has been revealed, the questions can now be asked of him and TNR – should he face charges for participating in alleged massacres and sociopathic behavior, for witnessing this kind of behavior without reporting it up the chain of command, or are the things he ‘reported’ merely exaggerations or at worst outright lies?”
    And then my head exploded.

  33. Simba B. said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:30

    I love it when the wingnuts who are mocked in a post show up in the comments. They reveal themselves as so incredibly insecure that they are checking their server logs for Referer: values often enough that they showed up here while the thread was still alive.

    Next look out for a grammatically-challenged Flash animation.

  34. Olexicon said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:30

    Wait, so, he’s right, but he’s still a scum-bag loser dung beetle because he doesn’t write very well.

    Gotcha

    and isn’t calling your opponents “bugs” striaght ourt of germany circa 1939?

  35. Happenstance said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:31

    As Uncle J waves his flabby arms and repeats himself over and over again in an attempt to get attention, let us instead honor the first guy to become a Troop Traitor in the eyes of the Nutsuckers: the man who stood up and asked Rumsfeld where their armor was. …THE DIRTY BASTARD!

    The Onion’s newest editorial cartoon would probably, like everything else, sail right over Uncle J’s head.

    h**p://www.theonion.com/content/cartoon/jul-23-2007

  36. Olexicon said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:31

    Wait, so, he’s right, but he’s still a scum-bag loser dung beetle because he doesn’t write very well.

    Gotcha

    and isn’t calling your opponents “bugs” straight out of Germany circa 1939?

  37. Olexicon said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:33

    double post apologies

  38. Happenstance said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:35

    I’ma say it again: I can’t believe I’m living in a time in which war heroes are treated as traitors and cowards, and traitors and cowards are treated as war heroes. It’s…it’s like something out of a novel…

  39. Gavin M. said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:37

    Since apparently none of you read what I wrote I’ll share. I said all along that he was probably a soldier, just a punkass whiner.

    I didn’t say otherwise. I linked to Blackfive under the phrase, ‘digital lynch mob,’ because you’ve been muttering about causing unspecified physical harm to this guy Beauchamp.

    And that’s all I have to say about that.

  40. His Grace said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:43

    So Jimbo has exposed the soldier as a “punkass whiner.” Truly the war is as good as won.

  41. shystee said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:47

    Faster, Chickenhawk! Please!

    - M. Ledeen

  42. Happenstance said,

    July 26, 2007 at 22:48

    Well…Uncle J has revealed HIMSELF as a punkass whiner. That’s worth a cookie, right?

  43. Legalize said,

    July 26, 2007 at 23:01

    One of my favorite post in one of the winger blogs (I’m sorry; I closed the link) was to the effect that this fellow should be brought up on charges for witnessing and failing to report the alleged attrocities he reported on the internets – yet there seems to be no problem with the soldiers who allegedly COMMITTED the alleged attrocities.

    So, teh new logik is that acts constituting unconscionable behavior are fine and dandy when they are undertaken by American Heros Defending Freedom, which by definition, these soliders must have been if they committed the attrocities alleged, HOWEVER, anyone witnessing the same behavior and failing to report it to the chain of command is acting in furtherance of that behavior (undertaken by American Heros Defending Freedom), and should therefor be punished to the fullest, possibly by some form of vigilante violence – especially if the guy who fails to report the offending behavior appears to (a) be a non-wingnut; (b) have a pretty girlfriend/fiance/wife; and (c) not write in the approved style as dictated by teh Wingnut Welfare Corp.’s Board of How to Write Good.

  44. Principal Blackman said,

    July 26, 2007 at 23:32

    yet there seems to be no problem with the soldiers who allegedly COMMITTED the alleged attrocities.

    Well, of course not–those soldiers didn’t go talking about it, did they?

    I kind of want to see what Mark Noonan is saying about all of this, mostly because he’s my favorite wingnut and he has a severe military fetish (though is pretty much the dictionary definition of a chickenhawk when it comes to Iraq).

  45. Gentlewoman said,

    July 26, 2007 at 23:38

    redefines success to mean utterly destroying the targeted person by any means available

    Oh, I dunno. I imagine that that’s what the whole exercise was designed to do in the first place. To out this guy and ruin his military/journalism career for having the temerity to say things the wingnuts don’t want to hear.

    I mean, that’s sorta what wingnut bloggers, um, excuse me, citizen journalists do, isn’t it?

  46. Chris said,

    July 26, 2007 at 23:39

    It matters not that Pvt. Beauchamp is in fact a real soldier who described events that did in fact occur.

    Nobody has yet refuted the WingNet’s assertion that the accused is also “punkass whiner” and quite possibly a “dung beetle”.

    We live in bad times.

  47. King Quaker said,

    July 26, 2007 at 23:47

    As the soldiers (and marines) get ready to board the flights to join the fight in Iraq an officer stands at the ramp and asks:
    Liberal punk or right-wing nut?
    Liberal punk, return to your barracks.
    Right-wing nut, climb aboard.

    War over.

  48. wordyeti said,

    July 27, 2007 at 0:05

    One of my favorite post in one of the winger blogs (I’m sorry; I closed the link) was to the effect that this fellow should be brought up on charges for witnessing and failing to report the alleged attrocities he reported on the internets – yet there seems to be no problem with the soldiers who allegedly COMMITTED the alleged attrocities.

    Just so we’re clear on this one – and I’m looking at *you* here, Uncle Jimbo – wasn’t it the same wingnut gang of screeching monkeys that was downplaying Abu Ghraib as just the nightwatchmen pulling frat-boy “pranks”? And that the Marines getting prosecuted for shooting a bunch of bystander Iraqis should fall under the heading of “shit happens in war.” As do all the bombings of wedding parties, innocent villages in Afghanistan that even our puppet President Karzai has to start muttering about …

    And now you want a soldier in a forward base to waste his commander’s time running to the principal’s office to whine “Clyde in the Bradley ran over a dog in the street today.” Or “Someone was mean to someone else in the mess hall.”

    (pardon the impending all caps, but): ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????!!

    Not to get all semiotician here, but the wingnutoverse revolves around putting soldiers up on pedastals and falling down on their knees, arms spread wide, head thrown back in delicious religious euphoria, eyes screwed shut… but if one of those guys stuffed up on the pedestal were to actually, um, you know, be or some shit … well, that simply won’t do, will it?

    Because for a soldier to be human would have to mean that he was capable of screwing up. Or being a little nasty now and again. Or just being so freakin’ desensitized to the fucked-up environment that he finds himself in on a daily basis that wearing a shard of skull as a hat is indeed actually quite funny.

    Sorry dudes, but soldiers under combat are not, and never have been angels. The fact that Beauchamp wrote things that speak to that very essential truth is what is outraging the wingers. Soldiers don’t fit into the tidy little worship boxes that you want them to, although I would encourage you to try to do that with a returning Iraq veteran, if only for the momentary thrill that would engender as said vet bounces your Cheeto-fattened head off the pavement like a basketball.

    So now that he’s confirmed to actually exist, the next redoubt for the wingnuts was trying to prove that he was lying. Now that even that is starting to fall apart, they’re running for the … for the … well, I guess the point of contention now is that even though he is a trooper, over in Iraq, risking his life on a daily basis no matter what his motivations were for going over there, he’s doing it … but since he won’t toe the party line, he’s an utter piece of shit who must be destroyed.

    Nice way to support the troops, wingnuts. Way to go.

    Guess maybe the wingnuts are busy hocking up their throat loogies so they can spit in the faces of U.S. Soldiers when they come back from Iraq, insufficiently grateful to the 101st Chickenhawkers for their support…

  49. Legalize said,

    July 27, 2007 at 0:26

    This sort of behavior is what the wingers have advocated as “doing what needs to be done” for quite some time now; we’ve been fighting with kid-gloves and what not; the tr00pz have been handcuffed by silly rules that have been in place since Nuremberg because the thought of inflicting such attrocities upon humans again was so distasteful, and so forth. I don’t get it. This fellow seems to be confirming that in a number of instances, “what needs to be done,” is, in fact, er um, BEING DONE. The handcuffs seem to be off, if what this guy is saying is true.

    So what’s the problem? War is hell. Men don’t act like fairy pussy faggots in the middle of combat, do they? This is what you’ve been clammering for. Be happy; this is your war and it is the war you dreamed up.

  50. TRex said,

    July 27, 2007 at 1:06

    I’d hit that.

  51. JabbaTheTutt said,

    July 27, 2007 at 1:22

    I know, I’m not a post-modernist. I still care about reality, truth and honesty. In none of Gavin M’s 4 points does he consider whether Scott Thomas Beauchamp told the truth or made up stories. The stories Private Beauchamp told were so off center, so out of the experience of military people, who spent time in Baghdad, that they speculated that “Scott Thomas” wasn’t even a soldier. But what got them to that question, were the questions about the reality of what the “Baghdad Diarist” was telling.

    Neither The New Republic nor Private Beauchamp have documented the honesty of those stories. If the stories are true, Private Beauchamp should’ve reported them to his chain of command. If they are not true, Private Beauchamp is pulling a John Kerry and smearing every honorable American soldier, who went to Iraq. In either case, Private Beauchamp is a weasel at best.

    Gavin M, you can’t divert the issue, blaming the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, unless you’re wearing your “Pretty in Pink” pantsuit. Thems the rules.

  52. Doc Washboard said,

    July 27, 2007 at 1:47

    Legalize has a point. I’ve lost count of the number of wingnuts who have shrugged off civilian deaths with some variant of, “It’s war. Shit happens.” Now that shit has happened, it is, in fact, inconceivable that shit should transpire at all.

    He joined to get some cred for his “writing” career, self-admitted again

    Uncle Jimbo has revealed that all soldiers are not seen as gods by the Right–only those who stay on the res. Did you know that joining up for the “wrong reason” invalidates your service? I didn’t until now. Live and learn!

  53. Dr Zen said,

    July 27, 2007 at 2:01

    Michael Yon: legendary reporter scorned by the liberal media, describing atrocities that some guy told some guy who told Yon he saw.
    “Punkass” Beauchamp: fantasist.

  54. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 2:18

    Ok, I’m probably going to regret this, but since Gavin and I can seem to have a civil disagreement at Ace’s, I thought I might try here.

    According to the weekly standard Thomas was describing horrific scenes from Iraq before he even went.

    Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

    Now, I know you guys will say the weekly standard is a rightwing rag, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument that this is true.

    Does it bother you that a guy would denigrate our military in such a way? Or do you actually look at the military this way? If not, doesn’t it bother you that this guy would paint a picture of such horror, not of war where we expect horror, but of personal actions of men in our military?

  55. TR said,

    July 27, 2007 at 4:43

    Yeah, the Weekly Standard would never lie or misrepresent anything. Just ask Dahlia Lithwick.

  56. Marita said,

    July 27, 2007 at 5:19

    Well, I can’t speak for Gavin, but if you don’t mind, I’ll take a stab…

    First, you’re right. I’m not a fan of the Weekly Standard. And any article that starts off with the line:

    As usual, Confederate Yankee provides the best wrap-up of the days events.

    Doesn’t strike me as particularly promising. I’ll try to be civil in this comment, but CY generally comes across as dumber than a box of rocks. Still, I read the piece. And read the excerpt from Beauchamp’s blog, and then clicked through archives of the blog in question. The thing is, the WS piece makes it seem like there’s more of the same throughout Beauchamp’s blog. The line:

    Beauchamp was, after all, writing vivid accounts of the hardship and suffering on the mean streets of Baghdad before he even arrived in the country…

    Employs a plural (accounts), after all. But looking through his blog, it’s mostly messages to friends and family. After a cursory search of all of his archives, it looks like the post excerpted by the WS was pretty much all he wrote in that ummm… genre. It doesn’t look like something he made a habit out of, as the Weekly Standard piece seems to imply. So while it might (I’ll emphasize might here) be suggestive, I’m not convinced it’s enough evidence to be compelling.

    Anyway, to answer your questions… if the stories are fabricated and presented as truth, then yes, the guy’s an asshole. I don’t have any problem saying that, and I’m not sure what else you’re asking for. If the stories are true, then I eagerly await a collective apology from the right side of the blogosphere who has jumped all over the man. For some reason I don’t think it will be forthcoming.

    As for me personally, I don’t think this sort of behavior represents our military as a whole (and I would add, I suspect no one else here feels that way either), but there are assholes in all walks of life. I’m not sure why the military would be exempt from that.

    However, whatever the truth is, it doesn’t change my opinion that the subset of people on the right who claim that it’s only their side who supports the troops (and that anti-war people are inherently anti-troop) make complete douchebags of themselves when they immediately turn on any member of the armed forces who dares to voice an opinion that’s different than theirs. I would think that anyone who wanted to claim exclusive troop supportin’ rights should suck it up and support all of the men and women brave enough to serve, regardless of their political affilitation.

  57. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:01

    Now, I know you guys will say the weekly standard is a rightwing rag, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument that this is true.

    1. Why would we assume that?

    2. Your link doesn’t say what you claim it does.

    3. How is reporting on the barbarism of war akin to denigrating the military?

    Guess what, war is barbaric. That’s not an insult. Some of the people in our military do awful things – that’s reality, suck it up. Actual soldiers will tell you just that. It is somehow insulting to not pretend that war is a tea party engaged in by perfect gentlemen?

    How long until they attack this guy with spelling and grammar nitpicks? You have to love wingers – they are literally never right about anything. It’s amazing.

  58. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:03

    the guy’s an asshole. I don’t have any problem saying that, and I’m not sure what else you’re asking for.

    That’s ALL I’m asking for. Nice to hear.

    I’ve never seen anyone on the right say that we are the only ones supporting the troops. And I spend alot of time on that side of the blogosphere.

    I think the perception is that when it comes to stories like this, the left seems eager to believe it. That is the problem we have with it.

  59. noen said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:07

    Now, I know you guys will say the weekly standard is a rightwing rag, but let’s just assume for the sake of argument that this is true.

    Why? Why would we assume any such thing? Do you know when he was first deployed? I’ve been unable to find that out but I would expect a wannabe writer to write even before he was deployed. Is it really so hard to believe that a soldier might run over a dog in Iraq or goof around with a shard of bone?

    BTW, Tillman was murdered. Gunned down with a M16 from ten yards.

  60. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:09

    Random observer,

    Read the link again. All the way through. It most certainly says what I said it did.

    He wasn’t reporting on “the war,” he was describing stories of personal disturbing and illegal actions by members of the military.

    It’s not like I believe the military is perfect. I have no doubt there are bad apples as Abu Ghraib clearly showed. But if this is not true, then it’s sole purpose seemed to be to denigrate our military.

  61. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:11

    BTW, Tillman was murdered. Gunned down with a M16 from ten yards.

    Yeah, it’s called friendly fire and some jerk General tried to cover it up.

    But this is what I am talking about! Such glee you seem to have with that bit of news. Is it so wonderful to prove that our military screws up?

  62. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:17

    According to the weekly standard Thomas was describing horrific scenes from Iraq before he even went.

    When presidents do it it’s fine.

  63. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:19

    the guy’s an asshole. I don’t have any problem saying that, and I’m not sure what else you’re asking for.

    That’s ALL I’m asking for. Nice to hear.

    Way to clip off the first half of that fucking sentence. Real honest of ya.

    In your original post you weren’t upset that the stories might be fabricated, you were upset that they “denigrated the military.”

    Does it bother you that a guy would denigrate our military in such a way? Or do you actually look at the military this way? If not, doesn’t it bother you that this guy would paint a picture of such horror, not of war where we expect horror, but of personal actions of men in our military?

    Why would it bother me, if what he is reporting is true? Reality isn’t denigrating. Do I actually look at the military in a way that recognizes that not all military members are angels? Of course I do, to do otherwise would be stupid.

    If you are complaining that the guy might be fabricating stories then come out and say it. No, fabricating stories is not a good thing.

    But that isn’t what you complained about. You complained that his stories were “denigrating.” Tough shit.

  64. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:27

    Random Observer,

    I really didn’t mean to edit it that way. I see how it would seem so. I really meant that all I was asking for is that IF this guy is proven bogus then you guys would think he was an asshole.

    Your right, if it is true, then it isn’t denigrating the military. But if it isn’t true, then it is. Simple as that.

  65. Jay B. said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:31

    I’ve never seen anyone on the right say that we are the only ones supporting the troops. And I spend alot of time on that side of the blogosphere.

    Oh holy shit. Give me a fucking break. We’ve been called “Fifth columnists” “TRAITORS” “America-hating” “Troop-hating”, ad naseum — and that’s just from the people who post right-wing shit on liberal blogs. You live in an insane world and believe insane things. I think Americans can do these things. I don’t think it’s particularly shocking, considering it’s a fucked up war. I knew people who were in Nam who said they did similar things.

    But whatever. Stay insane.

  66. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:32

    You complained that his stories were “denigrating.” Tough shit.

    Indeed. This is amusing:

    Is it so wonderful to prove that our military screws up?

    It’s like the purpose of news has eluded the guy.

  67. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:34

    I’m not saying you haven’t been called that by rude people. Let’s be honest, we have our wierdos on both sides. But I haven’t seen the most read rightwing bloggers say that. Give me an example.

  68. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:36

    If he is in fact fabricating stuff then yes, he is an asshole, not because he is denigrating the military but because lying is just generally assholish, especially lying to misinform the populace for propaganda reasons – something Republicans do constantly.

    That seems to be the Republican guiding principle these days – the public does *not* have a right to know, and further misinformation is preferable to real information because real information doesn’t suit them politically.

  69. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:40

    You know, everytime I come over to the left side of the blogosphere in comments, I see the same name calling, generalizations, and sterotypes that many of you claim to hate over on the right side.

    It’s like 2 sides of the same coin.

    It really is possible to have a civilized debate you know. Marita and I came to some common ground rather quickly.

    I wish we could all stop shouting at each other. We can disagree, but it doesn’t mean we have to hate each other.

  70. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:40

    I’ve never seen anyone on the right [em added] say that we are the only ones supporting the troops.

    And then:

    I’m not saying you haven’t been called that by rude people. Let’s be honest, we have our wierdos on both sides. But I haven’t seen the most read rightwing bloggers say that.

    Moving goalposts detected! Now this is where, after someone posts an example, you say the following:

    Oh well sure, I suppose so and so said that, but that’s just one person, not all of them!

    Lame.

  71. marc page said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:43

    Mrs. Sparkle,

    Stop wasting your precious time trying to instruct us poor heathens; I’m sure you have scrapbooking to do.

  72. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:44

    Ok, I thought it was clear that when I said “anyone on the right” I meant the well known bloggers. Of course commenters do. I was talking the blogosphere. You know…blogs.

  73. marc page said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:45

    And who defines “well known” ? I’ll bet it’s you, cupcake.

  74. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:46

    ahhh..I was waiting for the santimonious.

    Why, some of my best friends are heathens…;-)

    And I’ve never touched a scrapbook.

  75. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:47

    And who defines “well known” ? I’ll bet it’s you, cupcake.

    Well no, sugarlips, that would be The Truth Laid Bare.

  76. marc page said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:51

    Oh, come on, you folks won’t tolerate anything ‘Laid [or] Bare.’

    Now, who wants to join me in a rousing chorus of “Haji Girl”
    … Come on, Sparkly, you know the words.

  77. Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:54

    marc page,

    Ok, Ok, I’ll leave you to your sterotypes.

    It must get lonely on that mountaintop.

    Night all, as usual, it’s been fun.

  78. marc page said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:56

    And thank you, dear, for confirming one of them.

  79. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:58

    Ok, I thought it was clear that when I said “anyone on the right” I meant the well known bloggers.

    Sorry, I guess I don’t know what the word “anyone” means. Oh wait, I do.

    In addition, I know where this is going to lead. Someone with come up with an example (like say Ann Coulter, she’s written multiple books on the subject of how liberals are treasonous) then you’ll claim that nowhere did she utter those *exact* words. (Words that you didn’t put quotes around, so of course you can claim that no matter what)

    Ann Coulter in fact said the following:

    Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. [em added] They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn’t slowed them down.

    Now is this the part where you tell me that Ann Coulter isn’t a well known blogger? Note that she said “always”, not “sometimes” or “often.” Always. And it’s not like the above is the one time in her life she got a little sloppy with her qualifications. Or maybe you go for the technicality and say that hey, she thinks all liberals hate the troops but she didn’t say that about Eskimos?

    I wish we could all stop shouting at each other. We can disagree, but it doesn’t mean we have to hate each other.

    Multiple times in this thread you’ve said something, then immediately turned back around and changed your tune. You are either just a troll playing dumb or you need to pay a lot more attention to what you are writing.

    Right-wingers complaining that liberals as a rule don’t support the troops, hate America, root for failure, etc etc, is something that happens on a daily basis, and you’d have to be dumb, blind or a liar not to see that.

  80. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:03

    The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

  81. Nullifidian said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:08

    If not, doesn’t it bother you that this guy would paint a picture of such horror, not of war where we expect horror, but of personal actions of men in our military?

    As if horrific human casualties just come out of nowhere without any cause? Is the storyline we’re supposed to adhere to is that the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq, suddenly there are bodies everywhere and cities reduced to rubble and a stunned military just wandering around saying “How the fuck did that happen?!”

  82. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:08

    Ok, Ok, I’ll leave you to your sterotypes.

    It must get lonely on that mountaintop.

    Night all, as usual, it’s been fun.

    Ah…the familiar mating call of the internet troll.

    What a sack of shit. Oh sorry, I’m being mean.

  83. marc page said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:09

    See Monty, I’m a bit different that way. If I could travel back in time I would take a picture of my own ass.

    Because I didn’t appreciate it at the time…;-)

    Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at July 26, 2007 08:59 PM (OMP6l)

    My favorite part is the little smiley thing at the end.

    [But, sweetie, I'm betting no one else had much use for that thing 'back in (your) day.'
    ... whatever decade that may have been, now lost in the mists of time.]

  84. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:17

    Rightwingsparkle said,

    July 27, 2007 at 6:54

    Thanks for providing your insight, deranged wingnut. Hat tip to d r i f t g l a s s:

    In other words, to get elected, the GOP spend billions building themselves an army of slavering orcs who deeply and profoundly despise everything this country stands for.

  85. ahem said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:29

    That Doughbob Loadpants is the Cornerite leading their particular lynchmob is, well, sad.

  86. Clevelandchick said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:35

    Well I feel nauseous after clicking the links posted. Geez, a soldier writes about his experiences and they don’t fit the Neocon zombie-slave talking point directive so they paint him as a modern day Mao and try to get him thrown in the brig for….free speech?

    Gotta love all these alleged military folk on those blogs who are ‘fighting for our freedom’ but on the other hand think freedom of speech isn’t part of the deal. And by the way, the military doesn’t work for the government, George Bush or the Republican Party. They work for the American people…same as the Congress…same as the Executive…same as The Judiciary. And if any of those parties violate our laws and our Constitution, they are culpable.

  87. Random Observer said,

    July 27, 2007 at 7:51

    The funny thing is real soldiers don’t fetishize the military in the same way the chickenhawks do. They will freely admit that many of them sign up for the money or the college grants, not to fight for freedom or other high-minded ideals. That bad things happen and are done by soldiers on both sides. That when the firing starts it’s simply about surviving and shooting before you get shot and nothing else.

    The idea that all military people are noble gentlemen is just a meme that is spread at home to quell dissent. Most people who have actually fought in wars have a much more realistic and healthy view. Which is why the biggest hawks are typically the people who haven’t served.

  88. mythago said,

    July 27, 2007 at 8:32

    Night all, as usual, it’s been fun.

    And then, FOUR MINUTES LATER, our Ambassador from the Right is unable to stay away from further comments.

    The Left is a drug!

  89. adnoto said,

    July 27, 2007 at 11:21

    “We can disagree, but it doesn’t mean we have to hate each other.”

    I don’t despise you or any other wingnut because we disagree. I despise you because you are evil.

  90. DeadlyShoe said,

    July 27, 2007 at 11:25

    the cupcake, dear, etc. insults are rather passive aggressive. cut it out.

  91. atheist said,

    July 27, 2007 at 12:17

    I’m not saying you haven’t been called that by rude people. Let’s be honest, we have our wierdos on both sides. But I haven’t seen the most read rightwing bloggers say that. Give me an example.

    Yes, it’s just that couple of unusually rude, obscure right-wing bloggers. Most right wing bloggers are polite and kind to all people they disagree with. Why, I can’t remember ever being called a commie, a filth, or a traitor liberal.

  92. atheist said,

    July 27, 2007 at 12:19

    Oh, and right-wing commenters who say that all Democrats should be put in concentration camps. I can’t remember that either.

  93. patrick said,

    July 27, 2007 at 16:35

    Really, Unca Jimbo, the thing to do, y’know, if you want to be a manly man and put this “whiny punk” in his place, is enlist, go ever there and kick his ass your ownself.

    I think any other response falls under the broad category of “internet toughguy”-ism.

    Any other course of action looks a lot like blowhard posturing.

  94. 3D said,

    July 27, 2007 at 17:59

    This sort of behavior is what the wingers have advocated as “doing what needs to be done” for quite some time now; we’ve been fighting with kid-gloves and what not; the tr00pz have been handcuffed by silly rules that have been in place since Nuremberg because the thought of inflicting such attrocities upon humans again was so distasteful, and so forth. I don’t get it. This fellow seems to be confirming that in a number of instances, “what needs to be done,” is, in fact, er um, BEING DONE. The handcuffs seem to be off, if what this guy is saying is true.

    So what’s the problem? War is hell. Men don’t act like fairy pussy faggots in the middle of combat, do they? This is what you’ve been clammering for. Be happy; this is your war and it is the war you dreamed up.

    The obvious problem is that the guy talked about it. This is indeed the gloves-off war they’ve been dreaming of, but writing about the details of it in The New Republic undermines their ability to continue it.

    The American people are clearly not ready to experience the horror of What Needs To Be Done, only a chosen few citizen journalists have the steely resolve necessary for that particular knowledge. And so anyone who exposes the truth must be tarred and feathered as a liar and a traitor to the genocide war effort.

  95. Wise_Fool said,

    July 27, 2007 at 18:04

    Okay, now I have read every single friggin comment, let me say a few things. You guys are ALL pretty nasty to each other. Left Wingers, you are giving them ammunition to label you as rude hate-speechers because you use hateful language to criticize them (this is not a blanket statement, i.e. ‘all the time’, just a statement of prolific occurence). And why are you criticizing them? Because the Right Wingers do, in fact, use hateful speech against you. SINCE WHEN DOES THE CHILDHOOD ARGUMENT ‘THEY DID IT FIRST’ JUSTIFY STUPIDITY AND MINDLESS INSULT? never.

    Right Wingers, you guys are notorious for not having your facts str8 (again not ALL-encompassing, just frequent, frequent occurence), and for holding nothing but contempt (used in its actual definition, not the political one. politics RUINS so many words by destroying their meanings over press conferences…) for those with whom you disagree. Stop acting like children and provoking your brothers/sisters.

    Last time I checked, a whole big bunch of people are speculating upon speculations. How’s about keeping your mouths shut until some discernable level of FACT has come about? or better still, how’s about everyone stop validating each other’s fears of inadequacy and isolation, like what the mainstream media is trying to instill? How’s about if people feel so strongly about these things that you put down your keyboard and HAND WRITE a letter to your congressmen? maybe even call them? you know, DOING something instead of just WHINING about it. All of you! left, right, center… just stop it.

    I have noticed that while most of the bloggers on here (left and right) have admitted (or conceded, depending on your point of view) that the media is in at least some small ways corrupted, NONE of you have bothered to notice that making a political assassination of one soldier for his personal comments and feelings would in effect keep every other soldier all the more silent about these atrocities for fear of coming home as a commie or a pussy instead of a hero? well thought out, I think. at here you all are, begging for scraps at Rupert Murdoch’s tables, arguing over what they tell you to argue about. THINK FOR YOURSELVES, instead of trying to convince others of believing in that which you reasonably doubt as well. These postings seem to serve only for validating your self-doubts by trying to force others to agree with you… and the reason you doubt and speculate to begin with is you don’t know who to trust anymore.,… so here’s a novel idea — put the prozak and pain meds down, wake up and THINK FOR YOURSELVES. how many times must it be said before you stop bickering? and if you can’t find a way to stop talking trash, here’s a good way every mother used to teach their restless children – go outside and DO something instead of whining. it will help your self-esteem much more than belittling your American brothers and sisters. AAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL of that aside:

    I believe he is telling the truth. I do not expect ANYONE to agree with me, I simply hope that someone will. And I don’t give a crap who denigrates the military, it’s their right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN, whether you like it or not. it is not unamerican, it is a fundamental right of the constitution’s Bill of Rights. once again, you willingly turn your anger against your fellow man by dissolving your notions of free speech until someone infringes upon you. typical selfish Americans (of which I am unavoidably one.

  96. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 27, 2007 at 18:16

    And why are you criticizing them? Because the Right Wingers do, in fact, use hateful speech against you.

    There are some subtle policy differences in there as well, such as whether or not to destroy other countries and so on.

  97. Wise_Fool said,

    July 27, 2007 at 18:16

    oh yeah, and the kicker is, since he is Property of the US military, his free speech is not an issue of any kind. so, in order to validate your own fears, you have (on both sides) shredded your primary rights upon each other for a mere case of war atrocities that everyone who has seen war can verify happens ALL THE TIME. If you think I am trivializing these atrocities, GOOD… maybe you’ll realize just how brutal, uncontrollably violent, and ‘lesser evil for the greater good’ all wars are. BRING THEM THE FUCK HOME and it won’t be a question of who denigrated the military, or what-have-you.

  98. Wise_Fool said,

    July 27, 2007 at 18:17

    very true righteous bubba… but the basis of the point was not the criticism, but how you (in the general sense) voice it.

  99. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 27, 2007 at 18:25

    very true righteous bubba… but the basis of the point was not the criticism, but how you (in the general sense) voice it.

    I think you’ll find that people are pretty tired of the civility argument in the face of policies that rain death down on innocents.

  100. Jay B. said,

    July 27, 2007 at 18:37

    Wise_Fool,

    Nice try, but here’s the thing — One can be as nice as one can be when addressing disagreements, but it doesn’t matter. At all. The GOP built a Congressional majority and packed the courts precisely because they were nasty pieces of work. They don’t believe in government, art, the Bill of Rights (save the 2nd Amendment), et. al, so they called liberals Un-American, deviants, commies, blah, blah, blah and they were able to set the agenda for 6 years under Bush and cripple the progressive initiatives of the Clinton Administration.

    And we’re supposed to be what, respectful of their ‘insights’? Their ‘wisdom”? The media and the Democratic party have been cowed to the point of complete ineffectuality — the single change in the dynamic has been the aggressive counterpoint provided by blogs. Most of that ‘hate speech’ is impassioned and a result of a decade-plus frustration that we’ve been marginalized by idiots.

    Getting angry, getting mean, caustically mocking the rank stupidity and mindbending hypocrisy of the GOP has been both cathartic and successful.

    They’ll never listen, no matter what we say, so we may as well be truthful about how we feel, no?

  101. D. Aristophanes said,

    July 27, 2007 at 20:38

    Thank you, Wise_Fool! Your tirade about what mindless, ineffectual sheeple we are has won this do-nothing, Prozak-gobbler over to your side!

    Just think – if we were able to bottle your unstoppable persuasiveness! World peace would be ours for the taking!

  102. pine nut said,

    July 27, 2007 at 20:45

    Support the troops*

    *Only when they support your narrative

  103. Sarcastro said,

    July 27, 2007 at 21:02

    Conflating statements that boil down to “You’re a fucking idiot” with ones that are basically saying “You should be killed” means… well, it means you’re a fucking idiot.

  104. Legalize said,

    July 27, 2007 at 22:51

    Wise_Fool, I think you are correct that lefties, or liberals, or whatever are certainly capable of leveling mean-spirited criticism, just as righties can. However, I think it is also important to note that you will rarely, if ever, find “lefty” arguments that tend to support notions of genocide, indiscriminate bombings, nuking middle eastern countries, poisoning Supreme Court justices, hanging Nancy Pelosi, etc. You just won’t. You will of course find comments from dudes wishing for the death of Dick Cheney. Personally, I’ve don’t know any of those dudes.

    Finally, I think that calling Michelle Malkin a fucking moron is far less offensive than *politiely* and *civily* arguing the relative merits of torture. Call me crazy, but the words “fuck” and “moron” are just words; torture is well, torture.

  105. wordyeti said,

    July 27, 2007 at 23:07

    Damn that Digby!

    He says what I said a day or so ago, above in the comments. Only he does it, y’know, artistically, ‘n shit. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/private-peter-pan-by-digby-other-day-i.html

    This particular paragraph bears repeating: “I hear so much from the right about how they love the troops. But they don’t seem to love the actual human beings who wear the uniform, they love those little GI Joe dolls they played with as children which they could dress up in little costumes and contort into pretzels for their fun and amusement. If they loved the actual troops they wouldn’t require them to be like two dimensional John Waynes, withholding their real experiences and feelings for fear that a virtual armchair lynch mob would come after them.”

    What we are seeing now is the righwingers starting to turn against the military … or perhaps, more accurately, the military wising up to the fact that all those people supposedly cheering for them will turn on them like curs the moment the soldiers start to think and talk for themselves… soldiers on the ground can’t escape dreadful reality, and as has been proven time and again the last six and 1/2 years, reality is the one thing that the wingnuts absolutely cannot abide.

  106. Righteous Bubba said,

    July 27, 2007 at 23:32

    He says what I said a day or so ago, above in the comments. Only he does it, y’know, artistically, ‘n shit.

    That’s cuz he’s a girl and not some kind of disvaginate cripple like me.

  107. Phoenician in a time of Romans said,

    July 28, 2007 at 1:36

    I know, I’m not a post-modernist. I still care about reality, truth and honesty. In none of Gavin M’s 4 points does he consider whether Scott Thomas Beauchamp told the truth or made up stories. The stories Private Beauchamp told were so off center, so out of the experience of military people, who spent time in Baghdad, that they speculated that “Scott Thomas” wasn’t even a soldier. But what got them to that question, were the questions about the reality of what the “Baghdad Diarist” was telling.

    Neither The New Republic nor Private Beauchamp have documented the honesty of those stories. If the stories are true, Private Beauchamp should’ve reported them to his chain of command. If they are not true, Private Beauchamp is pulling a John Kerry and smearing every honorable American soldier, who went to Iraq. In either case, Private Beauchamp is a weasel at best.

    How’s that search for those Weapons of Mass Destruction going on, anyhow?

  108. bughunter said,

    July 28, 2007 at 1:37

    Another wingnut development… one of the most immature things I’ve seen in years.

    Go ahead and click on the LGF link in the main article above. The first link in item 3.5.

    Now come back and copy that URL to your clip board, open a new tab (or go to any other page) and then paste that URL into your address bar and hit enter.

    LGF is redirecting viewers referred from SadlyNo! to an insult page, which informs the reader that he or she is an “idiot.”

    Clearly, these chickenhawks can’t handle being confronted with logic and evidence, therefore they react with the most pre-adolescent displays of ad homenim I’ve ever seen.

    And I’ve been around since the pre-AOL days of Usenet.

    Pathetic.

    And I’m sure SN! is not the only site on the list of referrers that get the “special” treatment.

  109. Kija said,

    July 28, 2007 at 2:19

    You have to admire right wing triumphalism. Proven completely wrong in their allegations that Thomas was not a soldier; they insist they got it right anyway because he’s a bad soldier. I love the BUSTED across the web snap…when the correct word would be VINDICATED.

  110. Don Meaker said,

    July 28, 2007 at 3:49

    The body parts story has been going around for a while. Heard that one in Germany in 1977. And since. Kind of like the “Who’s got my golden arm” story that we used to tell kids around cub scout camp fires. That one goes back to Mark Twain, at least.

    Square backed rounds? The Glock shoots the same round as any other 9mm. Sounds like he got this confused when he heard a story told by someone else. The Glock has a square cross section striker, and puts a square dent in the primer.

    Laughing at wounded? If true, he is a jerk. If lying he is a jerk. If true, he is lucky to escape with a severe beating. Elspeth has herself a real prize.

  111. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    July 28, 2007 at 4:06

    NONE of you have bothered to notice that making a political assassination of one soldier for his personal comments and feelings would in effect keep every other soldier all the more silent about these atrocities for fear of coming home as a commie or a pussy instead of a hero?

    Oh, we noticed all right. Even if we were asleep the first few times it happened, there’ve been enough cases now that we’ve noticed. We just didn’t think it was worth mentioning, given that it’s not unique at all.

    Private Beauchamp is pulling a John Kerry

    Actually enlisting and fighting in a war?

    and smearing every honorable American soldier, who went to Iraq.

    Smearing them with strawberry jam, for preference.

    Notice that Ol’ Grumpybum doesn’t give a fuck about honorable American soldiers who didn’t go to Iraq. Or indeed dishonorable GIs in Iraq.

    I wonder what the ratios are?

  112. Qetesh the Abyssinian said,

    July 28, 2007 at 4:20

    One thing that amuses me, if anything can amuse me about the wanton slaughter or innocents being perpetrated by the numbnuts.

    From the way the wingnuts talk, US soldiers would be hard-pressed to find any time to actually defend democratic sammiches, given all the time they apparently devote to helping little old ladies across the road, finding lost dogs for tearful tykes, and reassuring grateful suburbanites that ‘he won’t bother you again, Ma’am’. In short, wingnuts have a funny idea of what soldiers do, and why they do it.

    For any wingers currently perusing this thread, here’s a primer: soldiers are ordinary folks. They join up for all sorts of reasons: their dad was in the army, they want the college grant, they like the uniform, whatever. They’re not all steely-eyed, lantern-jawed, Real Murr’kin Heroes.

    Secondly, war means being incredibly violent. A lot. This is not a drunken scuffle outside the pub, this is an actual war, with actual fighting. As army blokes noticed many decades ago, it’s very hard to get soldiers to even fire without putting them through some kind of process that dehumanising the folks they’re fighting and distances them emotionally. In the second world war, I think something like 25% of soldiers fired their weapons in a combat situation: that is, if they saw an ennermie, only 25% would fire.

    That enraged the generals, who demanded Something Be Done About This. Hence the dehumanising. Read On Killing by Lt Col Dave Grossman for details on this, because I’m sure he knows more than I do. But be assured that war consists of encouraging soldiers to be as violent as possible and avoid death. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett (slightly), the rules of war are “One: stick it to the enemy good and hard, and Two: don’t die”.

    Thirdly, US soldiers are stuck in a country where just about everyone hates them because they’ve invaded ur country and R killing ur doodz. They don’t get to go home at the end of the day, put their feet up, and relax. They can’t wander around the mall, giant sammich suited or otherwise.

    Given all that, the notion that all US soldiers are wandering around doing their best John Wayne impressions is ludicrous. And infantile.

    Oh, whoever said this earlier said it much more succinctly than I. The wingnuts complain that they’re not allowed to be vicious, then complain when someone says they are. Tossers.

  113. Conservatives continue to be haunted by credibility and moral relativity problems « The Long Goodbye said,

    July 28, 2007 at 8:12

    [...] story has become something of an obsession in the rightwing blogosphere evidently. (Sadly No has a nice run-down of how it developed.) After a tremendous amount of wingnut pressure on TNR to prove they hadn’t been duped by an [...]

  114. joannegmurphy said,

    July 28, 2007 at 19:05

    So now TNR is “the left”? Whoooo–never thought I’d see the day.
    And since NRO online links to them, THEY must be “:left” too, right, wingnuttia? After all they fired Ann Coulter. That proves they’re soft on communism!

    As I see it, the wingnut stance has morphed from “he doesn’t exist” to “he’s a fraud” to “well maybe he exists and he’s not a fraud, but he’s a leftwing punk.” Man, can’t they EVER just say “sorry we were wrong”? Apparently not.

    A few years ago when a bunch of soldiers, girding themselves against the Remsfeld Terror, had the nerve to speak out against The MIssion, the REPORTER who brought in the story was “smeared” as a Canadian queer. Every unwelcome message, then, means you lock and load for the messenger. Sad.

  115. Soldiers Who Tell the Truth Must Be Destroyed at Antony Loewenstein said,

    July 29, 2007 at 5:58

    [...] Brother Gavin Explains it pretty well: [...]

  116. Troglodiste said,

    July 30, 2007 at 17:25

    My problem with Scott Beauchamp is that he’s writing about his misdeeds and those of a handful of his twisted buddies. Why are we so eager to hail him as a message-bringer? Why assume his behavior is the least representative?

    The reactions on both sides are bizarre. If his writings are true, then he’s a horrible person and a bad soldier. If they’re not, even worse.

    Interception: I’m a soldier, a Democrat, and anti-war.

  117. This Is How The Right Wing Supports The Troops « Mercury Rising ?? said,

    July 30, 2007 at 22:34

    [...] the reaction of the cons was pretty similar to how they reacted to the people who turned Jenna and her twin [...]

  118. Sadly, No! » “I Believe This Only Strengthens My Point,” Pt. Infinity said,

    August 3, 2007 at 0:48

    [...] of that right-wing backpedaling and self-justification that we love so well, this time over the Scott Thomas Beauchamp contretemps. And so it is that “this whole thing”—the claim that conservative [...]

  119. Thomas Jackson said,

    August 5, 2007 at 1:03

    Oops seems like Scott Thomas account of Iraq bears as much with reality as Clinton’s memoirs have to do with history but hey what if its fake but accurate, right?

    What I’d really like to know is what does they say about the editors and Thomas cott’s defenders when they expertise of the military and Iraq is on a level of slick willie knowledge of the definition of is.

    Boy wait tioll all those former Nigerian government officials get the list of Scott’s defenders! Easy money.

  120. James Wiggum said,

    August 7, 2007 at 17:05

    From the “I’m telling the truth” section of Beauchamps letter you ran as ‘proof’ he was telling the truth:

    “It’s been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq.”

    …and from his part: “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”

    Ok! Noted.

    From TNR now, as related by the Chickenhawk Weekly: “The magazine’s editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety–meant to illustrate the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”–took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq”

  121. Michelle Malkin » Winter Soldier Syndrome said,

    August 8, 2007 at 14:45

    [...] rumor-mongering bloggers; 3) used as a distraction from the troubles in Iraq; and 4) exploited by “chickenhawks” who deny that war atrocities [...]

  122. Jim said,

    August 10, 2007 at 0:34

    To the little blue chickens, the Chickenhawk is a formidable acdversary.

  123. Jim said,

    August 10, 2007 at 0:34

    Sorry about the typo: adversary

  124. Bloggasm » Political blogs deflecting links? Sore-loser journalism said,

    June 6, 2010 at 15:15

    [...] I was reading up on The New Republic “scandal” at Sadly, No!, and I followed a link to the right-wing political blog Little Green Footballs. But rather than [...]

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()