“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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.