Looking back at his writings with a new perspective, it all seems so Emo, doesn't it? It has that whiny, my life is so hard, my life is filled with infinite sadness, my life is filled with absurdity, I am surrounded by idiots and fools, feel to it. In one of his blog entries he described Camp Buehring in Kuwait as "Hell's Waiting Room." He then went on to describe the heat in Kuwait as, what a "suicide feels when he sticks his head in an oven."Oy, cry me a river PFC Thomas. At least this explains my desire to beat the crap out of him.

"Actually, I was mocking the need of the Right to frame every news story they don't like as part of a deliberate Lefty disinformation conspiracy." - Doc Washboard

Well, Doc, now we know his name and he is being investigated by the Army. The investigating officer will ask him, "who wore the child's skull? Who ran over the dogs? Who made fun of the burned woman?"

He is looking at 3 years in prison, forfeiture of all pay, and a dishonorable discharge for a UCMJ Article 134-12 (Disloyal Statements) violation. I am no lawyer but, it sounds good to me:
Elements.

(1) That the accused made a certain statement;

(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;

(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;

(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

y7 has it right I think, though I am also not a lawyer and I do not know if he'll be charged under the UCMJ Article y7 cites.

The fact that he will face some serious disciplinary issues is why I posted below saying he almost certainly did not voluntarily out himself. He is in deep doo-doo.

I don't know if it will come out or not but my educated guess is his fellows in his unit confronted him and forced him out, or raised their suspicions with his command and *they* forced him out.

This sort of thing isn't funny or cute to people that serve honorably. Frankly I doubt a single word of it is true. I don't believe the part about the woman, I don't believe the part about the dogs, and I am especially doubtful about mass grave part of the story.

Y7:

If he did something wrong, then punish him for it. I have no problem with that. If you'll cast your mind back a few days, however, you'll remember that a big component of the the initial reaction to Beauchamp's writing was, "This guy doesn't even exist." I think CY even had a couple of posts to that effect.

Well, he does exist, and the fools who leaped to the conclusion that he didn't now look like fools.

I would just like to see a more measured, evenhanded approach from my fellow citizens. An example: "That whole skull-wearing thing thing seems unlikely, but, if it turns out after investigation to be true, the guy should be punished."

The assumption on the Right, though, seems to be, "If we don't like the sound of it, it's obviously some conspiracy by Lefties to smear the military." Again: the guy's very existence was initially questioned with the same kind of knee-jerk response, and where did it get everyone?

There will be more than time enough to hang Beauchamp from the highest tree in Baghdad after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not. It sound like the Glock thing is being discredited with facts. That's step one. Now maybe people could approach the other stories the same way.

I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off.

will piss some people off.

Who did you have in mind to be pissed off? You think Bush ordered a hit on Tillman?

Hmmm.

@ Doc Washboard

Why? It's all speculation and little else.

If you'll cast your mind back a few days, however, you'll remember that a big component of the the initial reaction to Beauchamp's writing was, "This guy doesn't even exist." I think CY even had a couple of posts to that effect.

Doc, if you lie like that again, I will ban you.

I NEVER claimed he didn't exist, not has any other credible blogger I've read who has discussed the subject.

You think Bush ordered a hit on Tillman?

This is precisely what I'm talking about in my post up above. Based on absolutely nothing at all--nothing--Purple Avenger has opened the door to accusations that I think that Tillman's death was a Bush-ordered murder.

When I write, "I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off," what I mean, in essence, is, "I'm guessing that this article will piss some people off." If people are upset about Beauchamp, I'm saying, boy, are they going to be upset about this one.

Thanks for illustrating spittle-flecked insanity, Avenger.

Doc W.,

Yeah, that InterBlog is a big place, so if you cast your mind back a few days, you can justify a whole lot. When I cast my mind back a few days, I recall being abashed that I'd been so taken in by Beauchamp's writings. When I read them, I thought they were truthful first-person accounts. Reading some of the skeptics, I realized that the tales Beauchamp were telling had a lot of potential holes.

The real question is not, and has never been, "Is the guy a soldier?"

TNR published Beauchamp as fact-not-fiction. So:

1. Are Beauchamp's accounts indeed consistent with the facts as they can be determined?

2. Editor Foer has been adamant that Beauchamp's writing was rigorously fact-checked and edited. What does rigorous fact checking entail? How was this process successfully completed in Beauchamp's case?

I don't "hope" that Beauchamp's accounts are indeed true, because they paint a picture of moral depravity--not just of the author and his chums, but as a pathology that afflicts every officer and soldier in Alpha Company, at the least.

As a TNR subscriber, I do hope that the magazine acquits itself, that it did indeed exercise due diligence prior to publishing Beauchamp's extravagant accounts--whether or not they turn out to be accurate. At the moment, it doesn't look too good. What comes to mind is the recent famous quote by Newsweek's Evan Thomas on coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame: "We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."

Kindly stop changing the subject to make it fit your narrative.

Perhaps no credible blogger has directly, put-yourself-out-there claimed he didn't exist, but there's been plenty of implication to that effect. (I suppose bloggers learned a lesson from their claims that the AP had no source in the Iraqi police that they should only *suggest* that the mainstream media is lying, rather than openly accusing them of it.)

Michelle Malkin's blog called him "an alleged soldier." The American Thinker put forward a theory that the blogger actually was a discharged soldier, Clifton Hicks.

That's just two examples. If someone more time wants to go through your whole blogroll -- for examples of blogs you presumably deem credible -- I suspect there'd be several more examples of bloggers implying or outright claiming that the TNR writer was not currently serving in Iraq.

Doc,

When you and I had our discussion, the argument was not whether the guy existed but rather whether the allegations sounded true. Your knee-jerk reaction was to defend the story saying that us righties have a knee-jerk reaction to dispute it.

Remember when I mentioned that if TNR did not disclose his identity that they would be protecting a criminal?

The Tillman link was a nice diversion. "Not saying it is true, just saying it will piss people off." Sounds like a Truther quote.

Doc, the right wingnut claim that Beauchamp didn't exist was fake but the "narrative" may be accurate (that noone exists who can truthfully tell the horror stories Beauchamp told) And, as you know, that would be close enough for major media to claim "truth". Your appeal to right wingnuts for evenhandedness was well placed, major media and the left embrace government as a religion substitute and thus are beyond reach of your appeal to reason.

Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?

This is ugly.

So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble.

I don't expect this post to last long. Just pointing out the obvious.

Nip it in the bud NOW, so he can't go on to become a senator.

Tx Bubba, so I followed your link to CY’s 11-paragraph letter to TNR ”(your letter)”.

1. Dear The New Republic, [intro]

2. I just finished re-reading the claims [intro]

3. TNR states that Thomas is a pseudonym [intro]

4. An active duty officer currently serving at Camp Falcon [recount objections to content]

5. But perhaps more problematic for TNR are the biological, medical, and forensic improbabilities [further objections to content, CY’s conclusion that claims are wrong]

6. Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? [CY questions TNR’s vetting of “Scott Thomas” bona fides]

7. Did it ever cross the minds of New Republic editors [challenge of facts of chow hall story]

8. Did the New Republic ask for verification of the mass grave [challenge of facts of dumping ground story]

9. Did it ever occur to any New Republic editor to contact someone who is an expert on Bradley IFVs [challenge of facts of dog-squashing stories]

10. But beyond merely fact-checking Thomas' series of suspicious [challenge to journalistic even-handedness]

11. To borrow a phrase from another periodical [snarky close]

One out of the seven or so substantial paragraphs in the letter is focused on the bona fides of "Scott Thomas'" identity.

Was that what you meant?

We now know that the editors' due diligence was correctly performed on that point. Did they do as well on the others? Or is Question Time now declared to be over?

TNR is a highbrow magazine. I expect their editors will report on:

(1) Whether they still stand behind the veracity of Beauchamp's accounts;

(2) What their pre-publication vetting protocol was, and whether they now think it was adequate.

This would be despite the urging of many ideologues that it's time for TNR to move on to other subjects, leaving this one unresolved.

Jody, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the assertion, not the skeptic. TNR/Beauchamp have to prove their assertions; until then, skepticism is fully justified. And the more implausible the assertion, the greater the level of proof required. (If I say it's raining, you can probably take my word for it; if I say there's a unicorn outside, better check it out for yourself before believing it.)

Common sense, really.

Actually Jody,we've conclusvely proven at least two previous claims from Beauchamp are absolute false:

• There is no psitol inteh world that fires a "square-backed" cartridge
• His claim that only the Iraqi police carry Glock pistols is an out-and-out falsehood.

Nor have TNR and Beauchamp been able to provide the first shred of evidence that any of his claims were true, while soldiers serving at the same base flatly deny that his claims are true.

You know how journalism is supposed to function, don't you Jody?

Reporters gather evidence, editors fact-check to make sure the evidence supports the story, and the story is then published. But this did not happen under Franklin Foer's leadership at TNR.

As Beauchamp was the husband of a TNR staffer and an aspiring writer, they took his claims at face value, and are thus reaping the whirlwind of their incompetence and his apparent dishonesty.

Juornalism fails when they simply report unchecked assertions, and the New Republic clearly failed here.

Amac, I did what I hope any responsible journalist would: attempt to check the veracity of the source to see if he is a plausible source fro the kind of story being written (the opinion of a used car salesmen on global warning is viewed as being less credible than that of a certain specialized scientists, for example).

There is a world of difference between attempting to verify a source, and claiming that the source is something else entirely.

If we cast our minds back a bit, the Left's defense of the Rather memoes was "fake, but accurate."

I would suggest, in casting our minds forward, that the Beauchamp allegations are "real, but inaccurate."

That is, whether he exists or not is not germane nor relevant to whether his stories are true.

Doc Washboard: "...after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not."

Doc in some instances, it may not matter if the events are true or not. Unless those writings are clearly marked as "creative writing" or "pure fiction" there are arguments on what his intent was. There are many things he can be pegged for regardless if what he writes about is true or not. So I am not sure why you point that out. If they are true, he himself is complicit in not reporting the events.

Regardless, when I served (up to 1988)they were very specific about information where OPSEC was concerned. They did not care if the information was valid or invalid. YOU DID/DO NOT DO IT!

Depending on the deployment, they would tell us *IF* we could tell family members. If it were very sensitive, we would just go to work one day and that would be it with no warnings to family.

You don't have to like it. That is just how it works. And if you don't like how it works, then do not sign up and then whine about it.

I'm sorry, CY, if I mischaracterized what you wrote. I interpreted this quote to mean that you questioned Beauchamp's existence:

For his sake, I hope that Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic, is merely suffering from unfortunate phrasing:

The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

I guess I was putting too cynical a spin on it--precisely the sin I'm accusing others of committing.

Again, I'm sorry about that.

CY,

> I did what I hope any responsible journalist would

Yep. Since you posted your letter to TNR, readers don't have to take your word for it. We can click on the link and see for ourselves.

The Tillman link was a nice diversion. "Not saying it is true, just saying it will piss people off." Sounds like a Truther quote.

y7, I saw the Tillman article as related in tone and content to the Beauchamp piece, so I was just tossing it into the mix.

Mike Toreno,

I'm a TNR subscriber, but not a serving soldier or a vet.

Please make a list for me of those topics that I may offer an opinion on, and those which are off-limits. You should start by grading my earlier comments on this thread

Others here don't even have subscriber status. Please do the same for them.

Thanks.

Hawk:

I understand that there are constraints to what information other soldiers can share with others. That, however, has not been the issue up until now. To this point, the argument has been that the guy's lying. Now you're saying that it doesn't matter whether anything untoward happened while Beauchamp was in Iraq because he broke the rules by talking about his pending deployment before he went to Iraq.

This is one of those classic subject changes I'm always accused of here.

Let's go ahead and disprove his story and make him take his lumps for lying or, conversely, prove his story and make other malefactors take their lumps. But let's not sweep it under the carpet the way you're suggesting.

Correct, Doc, the issue is the moving goalposts and the embarrassing attempts to whitewash that. Good gee-had, now CY and others are attempting to get an American soldier in trouble. An American soldier - on the front lines. I honestly can hardly absorb this. If Michael Yon had written the piece it wouldn't be had to imagine hundreds of RW bloggers linking to it approvingly.

And perhaps the silliest part: the New Republic being portrayed as an anti-war rag. WTF?

Wait - even sillier: And American soldier - in Iraq - fighting with and for Americans - being portrayed as a soldier smearer. And many of those helping out in that mind-boggling smear are people who are pro-war in Iraq, are able to serve in that war...but won't.

There has to be a point when I just stop bothering with such nonsense.

Though your efforts to get Scott Thomas Beauchamp in a heap of trouble are certainly admirable, Mr. Owen, the suggestion by folks at Blackfive that they get his own company to, you know, not frag him exactly, but rough him up a little (and if things should go a little too far...) seems a lot more efficient and entails a lot less hard work from you. That's not to say your journalistic efforts are not appreciated. All the work you did in revealing that Jamil Hussein didn't exist was admirable, even though it turned out he did exist after all.

Anyone who doesn't realize that there have been and remain different, independent but mutually reinforcing questions regarding the "Shock Troops" stories either hasn't been paying attention or is too ideologically challenged to do so - so I'll leave them aside to ask about something different, having to do with how Foer and TNR's fumbled the situation from the very beginning. I'd be particularly interested in the responses of some of the TNR subscribers who've been showing up here. (I myself used to subscribe to TNR a million years ago or so.)

TNR had a young ideologically committed liberal activist - a Deaniac, apparently - in place on an active duty unit in Iraq. Furthermore, the writer was the husband of a TNR staffer. Instead of exploring the unique possibilities of this situation (possibly quite illuminating or even comical if handled honestly), instead of at the very least sharing the facts with their readers, the editors chose to hide them, in favor of publishing cliche-ridden, distasteful, overdone, immature, and incredible "soldier's tales."

Can any of you who read "Shock Troops" before this controversy exploded honestly claim that you would have read them in the same way if you had known the truth about the author? Be honest - didn't you have a different picture of him? Isn't this a bit like THE WEEKLY STANDARD or THE NATIONAL REVIEW printing some inside story about the Obama campaign, full of scandalous details and accusations, without happening to mention that the writer was a graduate of Liberty University and William Kristol's nephew? How would you have reacted if the latter revelations came after the fact?

Could you imagine that TNR would hoodwink you in this way, and lay both themselves and everyone associated with them to such embarrassment?

Hmmm.

"I NEVER claimed he didn't exist, not has any other credible blogger I've read who has discussed the subject."

Actually I claimed that he didn't exist, though I'm not really a credible blogger since I pretty much only comment on other blogs.

I didn't think he existed because I didn't think any soldier would be so incredibly incompetent and dumb describing a 9mm shell casing fired by a Glock as "square backed".

Well guess I was fooled. There really is a soldier that incredibly incompetent and dumb.

Answer to CK MacLeod --

My first reaction is that, No, the Beauchamp/Elspeth connection isn't why I feel (at this point) pwned.

It was obvious from the first "Diarist" that the author was very disaffected with US policy and with the way the war was being conducted. Knowing the connection doesn't change that.

My problem is with the fact-checking. As a credulous, trusting reader, I was duped. That's lame, but not as lame as an editor being credulous and trusting about every manuscript that arrives in the afternoon's mail... that happens to conform to a particular meta-narrative.

"Due diligence" doesn't mean "identify every problem with every submission." It means, be duly diligent in following appropriate procedures to vet submissions to a reasonable level.

I am unclear what steps TNR took to check Beauchamp's pieces, beyond (obviously) knowing that he was who he said he was. The answer may turn out to be, "We did nothing more, because we couldn't imagine that Elspeth's fiance/husband would scam us. Since we weren't skeptical, we didn't twig to the fantastic nature of the most serious charges."

So perhaps the social relationship contributed to the debacle in that way. I don't know--time will tell.

Hmmmm.

"So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble."

It's nobody's job to disprove his idiotic allegations.

It is HIS and TNR's job to prove them.

>Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?

This is ugly.
Posted by: Thom at July 27, 2007 11:17 AM

This heroic soldier you have come to admire so recently is, by his own writings a psychopath who claims to have participant in disgraceful behavior, broken regulations and rather than make any attempt to rectify the situation through proper channels, has instead used it to advance his dubious writing career. The fact that you admire this behavior is truly disturbing and telling. The fact that you overlook the detail that the stories are unlikely to be true and are suspiciously similar to fictitious works he wrote about the war before getting into it demonstrates that all you care about is the damage he does rather than the truth of his accusations.

That, I agree is ugly.

Doc Washboard:"To this point, the argument has been that the guy's lying."

It is more than lying. Legally it is called slander (at a minimum). And while he hasn't singled out anyone by name, he has smeared the reputation of a group which is legally actionable.

Also, I look at it all the same as walking into a store and screaming "There is a bomb in here!" Sure I may be lying, but look at the effects I have caused.

I am saying that whether or not it was the truth is just like the above example... If I broke other laws, I will be prosecuted for those laws - not (only) for lying.

I am not saying it doesn't matter because of what was said before. That was a leap on your part.

What he said BEFORE going is something completely different and should follow under rules/laws concerning OPSEC. The fact he did that tells me that either he just doesn't care or is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

To be perfectly clear: Beauchamp can at least legally prosecuted for BOTH issues.

It wasn't a subject change as much as a addendum.

Thom: "...and others are attempting to get an American soldier in trouble."

Nope. Other's aren't trying to get him in trouble. Beauchamp is doing that himself. He is tying the rope around his neck and the tree and just waiting to be pushed. American soldiers don't PUBLICALLY discuss OPSEC issues. That can place other soldiers lives in danger.

Here's an old anecdote that may or may not be true that demonstrates the problem with allowing someone to throw out charges and then put the burden of proof on the accused. Interestingly enough this famous story involves a famous Democrat - Lyndon Baines Johnson (Kids, look him up).

Early in his political career Lyndon was running for office against a gentleman who had made his money as a Pig Farmer. Lyndon was losing. Lyndon went to his publicist and told him that he wanted to annonymously leak a story that his opponent was rumored to enjoy the sexual favors of some of the sows in his barnyard.

The publicist blurted out "Cripes (sic) Lyndon! We can't call the guy a pig f**ker!"

"No", Lyndon said, "But we can make him deny it".

Can you see now why publishing such stories about the American military are viewed as a problem by some?

That post is over a year old

does Major Kirk Luedeke know that ? did you tell him ?

did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.

So, this guy posts some things you don't agree with, and you can't disprove them, so you try to come up with ways to get him in trouble.

There are many comments on the post that sound almost like this one. They all sound like Scott Thomas Beauchamp is the victim here, but he is not.

If Beauchamp is in any trouble, and so far this is unproved, it is based solely on his own actions. Nothing that any bloggers did or said will be used in the investigation into the "stories" that he gave/sold to TNR, the posts on his blog or his participation in any of the incidents described in his TNR stories.

The fact that he used a pseudonym because he feared some sort of blowback, shows that he when he was walking into a buzz saw of his own making. Beauchamp is reaping from that which he sowed. There are proper channels to handle improper conduct, and TNR isn't one of them. Besides, sending stories of improper conduct to TNR doesn't do anything to to stop improper conduct.

Additionally, it is clear from the comments on various posts that Beauchamp had placed himself in peril by remaining silent especially on the Bradley incidents, if they are in fact true.

If Beauchamp is in any trouble, it is because Beauchamp is a victim of his own stupidity.

Hey Hawk, nobody's trying to get him in trouble?

Read the title to this post.

God.

Thanks for illustrating spittle-flecked insanity, Avenger.

Wow, was I Nostradamus with that crack or what? Looks like we got a Daily Kos piece here that suggests precisely that. Bush ordered a hit on Tillman to prevent him from meeting with Chomsky

Sorry people, I don't have tomorrow's lottery numbers. This one was a fluke.

Thom's right, I'm sure everybody in Iraq goes around with little kids' skulls under their helmets all day, to the delight of all. And I'm pretty sure when you join the Army, part of the induction ceremony is killing a dog. Every soldier has a daily quota of dogs he has to kill. This kind of stuff is absolutely not out of the ordinary.

cleek: did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.

I served up to (and almost got to go) to Desert Storm and after.

The rules on blogging may have changed a year ago. But I seriously doubt OPSEC rules have allowed the posting/sharing of that information.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

cleek,
The change of rules for milbloggers would make no difference, publishing upcoming troop movements was an OPSEC violation at the time and remains so. The information he disclosed could possibly have caused the deaths of his entire unit. There are people who would very much like to kill U.S. soldiers. Telling them where you will be and when is not only exceptionally stupid, it will get a soldier in trouble with their chain of command.

Thom:Hey Hawk, nobody's trying to get him in trouble? Read the title to this post. God.

You walk into a bank with a gun. They call the police. Who got you in trouble? Those who called the police?? NO. YOU!

Neo said it very nicely. Beuchamp's own stupidity is what will get him in trouble.

*IF* the incidents happened, he didn't report them to the proper people. TNR is NOT the proper people. (The bradley incident has been blown to hell by many vets who HAVE driven a bradley)

*IF* he is lying then he is guilty of slander

Posting/sharing movement of troops/units has been against OPSEC since at least 1984(and I am sure before). I doubt that has changed so he is guilty there.

HE did it all to himself. No one made him post it.
Do you not understand that no one held a gun to his head and said "POST THIS OR YOU DIE!"
He did it of his own (STUPID) free will.

It really isn't that hard to grasp!

it will get a soldier in trouble with their chain of command.

any proof that this hasn't already happened ? (i.e. that he wasn't already reprimanded for this posting)

Hawk

Owens, by his own admission, wrote to the Foward Affairs Officer at Falcon saying something along the lines of: "Look at what he wrote! Isn't that a violation?..."

You're right, people's actions get them into trouble - and other people can try to help that cause to.

Avenger:

I was dodging spittle because you leapt from straight out of nowhere to assuming I blamed the President for the Tillman thing. I made no commentary on the thing in any way other than to predict that some people are going to get angry about the article.

"Bohica22":::Looking back at his writings with a new perspective, it all seems so Emo, doesn't it? It has that whiny, my life is so hard, my life is filled with infinite sadness, my life is filled with absurdity

YES!!! some can be on the front line yet know NOTHING

some can be on the couch yet know MUCH

"Doc Washbored":::

I guess I was putting too cynical a spin on it--precisely the sin I'm accusing others of committing.

glad to see you can be HONEST once in a while

EVERYONE knows hes a real soldier!!!

the PROBLEM is that hes spreading pernishous rumers about glock pistols and about running over dogs

PLUS he leeked operations data to the jihadis!!!

So if the left says that if you support the war, you need to go fight it...then if Foer believes, you need liberals to sign up and go report anonymously on the war, why hasn't Foer signed up for a stint?
Why send a punk kid who barely understands life.
Certainly Foer could have come up with more believeable stories.

Don't let the lefties spin this - that we all claimed this guy didn't exist. That is BS, and they know it. It's easily provable all over the web.

Sure, some made that claim, but many did not, and I am one of them. I simply did not believe that he made fun of a burned woman in a crowded chow hall, because my experience in the military made that seem impossible.

What the left is trying to do is pull a "win" out of this fiasco, sort of a web version of moving from one cover position to another.

leapt from straight out of nowhere to assuming I blamed the President for the Tillman thing.

Having trouble with punctuation semantics? I suggest reading up on what the question mark is supposed to mean.

I had noticed the entry with the deployment dates also. I mentioned it to some of the folks who were running with the story, but was ignored. :::shrug:::

Jim, vicious military haters like Thom really do believe that all soldiers do things like mocking victims of an ied attack in a mess hall and go around with a baby skull in his helmet. Their seething rage for this country and our soldiers cloud their thinking.

An email from Beauchump's 1st Sgt. that squarly contradicts the little slimeballs claims.

Below is a correspondence I had with PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s Co. 1SG. I e-mailed him via AKO and did not expect him to have the time to answer, but I’m proud to say he did. Looks like The New Republic’s representative lackey has alot of explaining to do. My original e-mail is at the bottom. Enjoy!

SFC McElroy,

I’m not in the habit of answering these email’s. It would be far too many. I appreciate all the support from home and I can assure you that not a single word of this was true. We’ve been fighting this fight for quite some time. Numerous soldiers within my unit have served on several deployments and this is my third year as a First Sergeant in this unit. My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. This soldier has other underlining issues which I’m sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. I can’t and won’t divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. I’m proud of my soldiers and would gladly give my life for any one of them. Please continue to keep them with you in your prayers and thank God that we have these courageous men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Americans, and the people of this struggling nation.

Sincerely,

1SG Hatley

Found at The Foxhole --http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/update-on-the-new-republics-man-in-iraq/

Eh, everything below the first line should be quoted from The Foxhole.

does Major Kirk Luedeke know that ? did you tell him ?

did he say if the post is in violation of the current rules, or the rules in place at the time the post was written ? they changed in May of this year, you know.
Posted by cleek at July 27, 2007 03:35 PM

Thom,

Enough of the Chickenhawk crap. I have been to Iraq and am currently in Afghanistan. In Iraq, I was a First Sergeant, the primary troop leader, disciplinarian, trainer, etc., for 400 soldiers.

If you read in my first post this quote from the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces."

Thom - "Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?"

He ain't the only guy in his unit, genius. All those other guys are "in Iraq, killing and maybe dying" as well but now they are distracted by this chump accusing them of heinous behavior. Those guys are now going out on combat missions with this distraction in their minds.

Also, Beauchamp HAS TO BE PUNISHED or there will be a complete breakdown in discipline in this unit. Period. Beauchamp wrote what he wrote to discredit the military effort in Iraq which in turns discredits all those other guys in his unit. If his behavior isn't punishable, what is?

Plus, he most likely violated a direct order. Most units have a policy that before a Soldier can publish stories, especially ones credited as actual events, that the content must be screened and approved by the PAO.

Don't give me that Chickenhawk crap.

Doc - "y7, I saw the Tillman article as related in tone and content to the Beauchamp piece, so I was just tossing it into the mix."

No, the irony was just overwhelming and you needed a diversion. The only thing related to the two is your kneejerk tendency to believe the worst about the military and the government. Personally, I think its time to leave Pat Tillman ALONE. The right used him as a poster child for selfless service and now the left wants to use him as a murdered-by-the-president anti-warrior? Please drop it. It is a tragedy and I feel for his family's loss. And for his family's sake, I wish the world would leave him alone.

Next, I think that anyone who raised an eyebrow at the "near-certainty" comment is entirely justified. Accusations of this level should require a higher standard than that.

I wrote about Beauchamp when his Shock Troops article first appeared. I never claimed he did not exist, but I did say that in many many years of being a military spouse who had eaten in dozens of mess halls and officer's dining rooms, I could not imagine in any possible way, any active duty person denigrating one of their female own and being responsible for public ridicule without it being immediately reported to the Commanding Officer, the XO or to the Command Master Chief or Sgt. at Arms. It just would not happen in the first place and if by some weird alignment of evil it did happen, it would have been all over the command within minutes and the offending parties would be facing swift disciplinary action including a dose of mandatory sensitivity training.

This little whiny twerp said he joined the Army because he was basically lazy. This is a smear right from the git go because it assumes on Beauchamp's part that the Army wants lazy little boys to join up. My husband was the Intake Officer at NTC-San Diego for almost 5 years, and I know for a fact that the lazy, spoiled little boys didn't make it in boot camp past the first 3 days. That is the Navy, I doubt the Army is too much different. Lazy means danger to the rest of the unit. Disloyalty of the type that Beauchamp displays means danger to the rest of the unit and to regional operations. Publishing troop movements including dates for movement of their major equipment is giving aid to the enemy. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is toast and I hope he rots.

And let us not forget, the reason Beauchamp, his editor wifey and TNR thought they could get away with all this is because they believe in their hearts that anyone in the military is intellectually deficient, primitive and animalistic. Everything is seen thru this prism.

Hey, mesablue - that's a big scoop IMO - if authentic - that e-mail from someone claiming to be STB's 1SG. As far as I know those are the first words on this all from one of STB's comrades. I've already passed it on, and I would not be surprised to see it all over the place tomorrow.

No, the irony was just overwhelming and you needed a diversion. The only thing related to the two is your kneejerk tendency to believe the worst about the military and the government.

Again with the telling me how I actually feel about something, blithely ignoring whatever I may have to say about it. Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties in addition to your own?

Pretty sure Jodi is a lefty spoofer.

Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties in addition to your own?

reading this idiocy I am left laughing at Lefties cardiac arrest over Washington Posts hiring of Ben Demeche.

mesablue,

Thanks for the link to "The Foxhole." The Sergeant's letter prompted a short blog post at Winds of Change.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Doc. Now I am seeing a pattern. I am keeping track of your positions. That is much easier than the whole of the leftie empire.

And, of course, you were "sure" the Tillman story would piss some people off. Guilty of your accusation own there, Doc. Don't you get tired of knowing how all us righties think?

"Why send a punk kid who barely understands life...."

I have read that this guy's Myspace entry says he is 24 years old.

Actually, this imbecile, beauchump, can be charged with sedition as well as UCMJ violations.
TNR can face sedition charges as well.

A Jacksonian shows how they violated the law:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/07/wagers-
of-deceit.html

Emohawk. I like it.

y7:

Recycling my positions from up above:

There will be more than time enough to hang Beauchamp from the highest tree in Baghdad after somebody figures out whether the stuff he writes about is true or not. It sound like the Glock thing is being discredited with facts. That's step one. Now maybe people could approach the other stories the same way.

Also:

Let's go ahead and disprove his story and make him take his lumps for lying or, conversely, prove his story and make other malefactors take their lumps.

There's a world of difference between "let's get the facts" and hating the military. I fully understand that you don't see the distinction, but it doesn't mean that it's not there. I'm not even sure where you're getting the whole "hate the military" idea. Which positions of mine have you "kept track of" (and, I've got to tell you, that comes off as more than a little creepy) that demonstrate this supposed hate?

Remember: not liking you doesn't count as hatred of the military.

I posted a comment on blackfive before Scott Thomas' identity was known asking if he was a real soldier serving in Iraq. With Jason Blair and Stephen Glass fabricating facts and reporting on them, one must consider the possibility that Scott is not a soldier in Iraq, but a reporter composing a fictional account in some office on H-Street in Washington.

People who know about Bradleys and Glocks and FOB Falcon had serious questions about the things Scott claimed. The PAO denied the existence of a female contractor with a burned face, denied the discovery of a mass grave and cast doubt that a Bradley could or would be used to kill dogs in the manner described in this piece.

The assertion that these events were commonplace in Iraq struck me as highly unlikely. The military is too disciplined and too open to keep this under wraps. Had an NCO or officer seen or heard about any of these incidents, swift and severe corrective would have been taken on the spot.

I fault Scott Thomas Beauchamp for fabricating this terrible prose, but I also fault TNR for printing it without verifying the facts because it fit their agenda.

"Why send a punk kid who barely understands life...."

I have read that this guy's Myspace entry says he is 24 years old.

Age is just a number. Beauchamp is immature, and yet there are many young men, probably in his Company, who have far more discipline and maturity despite lesser chronological age.

Part of the way you can tell is that he wants to be a hero, but not for doing anything heroic. He's looking for a shortcut to celebrity and adulation, while the real heroes around him take a "Just doin' my job" approach.

The 1SGT alludes to other issues that PVT Beauchamp has - that explains his rank after all that service and the fact that he once was a PFC.
My wife is in Iraq and we were not allowed to know exact dates of deployment - any movement of troops was classified - he violated OPSEC for sure.
I was one that did not think he existed - I think I was fooled by the fact that the stories had been edited - probably by a non-military type - Beauchamp wrote DFAC, editor changed it to Chow hall because he/she did not think the audience knew what a chow hall was - there was a lot of that in the writings, so I thought that a non-military person wrote it - the fact that I made the mistake and he turns out to be real in no way diminishes the fact that the burden of proof for all these stories lies with TNR. They did not fact check them or they would be able to produce their corroboration in an instant. They took his word for it and did not check the facts at all. The easiest person to produce should be the female contractor - she should be easy to single out by his description, and she should be more than happy to point out the scumbags that derided her in the DFAC. If that story is true the guys that laughed at her and taunted her should be give official punishment and non-official punishment(blanket parties in my day).
The stories did not sound plausible, the words used did not sound like they came from a person who is over there, so a number of us doubted his existence. There were a number of bloggers that did think he was real and in fact isolated his unit down to a fairly low level.

Notice the way the lefties concentrate on shifting the goalposts around, trying to find any speculation that turns out to be not 100% accurate, so they can turn a detail into a complete refutation of the whole. Funny, they never seem to hold themselves to that standard.

Their approach is simple: keep the focus on any impefection of the acusations, rather than the obvious underlying crime. When slandering the military, they love the "narrative". When denying the fact that this is their purpose, they love the details. Lefties demand perfection of everyone but themselves, and too often we get caught up in playing their game. But I suppose honest people are vulnerable to that.

Is this something to be happy about? Wouldn't this just feed the argument of those who want to limit most any milblog of those on active duty? I don't think people should hide any opsec violation, but the cure may be as bad as the disease.

Thom, do you remember a soldier named Jessie Macbeth?

Answer: No. That little incident is into the memory hole. Never happened. And completely irrelevant to this little incident.

1SG Hatley has denied all of Beauchamp's claims. Are you gonna ask him to "prove it"?

Answer: just his opinion, nothing to prove. You prove it.

Why do you hate 1SG Hatley?

Answer: "I don't hate anybody. Blah, blah, blah, blah." Insert ad hominum here.

Just trying to save some time.

Doesn't it wear you guys out, keeping track of the secret thoughts of all Lefties

Ohhh, "secret thoughts" - very dramatic. No need for mind reading here though, an occasional stroll through DKos and DU, or an Olbermann episode is sufficient to get a very public non-secret read on where the left's headspace is at on any given day.

Ohhh, "secret thoughts" - very dramatic. No need for mind reading here though

I can't think of any other term for it, Avenger. The interpretations you and your brethren give of what I post here are often diametrically opposed to what I actually write and, amazingly, even contradict what I am under the impression I believe.

I've never read a thread over at Kos, and I've never seen Olbermann, but it's your position that I take my marching orders from them. It's news to me. I think we that we can safely classify ideas I didn't even know I had (but that you can ferret out with your mad mindreading skillz) as "secret."

y7, ya know what's funny? The word "chickenhawk" has only been used twice in this thread - and both were by you. That's just funny.

And y7, when I'm talking to dogs, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a dog! arrr arr arr woof..." If I'm talking to girly men, don't (unless you're a girly man) jump in. If I'm talking to people who haven't served in he military - go sit down. I'm not talking to you. I'm taling to them.

Here's the post I believe you're referring to:

"Wait - even sillier: And American soldier - in Iraq - fighting with and for Americans - being portrayed as a soldier smearer. And many of those helping out in that mind-boggling smear are people who are pro-war in Iraq, are able to serve in that war...but won't."

You see how that works?

And finally, a question: have you ever in your time as a combat soldier done something or seen something that was outside of standard operating procedure; and did you report every instance of that?

***And being a soldier doesn't make you a mind reader. Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group. You just don't know. You're speculating into that because of his writing makes you look silly.

It would not be too much to point out that "Scott Thomas, the dispassionate and neutral soldier/reporter of super facts for a super new age" does NOT, in fact, exist. That is a TNR fiction. And a Beauchamp fiction, too. "But but but," the Left will bluster, "nobody said he was." Except that they did. And "Jamil Hussein", as they represented him, doesn't exist either. Rigor, Foer, or Mortis, you choose. Mortis seems to be winning.

Thom:
"Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group. You just don't know. You're speculating into that because of his writing makes you look silly."

I dunno, that sergeant's e-mail struck me as more than a little damning even without the actual substance of the lad's "reportage". Somehow I don't think with his attitude about stupid boring Army he's one of the "cool kids".

Look. lets all dial down on the left vs. right thing, ok?

This war has made all sides look asinine many times over, and before we are done in Iraq, the cycle will be repeated.

In all likelihood, we all be dissappointed when the truth comes out.

Probably no confusingly dressed, disfigured woman was mocked; A Bradley on a combat mission was not hot-rodded around in an act of canine-cide; that no soldier on patrol wore a child's skull as a hat.

Probably Beauchamp was just a young dope hopped up on punk.

Probably TNR was lazy and less-than-rigorous in giving an assignment to the husband of a writer there.

There are sins done in the name of ideology, and then there are the sins that result from human nature. Im gonna run with human nature.

y7, ya know what's funny? The word "chickenhawk" has only been used twice in this thread - and both were by you. That's just funny.

Not actually true. "chickenhawk" smears have been tossed into this thread roughly a dozen times by tbagg and john cole readers who surfed over to drop in the ad hom insult that they no doubt keep in a template somewhere for such purposes. Of course, as they've added nothing of value to the conversation, they were deleted in relatively short order.

CY, I stand corrected. Deletions, deletions. In any case, y7 was incorrect in his bluster toward me.

CTY, why have you stopped accepting my posts?

O at least the last one. There's no bad words in it or anything. What auto trigger did I hit?

Why do should we believe y7 was in the mil?
Is it because you agree with his point of view? If CY didn't would you datamin him?
How can MikeT prove his wife is in the military?
From this point on, to maintain consistency all people claiming military service should scan a picture of their paychecks (after being data mined for irregularities of course)
If its good enough for Mr B. its good enough for all of the milbloggers.

commander0

You said: "I dunno." Yup, you don't.

Hmmmm.

@ Thom

"Beauchamp could be one of the most respected guys in his group."

Completely idiotic nonsense.

Soldiers that are respected get promoted because they do things that earn that respect and those very same things will result in promotions.

If Beauchamp was such a great soldier then why did he go from PFC (PV3) to Private (PV2)?

Respected soldiers don't get Article 15's.

Hmmmm.

@ Doc Washboard

"I've never read a thread over at Kos, and I've never seen Olbermann, but it's your position that I take my marching orders from them. It's news to me."

Pretty amazing.

Even I've read some of the nonsense on Kos and have watched Olbermann a couple times.

But you've kept yourself virgin all this time.

Hmmmm.

Ok. So has TNR actually coughed up some proof or are we still waiting for those twits to find their ass?

There is something very important about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp story which, I think, has gone largely unnoticed.

Whatever else Private Beauchamp may or may not be, he is first and foremost a Soldier.

As such, he is bound to uphold the Soldier’s Creed:

The Soldier’s Creed

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

Whether his story is true or not does not matter. Either way, he has failed to uphold his duties as a Soldier.

I find it very sad that so few can understand this. Before he ever went to write his stories, did any of his friends at TNR remind him of his duties? As his allies in the media leap to his defense, do they realize that regardless of the veracity of his stories, he has failed by breaking a code of honor? Do the bloggers who decry his silencing as a means of pro-war demagoguery understand that his silence has to do with his failure to behave like a Soldier?

There was a time in this country where so many people had served that the nation as a whole understood the importance of honor and duty. Now, very few understand service and instead everything is placed in a context of politics and partisanship.

That is quite sad.

@ Doc Washboard

Pretty amazing.

Even I've read some of the nonsense on Kos and have watched Olbermann a couple times.

But you've kept yourself virgin all this time.

Well, yes, despite your clear skepticism. I don't have cable and I don't get a single TV channel out here in the mountains, for one thing, so that takes care of the Olbermann. And while I visit quite a few Lefty sites, Kos is not among them.

The interpretations you and your brethren give of what I post here are often diametrically opposed to what I actually write and, amazingly, even contradict what I am under the impression I believe.

Language can be a scalpel or a blunt instrument. The choice is yours.

Perhaps you should simply choose your words more carefully to reflect what your claimed true intent is if you don't want to be misunderstood? There are many to choose from and an array of punctuation options for accessorizing them.

For example, when I use a question mark I intend it to be parsed as a question mark was intended to be parsed, and how it it taught in every school in the nation -- not as a period as someone might wish it to be parsed trying to distort my intent.

For example, when I use a question mark I intend it to be parsed as a question mark was intended to be parsed, and how it it taught in every school in the nation -- not as a period as someone might wish it to be parsed trying to distort my intent.

This, my friend, is what we call "backing and filling."

As an aside, what's your line of work?

Thom said:

"commander0

You said: "I dunno." Yup, you don't."

You are teh most clevererest poster ever.

As an aside, what's your line of work?

I'm a computer programmer and test engineer by trade. I specialize in low level assembler code work and the nitty gritty guts of device drivers and operating systems. Precision of expression is an absolute requirement for me and has been for 25 years in the business.

I'm not "backing and filling", I'm simply wielding the English language with the same precision I might use to craft an operating system's file system or memory management.

Impressive. Since we're in a pissing match here, I've been an English teacher for seventeen years. You can go ahead and try to teach me the ins and outs of word choice and the varied uses of punctuation, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to take me anywhere I haven't already been.

Had you really wanted to know who I thought was behind the death, you might have written something on the order of, "So who do you think was behind the death?" Instead, you tried to feed me an answer that you thought I'd leap at, and I'm betting that you were drooling at the thought of turning my response into some rant about BDS.

If you're as precise with your use of language as you say, the fact that you dropped the President's name into the discussion out of nowhere is as telling as your choice of end punctuation.

I didn't step into your little trap, but I encourage you to keep trying. It's cute.

"Doc Washedup":::

Once again the AVENGER has crushed you like the LIEberal bug you are HA, HA HA, HA

he proudly wields the SCALPEL of CONSERVATISM,,, a SOLDIER

you FLAIL ABOUT with your short and chubby BLUNT INSTRUMENT,,, bleeding heart oh dont be mean to the terrorists

in the back of youre mind you know GEORGE W BUSH will be remember as a HERO and it drives you crazy... BDS!!!

in the back of youre mind you know GEORGE W BUSH will be remember as a HERO and it drives you crazy... BDS!!!

Speaking of functionally illiterate...

Since we're in a pissing match here, I've been an English teacher for seventeen years. You can go ahead and try to teach me the ins and outs of word choice and the varied uses of punctuation, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to take me anywhere I haven't already been.

Forgive me for butting in, but Doc Washboard, you do seem rather full of yourself.

When I was in high school, we were assigned a thesis topic at the beginning of each school year, 9 thru 12. Our Senior Thesis determined whether we would graduate. It was "graded" by several different teachers who taught the student during the year. A thesis with a very high grade, usually A+ or A++ was sent on to the state writing contest.

My Senior Thesis got remarks like "brilliant," "very interesting and observant," "original thought about an old subject," "exceptional insight," "an understanding of the struggle of man way beyond her years," etc. I got an A++ and it was sent on to the state contest and I tied for first place. I would have won outright except for one small problem. The English teacher judge wrote in the margins, "too bad Miss G. missed school the day commas following introductory adverbial clauses was taught and that she never learned about split infinitives. She downgraded the overall paper grade from A++ to A. I was mortified at the time and never wrote publicly again until I started my blog. Now I don't care if it passes anal-retentive English teacher muster. If I see b.s. I call it b.s. and figure everyone gets where I'm coming from, even when I end with a preposition, miss a comma, or split an infinitive.

But since you like direct questions so much, let me ask - when you read the newspaper or a news magazine, do you read for construction or do you read for content and information? Do you dismiss documented evidence because the documenter made some punctuation or obscure grammatical error that only an English teacher would notice? Do you dismiss the years and years of experience about a subject because the person isn't a classical writer?

For me, I'll take my own experience and that of those I respect about whether Beauchamp is a pissant poseur or the real deal. You just don't get it -- TNR didn't care if Beauchamp was a pissant poseur because his articles advanced their own anti-military agenda and that is all that counted. It isn't that there aren't bad apples in an organization as large as our U.S. armed forces, no one is saying that. Of course there are. The difference is that those of us with years of experience know that the bad apples are not welcome and are dealt with when found, not celebrated. For the TNRs of the world, bad apples are turned into folk heroes. Some of the most outstanding military leaders I've known in my considerably long lifetime can't speak a grammatical sentence, are sometimes crass and crude, but somehow when it comes to leading their troops, they are trusted and revered and generate the kind of loyalty that makes others willing to lay down their lives, if necessary. They do not violate OPSEC, they are never lazy about their duty, the words honor and duty mean something to them, and they do not use that duty as a stepping stone to a civilian creative writing career denigrating their experience. They have finally tuned b.s. detectors because their lives and those of their men depend on it.

Forgive me for butting in, but Doc Washboard, you do seem rather full of yourself.

When I was in high school, we were assigned a thesis topic at the beginning of each school year, 9 thru 12. Our Senior Thesis determined whether we would graduate. It was "graded" by several different teachers who taught the student during the year. A thesis with a very high grade, usually A+ or A++ was sent on to the state writing contest.

My Senior Thesis got remarks like "brilliant," "very interesting and observant," "original thought about an old subject," "exceptional insight," "an understanding of the struggle of man way beyond her years," etc. I got an A++ and it was sent on to the state contest and I tied for first place.

Washbored is FULL of himself! YES!!!

I'm guessing that you won't be able to take me anywhere I haven't already been.

Your slackness must be intentional or due to laziness rather than lack of fundamental knowledge then.

But since you like direct questions so much, let me ask - when you read the newspaper or a news magazine, do you read for construction or do you read for content and information? Do you dismiss documented evidence because the documenter made some punctuation or obscure grammatical error that only an English teacher would notice? Do you dismiss the years and years of experience about a subject because the person isn't a classical writer?

These are rhetorical questions, I take it? Or would you really like an answer? You went on and composed a little speech after you asked them, so I wasn't sure.

Karl, you obviously missed the point. Once my paper was downgraded by the comma police, I did not believe any of the praise and lost all confidence that I could write at all. The difference between me the 17 year old and me 45 years later is that now I don't give a damn whether others think I can write or not, if I have something to say, I say it for my own satisfaction. And I still don't like to write, much preferring to do the research behind the scenes, which is really what the praise was all about anyway, although I didn't know it back then.

Doc W. - No speeches. I've learned from experience who to trust and who to call b.s. on. One of the few benefits of old age. You don't need to tell me your answers, but it wouldn't hurt to ask yourself the questions when evaluating whose opinions are the more trustworthy, especially on matters military.

TNR didn't care if Beauchamp was a pissant poseur because his articles advanced their own anti-military agenda

Have you read the New Republic since about 1985 or so? Whatever was going on over there it wasn't an anti-military agenda.

Sara: I'm right with you on those who have nothing better than try and correct grammar/punctuation. One thing I have always said when posting to people in a discussion or flame war is this:

If you post a reply and the absolute best thing a person can come back with is that you missed some punctuation or misspelled some word or pointing out your typos, you have won the argument.
If all they can do is to come back with a personal attack instead of addressing your message .... well, I think you get the picture ;)

(The one exception I make is when the person in question has a history of doing that and then gets busted for the same ... then it is just reaping what you sow *EG*)

One thing I learned in speech class was to "consider your audience." I see this consideration blown out of the water on an almost daily basis. My writing and choice of words totally depends on which blog I am making posts.

I look beyond the grammar. I try to see what the person is trying to communicate. Doing other wise actually does expose someone's personality flaws ;)

Karl, you obviously missed the point. Once my paper was downgraded by the comma police, I did not believe any of the praise and lost all confidence that I could write at all. The difference between me the 17 year old and me 45 years later is that now I don't give a damn whether others think I can write or not, if I have something to say, I say it for my own satisfaction. And I still don't like to write, much preferring to do the research behind the scenes, which is really what the praise was all about anyway, although I didn't know it back then.

AGREED!!!

WASHBOARD cant get over himself!!!

The fact that TNR was not anti-war in the past has nothing to do with how things have been run since Foer ascended to editor.

TNR caved to the crazies, now they are paying for that mistake.

Thom - "Left, right, middle or sideways, the guy is in Iraq, killing and maybe dying. Why does this writing make you - sitting where you are - hate him so?"

See, Thom, this is the basis of my "bluster" toward you. The quote above is a chickenhawk statement. Can you explain it otherwise? I clearly quoted this statement in my "bluster" toward you, as I have done here, in the post that refer to. I never addressed the quote that you referred to in the "bluster" accusation. So do you see how it works? I quoted you and then you misquoted me. Wait, that isn't how it works.

You seem to want to silence the non-military members here by saying they have no right to question this guy since he is in Iraq and they are sitting somewhere other than Iraq. You seem to say that, since you address them as non-military people and not me, that you can call them chickenhawks all you want even when non-chickenhawks identify their analyses as reasonable. Is that right? Lets look at the quote:

Thom: "And y7, when I'm talking to dogs, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a dog! arrr arr arr woof..." If I'm talking to girly men, don't (unless you're a girly man) jump in. If I'm talking to people who haven't served in he military - go sit down. I'm not talking to you. I'm taling to them."

Let me paraphrase: "When I am calling someone a chickenhawk, don't jump in and say "Quit calling me a chickenhawk! arrr arr arr woof" Or would it be better with a "bawk bawk caw caw?"

Go sit down.

Doc, you mentioned my first name in another post. "(and, I've got to tell you, that comes off as more than a little creepy)" Seems like we are keeping track of each other's positions and beliefs fairly well.

When we get into these arguments, you invariably claim that you are only taking the Devil's Advocate role in any controversy that makes the US, the military, or republicans look bad. Yet you seem to seldom take that role when it is Left wing cause being discussed. Curious.

gil, scan a paycheck? You what to "datamine" something that doesn't exist. We don't get paychecks, we get Leave and Earnings statements and a direct deposit. You are dumber than you sound if you think I am posting that for you!

And Thom, I never witnessed any atrocities, any torture, or any improper escalations of force.

I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I never saw any prisoner abuse while I was there. One MP was observed engaging in questionable behavior. The behavior was more rude than anything. But to tolerate it, is to accept it. My unit's soldiers ended the behavior on the spot. Once it was brought to my attention, I notified his First Sergeant. His First Sergeant removed him from the detainee environment and assigned him to a less desirable convoy detail for the remainder of his tour. Then the MP's commander hit him with an company grade Article 15 with a reduction of one E grade.

Within one half hour, 10 of my soldiers reported the MP to me. That is how it is supposed to work and how it DOES work. That is the key argument against the burned woman story.

Doc Jello - I'm out of pocket for a while and someone else steps up to call you on your weaselly ways. Thanks y7.

You may think it's creepy for someone to keep track of your positions, but you create so many for yourself on the same subject during the course of single thread it's the only way anyone can keep what paases for your arguments straight. And your "I never claimed," "I never said," hasn't worked out to well for you has it.

I shudder to think what you are teaching our youngsters.

y7 -
It was clearly tounge and cheek. I am merely saying that there is no proof that you serve in mil. You will have to subject yourself to a a public "outing" just like Mr. B has gone through. If you prove you were in the mil then you will have to subject yourself and everything you have every typed to be psychoanalized and mined for illeagal attivities

An English teacher for 17 years? Bwahahahahaha!!!! Figures! Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

An English teacher for 17 years? Bwahahahahaha!!!! Figures! Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

AGREED!!! teachers are LOSERS

HA HA, HA HA, HA

I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I never saw any prisoner abuse while I was there.

THANK YOU

it was fraternity hazeing, the boys letting off a little steam NOT TORTURE

gil,

And I would have to submit to having my paycheck datamined for irregularities!!

The problem you have with me, I believe, is that you can't call me a chickenhawk. Of course, you don't use that word, you merely construct a sentence that implies the charge. You have done so no less than three times in this thread. Now, personally, I think you should shut up with the chickenhawk talk unless you are in the military.

Military people are the only ones that have a compelling reason to use the term. We are the ones who suffer when the "chickenhawks" send us to war. How does someone being a chickenhawk dramatically change your life? I mean, other than bestowing feelings of moral and intellectual superiority on you...

In fact, the only harm a war might do to you is if the conduct of the war, by either the President or the Soldiers, reflects negatively on the United States and her people.

I understand Bush derangement syndrome. People that adamantly hate Bush feel his actions disparage the United States and they protest to distance themselves from that harm. "Not in my name!" they say.

But with this guy, he is, for the most part, a regular American. Millions of people have served in the military and millions more will. There have been only 43 presidents.

Like them or not, Presidents are extraordinary people. And yet the left distances itself from the extraordinary people and embraces men like Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

It is the same reason I speak so strongly about this man. I want to distance myself from any comparisons with his behavior at the same moment he tries to cast the shadow of his behavior on me.

Anyway. Now if I have to prove that I am in the military, does Doc have to prove he is an English teacher? If everyone has to post something to establish credibility, what will you post?

If you need proof of my past or current service, perhaps you can "datamine" my postings for irregularities.

You have given me a list of things I "have to" subject myself to. First, I have to do no such thing. Second, I have not committed any OPSEC or UCMJ violations here.

I guess before I get to have speech as free as yours, I have to pay for it first, huh? My first installment is a scanned and "datamined for irregularities" paycheck?

Karl, What happened at Abu Ghraib was unacceptable. It was a company level failure, i.e., Commander and First Sergeant. It is a First Sergeant's job to maintain standards of discipline; he failed.

But it is an interesting parallel.

The abuse at Abu Ghraib is exactly what "Mr. B" wanted to see and the level of depravity he wanted to write about. He didn't see it. I think he is lying.

I think it is interesting that I have said without a doubt that the Army as a whole would not tolerate that behavior from a group and yet here is a group that did much worse. The incidents at Abu Ghraib only reinforce that opinion.

The whistle-blower in the Abu Ghraib case blew the whistle to his chain of command, not TNR, because his first imperative was a moral one to stop the behavior, not get published.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

My unit was taught a class on this before we deployed. The article has been politicized some, "What happens when you put good people in an evil place? "

I would argue it studies unconditional control and power. The behavior and settings in the Stanford Study and in Abu Ghraib does not even closely reflect the one "Mr. B" wrote about.

It was clearly tounge and cheek. I am merely saying that there is no proof that you serve in mil.

I've seen y7's Bronze Star docs, his theater ribbon docs, and a photo of him in a hot sandy place in full combat gear, camel by his side.

Do not question his service again.

y7

We wouldn't know a thing about Abu Ghraib if someone hadnt gone to the press. And you shoot your argument in the foot when you say that this pfc should have gone up his chain of command then point out that the AG chain of command was shot.

And are you honestly saying that if he went to some Sgt. and said, "So and so ran over a dog and laughed at this lady" that the Sgt. wouldn't wonder what the hell was wrong with him?

I keep hearing the Cartman voice.

"Do not question his service again."

Cy, do you not realize how silly such statements make you look?

Cy, do you not realize how silly such statements make you look?

QUIT questioning the service of US SOLDIERS!!!

-and-

REMEMBER this is CY's BLOG!!! RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAY!

Wow. 121 comments. I poke my head in here and I'm astonished by the traffic.

On the last few comments, I've had similar experiences. I've had a commenter who was arguing along liberal lines claim that I was a "chickenhawk". It wasn't just that he was questioning my service. He was making a claim that I wasn't in the service. When I reminded him that I had indeed served, he should have been ashamed.

But he wasn't. He actually kept trying to make more claims. It was weird.

Tom with an h - From my perspective it is you who is looking stupid, petty, and silly.

What legitimate need did you have to know about Abu Ghraib? Did that information help your understanding of the war?

Thom will no longer be with us.

Hmmmm.

@ Doc Washboard

"Well, yes, despite your clear skepticism. I don't have cable and I don't get a single TV channel out here in the mountains, for one thing, so that takes care of the Olbermann. And while I visit quite a few Lefty sites, Kos is not among them."

Ahh that explains it then.

I grew up in a rural area in New Hampshire and had to deal with the same thing. No cable and few broadcast stations.

Frankly you haven't missed anything.

Thom,

Let me clarify my post about the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

The company level failure came because the CO and 1SG lived on Camp Victory, about 25 minute convoy from Abu Ghraib. The failure I mentioned was the failure to supervise and to prevent the behavior in the first place. The Commander and First Sergeant were simply not on site.

After the soldier notified his Chain of Command, the command intervened and a full investigation was already in progress when the story broke in the news.

Karl,

I sent documents to CY because I saw where the argument was going. gil wants to call people that disagree with him chickenhawks to shut them up and he needed to find a different angle to shut me up. He chose the "prove it" line of attack.

I didn't post my LES but I proved it nonetheless. And my doing so sadly proves that my speech isn't as free as yours.

Hmmmm.

1. TNR still hasn't provided any proof of any allegation made. What the hell is taking so long?

2. It would be nice if all the liberals screaming about Abu Ghraib had just once, even if just once, screamed about how Americans prisoners have been treated since the Geneva Conventions were first signed.

Frankly the Geneva Conventions are a waste of paper and should be repudiated. This paper hasn't prevent American soldiers from being abused, raped, tortured and probably murdered. So why we are still signatories doesn't make any sense to me.

3. One of these days the liberal set are going to have a war they're going to want to fight.

I hope they realize this "chickenhawk" meme is going to seriously bite them on the ass then and forever after. And considering how many times Clinton sent in the troops during his two terms I seriously doubt the next Democrat in the White House will be all that reluctant to do so.

y7:I guess before I get to have speech as free as yours, I have to pay for it first, huh? My first installment is a scanned and "datamined for irregularities" paycheck?

Have you noticed that anytime someone claims to be in the military and somehow cast those serving in a bad light that not one shred of evidence is needed to accept those ramblings as the gospel truth?

Yet, let someone who is serving or has served post against said writings and suddenly you need to subject yourself to proving yourself? That you served or some such.

This is not the first place I have seen it and have encountered it on several blogs. And as always it ends up being some liberal bleeding heart or some anti-war/anti-violence person.

If you look around, Beauchamp's story has been torn to shreds on many levels especially his Bradley fairy tale. That alone would make me question anything else from the source and yet, I see people who are clinging (for dear life) to the hope that everything else he said is/was true.

[Small rant]
I will NEVER understand people who think that a hug or some kind talk will somehow fix the dahmers, gacys and other crazies in the world. That we can share a coke and sit around a campfire singing kumbaya and hold hands.

When you love someone or something enough and that something is threatened, natural animal instinct of survival kicks in and you protect.

Besides cowardice, the only reason I can see this not happening is pure insanity.
[end rant]

To those who are HONORABLY serving currently and to those who have HONORABLY served: Having been there myself in the past - THANK YOU!

Hmmmmm.

IMHO if anybody demands I prove my past service in the USMC all I have to say is ...

"Bite my shiny non-metal a$$!"

Like I'm going to waste so much as 2 seconds fulfilling a demand by a liberal.

It's a little late to chime in here, perhaps, and most of you probably don't really give a damn what I think about this anyway, but here goes:

What happened at Abu Ghraib matters, and it does help us understand the conduct of the war. We need to know about it. If American soldiers are torturing prisoners of war just for fun, we need to make some changes in the recruitment process, because we are giving military authority to the wrong people.

This matters because at least half the battle against insurgents is swamp-clearing work, and we can't do that if our troops on the ground are making personal enemies of the local population.

Similarly, it matters whether or not Beauchamp's accusations are true. First, they suggest that our troops see the Iraqis not as people, but as subhuman types worthy only of our scorn and ridicule. This does not help our cause.

But it also suggests that we have soldiers who show less than the high moral standards than we should expect of them. The best example of this is Beauchamp himself, who decided that he should write about his experiences (or fantasies) in a national magazine. If they are fictional (and I am convinced that at least some are), he should have saved them for his self-published novel. If they are true, he should have had the moral courage to avoid that behavior himself, bring the behavior to the attention of his chain of command or the IG, and take his accusations to a reporter to blow the whistle only if his superiors took no action.

And sometimes the whistle must be blown, our childhood lessons about tattling notwithstanding. We do ourselves no service as a people, and the Army does itself no service as an organization with high standards to dehumanize the local populations in areas where we must take military action. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" makes for a cool t-shirt, but the sentiment is morally wrong and operationally counterproductive. I doubt that God would be amused if we sent Him such a task.

R. Stanton - I agree with you point that IF any of Beauchamp's allegations are true, running them up the chain of command was the appropriate response rather than taking them to the media, unless he was trying to cover his own ass. I assume you also feel the same way about those "courageous whistleblowers" who spilled their guts about this country's national security secrets to the New York Times, Washington Post and other media outlets rather than running their concerns up normal chains within the government, including various inspector generals and congress.

I don't buy your "we" the public argument when the appropriate authorities are already taking corrective action on situations such as Abu Ghraib. Look at what gun jumping by Jack Murthatard has done for the Marines villified in the Haditha incident.

Daleyrocks:

Without knowing just which gut-spilling you mean, I cannot say whether or not I can compare them to Beauchamp's "whistleblowing," or agree that it was wrong.

Generally speaking, however, I agree that people in government or military jobs should use the established process for showing their moral courage before speaking to reporters.

That said, I would differentiate between whistleblowing that genuinely harms US national security and that which exposes illegal or immoral behavior, or simply damages the reputations or electoral prospects of business or government leaders.

Regarding AG specifically, it looked to me like the "appropriate authorities" were ignoring the problem until it hit the news. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, I would like to see it.

If they were not, the soldier who went to the media did the right thing, in my opinion. The hard right always trumps the easy wrong, and I am sure y7 would agree.

And I wonder why you feel a need to make it difficult for me to agree with you. As a combat arms vet (and no, I have no intention of proving it to anyone), I think Beauchamp is a liar and a s***bag and a traitor to his unit. He deserves what he gets for publishing movement times and bypassing the chain of command.

But why do you think you have to use a term like "Murthatard" in this discussion? What does that add to the debate? Why does CY tolerate your implication that Jack Murtha--a decorated, bona fide war hero--is mentally deficient because he does not agree with you? And would CY tolerate me if I called you "daleytard?"

Now and then I read through postings and comments here, and make some small effort to present the other side of some of the issues to his echo chamber. A fool's errand, to be sure, and I've been called a fool often enough to know there may be something to it. It is what it is.

But CY constantly amazes me by threatening to ban me for "personal attacks," even as he lets "Murthatard" pass and himself uses derogatory terms like "silk pony." These would appear to meet any "personal attack that does not contribute to the discussion," standard, but he has not jumped in to apply it to anyone who calls liberals names--only liberals who blast people he agrees with.

This is Confederate Yankee, not Foggy Bottom Line, so no sense in calling foul. But it does make it look like the point of the site is not to discuss politics and other issues--but to provide a forum for calling political opponents names. If that's all you want, you can have it. Your cognitive dissonance keeps you from recognizing reality anyway.

But it also suggests that we have soldiers who show less than the high moral standards than we should expect of them.

Ft. Carson and about a dozen others are full of that kind. So?

R. Stanton - Jack Murtha is a public figure not a commenter on this blog. Ibelieve our host has taken you to task over your personal attacks against other commenters primarily as opposed to public figures. I find it interesting that you avoided discussing Murtha's actual conduct with respect to the military, but because it is so represhensible, there is really nothing to defend. He should apologize and retire.

On national security leaks, of course the left's position is that they need exposure because they represent illegal programs and the terrorists knew we were conducting these activities anyway. Therefore there was no harm and no foul. I guess that's why the DOJ is conducting criminal investigations over the leaks, right.

Hmmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

"Regarding AG specifically, it looked to me like the "appropriate authorities" were ignoring the problem until it hit the news. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, I would like to see it."

Completely and utterly false.

The US Army was starting to prosecute when Hersh wrote an article based on press releases by the US Army. You have it exactly backwards.

Frankly I usually respond to demands for documentation with "Research it yourself" because one persons acceptable source is often not acceptable to another.

But here ya go:

WikiPedia

WikiPedia is a good source for any liberals and at least in this case the data is mostly correct.

I quote:
"As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report a criminal investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since May 2003 where four Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had been formally charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with detainee abuse. In April 2004 reports of the abuse, as well as graphic pictures showing American military personnel in the act of abusing prisoners, came to public attention, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 28) and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story.[2] Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.[3]"

So the official investigation was well underway in May of 2003 and the big public media drama show began in April of 2004. What WikiPedia doesn't show is that the media was apprised of these investigations long before April of 2004 but since there weren't any photos it wasn't sexy enough for them to run with it.

I think you need to revise your position.

Hmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

"If they were not, the soldier who went to the media did the right thing, in my opinion. The hard right always trumps the easy wrong, and I am sure y7 would agree."

Completely and utterly false.

What that soldier did was enormous and unnecessary damage to the US, US military and our efforts in this war. The individuals involved had been investigated and were being prosecuted even as the photos were released. What actually happened was that, I believe, the photos were being used by a defense attorney to try and force the US military to offer a lesser plea bargain. In exchange for which the attorney would hand over the photos.

Which would be completely unacceptable for any military court.

Hmmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

"But why do you think you have to use a term like "Murthatard" in this discussion? What does that add to the debate? Why does CY tolerate your implication that Jack Murtha--a decorated, bona fide war hero--is mentally deficient because he does not agree with you?"

I prefer the term "Murthatard" to describe Murtha because he is an idiot.

This is the man who thought the greatest thing would be for American troops to exit Iraq and then provide security from **Okinawa**.

Okinawa is thousands of miles away from Iraq.

The idea of trying to provide physical security in Iraq from Okinawa is just frankly totally idiotic.

If the Army was investigating the infractions at AG before Hersh wrote the article, and the soldier in question went to the press to try securing a plea bargain, then I stand corrected. I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." I think the claim-maker should be able to back it up, and since I don't have the facts I won't dispute your assertion. Nevertheless, I think that all things considered exposing this was a good thing.

I don't see any reason to differentiate between personal attacks against public figures and commenters on this blog. If the point here is to have a political debate--a civil political debate--then personal attacks against anyone should fail the standard for civil discourse. Disagreement with politicians is the nature of the American Democratic beast, but name-calling adds nothing, whatever our personal opinions about their character, intelligence, or morals.

CY apparently agrees, since Daleyrock's post calliing Murtha a "horse's ass" and asking if he could call me "Scottie" (Answer: No--you may call me Sergeant First Class Scott from now on) seems to have vanished from the thread.

If the United States Government is violating international law, signed treaties that became US law with ratification, or our own statutes and Constitution, then the individuals doing so need to be exposed as criminals, national security notwithstanding. If US law becomes meaningless--if we ignore our values and principles because we are afraid of dying--then we as a people, and as individuals, have no moral courage, and the American experiment deserves to go the way of Rome--our system has no value to humanity if we are willing to support whatever outrageous acts the governnment claimed necessary to our "security." In this case, we are no better than our enemies.

Hmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

Did you click on the link provided?

Hmmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

1. "If the Army was investigating the infractions at AG before Hersh wrote the article"

There is no "if". Those are the facts and I provided a link.

2. ", and the soldier in question went to the press to try securing a plea bargain, then I stand corrected."

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE IMAGES; Soldier's Family Set in Motion Chain of Events on Disclosure

Mudville Gazette

(AG) Mar: SSg Frederick's uncle William sent an e-mail message to retired colonel David Hackworth's Web. The NY Times describes Hackworth as "a retired colonel and a muckraker who was always willing to take on the military establishment." That e-mail message would put Mr. Lawson in touch with the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" and help set in motion events that led to the public disclosure of the graphic photographs and an international crisis for the Bush administration. The Times reports on 8 May: (7)

The irony, Mr. Lawson said, is that the public spectacle might have been avoided if the military and the federal government had been responsive to his claims that his nephew was simply following orders. Mr. Lawson said he sent letters to 17 members of Congress about the case earlier this year, with virtually no response, and that he ultimately contacted Mr. Hackworth's Web site out of frustration, leading him to cooperate with a consultant for "60 Minutes II."

"The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes," he said. "But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case." (7)

3. "I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." I think the claim-maker should be able to back it up, and since I don't have the facts I won't dispute your assertion."

I say that simply because liberals will often resort to denying my evidence because they don't like the source website. Or they use that as a tactic to avoid having to apologize for being completely and utterly wrong.

And considering that it took me all of 25 seconds to find the above, I think that illustrates this nicely.

4. "Nevertheless, I think that all things considered exposing this was a good thing."

Wrong again. Why? Because it was blown completely out of proportion. The abuses at Abu Ghraib happened over a very short period of time and were *already being investigated for court-martials*. Instead the massive publicity badly damaged American efforts in the middle east and has arguably helped terrorists in their recruiting efforts.

What good, if any, has come from the publicity of Abu Ghraib? Illustrate this in precise detail please.

5. "I don't see any reason to differentiate between personal attacks against public figures and commenters on this blog."

Good for you. I don't follow this so I really don't care.

6. "personal opinions about their character, intelligence, or morals."

Sorry but arguing that American forces can provide physical security in Iraq from **Okinawa** is specifically and arguably stupid.

7. "CY apparently agrees"

It's his blog.

8. "and asking if he could call me"

Doesn't involve me.

9. "In this case, we are no better than our enemies"

Complete nonsense. You have a viewpoint in this of a child. It's like those people who say "America can never be the same". Utter nonsense.

Hmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

Oh and in case you're unaware of this the phrase "I was only following orders" is not a defense in the US military. You are responsible for your own actions. And if you are given an order that is illegal, then you not only cannot follow those orders but you must also report those orders to higher authority immediately. If that higher authority does not appear to have acted on this information and you continue to be given illegal orders *then* you need to jump the chain of command. All of this is explained to all serving members of the US military on at least a yearly basis.

I got the spiel every year when I was in the USMC (1982). Heck they even showed the movie "Breaker Morant" once to illustrate it.

R. Stanton - Regarding your statement:

"I won't bother to use your tactic of making a claim and then demanding that you "research it yourself." "

I believe that is exactly the tactic you used above, R. Stanton, and memeomachine elected to do the work for you anyway to prove that you were wrong once more.

That Okinawa strategy of Murtha's, I agree, was a stroke of pure genius. I also enjoyed the "slow bleed" strategy he cooked up with his Soros funded friends at MORON.com earlier this year. How did that work out for him R.Stanton?

Hmmmm.

@ R. Stanton Scott

You can reply now.

Re: Scottie Beauchamp and the U.S. killing machine.

Americans are fools....

Treated like mushroons (Fed sh!t and kept in the dark) by the war drummers of the Jewish owned and operated US corporate media they truly believe that their shell shocked GI's are not capable of being the killers that they have become.

One has only to see the photos of the charred up bodies of Falljah's women curled around their babies as the American MK-77 napalm and/or White Phosphoros bomb blasts engulfed them to know that you don't murder 1,000,000 innocent civilians in 4 years without commiting a fire storm of massacures and war crimes.

The US/Isral 'homicide twins' have come out of this Middle Easstern war the 'King Killers' of humanity. If you added up all the killings committed by the Arabs since the late 1940's when they were fending off the Zionist trespassers escaping the war in Europe you would find that they have not murdered nor massacured even 3% of what the rabid trespasser Jews and Americans have killed in just 4+ years in Iraq.

When WTC II & III arrive and NYC and Maimi are engulfed in a dirty radioactive cloud the world will (((clap))) their hands and talk to American's about the painful effects of 'Blowback.'

The Jewish low lives have brought us this far - from WTC to Iraqi. let us pray that Messer Ahmadinejad gets the "BIG ONE" and then let us pray for a Judenrein Middle East so the world can get back to solving its energy and race problems.

TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.

dba: IDidntVote4ThebassTerd@msn.com

"Kill 'em all Hezbollah - Let their G-D sort them out."

Anti-Semitic rant?
Naw, after all what is more anti-Semitic than the daily murder, maiming and displacement of Semitic Palestinians?

Hmmmm.

Nurse. Prozac and lithium for TheAZCowBoy, stat!!