August 09, 2007
When Hidden Experts Are Found
Exactly one week ago today on August 2nd, the editors of the magazine The New Republic posted A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, in which they claimed:
All of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account.In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)
What is most interesting about the The New Republic's statement is that while they state they spoke to "dozens of people" in fact-checking their stories, they refused to cite the names of their experts, or explain their qualifications—those qualities that make them experts.
The reasoning behind that purposeful obfuscation is becoming ever more clear with each passing day.
In addition to avoiding the statements made by Army PAOs that Beauchamp's claims were "false" in their totality, and that one claim in particular was the stuff of "urban myth or legend," it appears that one of the experts cited by The New Republic's editors was not fully appraised of what TNR was trying to justify in one claim in particular.
The New Republic stated:
The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.
Once again, no sources were named. That TNR would not reveal who these sources are who was a decision many interpreted as an attempt by TNR to keep others from interviewing these same experts. In the paragraph above, TNR mentions that they spoke to a spokesman of the company of manufacturers the Bradley.
Guess what? I did, too.
Doug Coffey is the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, the Bradley IFV's manufacturer that TNR wouldn't name.
He was indeed contacted by a TNR staffer, but that the questions asked by the researcher were couched in generalities.
Bob, I received your earlier email and wanted to talk to some others about the specific questions you asked. To answer your last question first, yes, I did talk to a young researcher with TNR who only asked general questions about "whether a Bradley could drive through a wall" and "if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks" and general questions about vehicle specifications.
In short, the TNR researcher did not provide the text of "Shock Troops" for Mr. Coffery to review, and only asked the vaguest possible questions. It seems rather obvious that this was not an attempt to actually verify Beauchamp's claims, but was instead designed to help The New Republic manufacturer a whitewash of an investigation.
Feeling that a little context was in order, I provided Mr. Coffey with Beauchamp's text from "Shock Troops" related to his company's Bradley IFV:
I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America—providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch.One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all. I didn't see the third kill, but I heard about it over the radio. Everyone was laughing, nearly rolling with laughter. I approached the private after the mission and asked him about it.
"So, you killed a few dogs today," I said skeptically."Hell yeah, I did. It's like hunting in Iraq!" he said, shaking with laughter.
"Did you run over dogs before the war, back in Indiana?" I asked him.
"No," he replied, and looked at me curiously. Almost as if the question itself was in poor taste.
Along with the context the TNR researcher didn't provide, I'd asked a set of questions, including these:
Would a Bradley driver who "took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market," run a significant risk of damaging the vehicle's track systems? Would such actions also possibly damage the vehicle's armor? Could it have an adverse affect on other crucial vehicle components? Please elaborate as much as possible. I'd also like to ask you about the claims made by the author as he describes the process of killing three dogs using the tracks of the Bradley IFV. I recognize this is more speculative in nature, but would ask that you comment about the possibility that a Bradley's driver could "jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road."I don't pretend to be the most mechanically-minded person, but I think that a tracked vehicle such as a Bradley turning "hard to the right" would have a right tread that is either stationary, or nearly so. Is this a correct statement?
If this is a true statement, then it seems the possibility of any animal being run over by a stationary or near stationary track is quite slim. Would you agree with that assessment?
What is the likelihood that a Bradley's track system would "drag a dog for a little while?
Mr. Coffey's response:
I can't pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a "driver" can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.The driver's vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to "suddenly swerve to the right" and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.
Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn't move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.
The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.
It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander's independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can't imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage.
In other words, BAE System's Head of Communications over the division than manufactures the Bradley IFV was never specifically asked to comment on the claims made in "Shock Troops" by TNR's legion of fact-checkers.
When he saw the claims made in "Shock Troops," he stated, by citing the physical properties of his company's vehicle, that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the Bradley story told in "Shock Troops" to have been correct.
Once more, we have to question the accuracy and the integrity of The New Republic's editors, who ran an investigation apparently designed to provide merely cover instead of facts.
Update: I'll be on Hugh Hewitt's radio show tonight with Dean Barnett after Mark Steyn around 6:20-ish to talk about this, unless I get bumped or something.
CY:
Damn you for actually asking fact specific questions. Don't you know that all Conservatives are supposed to be mind-numbed automatons set in motion by Karl Rove codetalk who are strangers to logic and reasoning? Only Liberals are the fearless truthseekers smart enough to question a story. By this action, you are spoiling their romantic narrative and their heroic self image.
What's next, demanding kids actually be able to read and do math in public schools?
Posted by: wjo at August 9, 2007 11:51 AMThat's going to leave a Bradley-sized mark on half of TNR's face. You know, something that could be covered with a piece of skull.
Posted by: negentropy at August 9, 2007 12:09 PMGreat job, CY! That's the kind of "corroboration" I imagined TNR was doing.
As a former bulldozer operator, I find that the story of the Bradley driver full of holes. As the BAE guy said, to turn a tracked vehicle like the Bradley, one must lock one track or another — depending on the direction of the turn being made ie left track locked to make a right turn and vise versa. From what I understand, it takes more than one person to operate this vehicle and no one in their right mind will participate in a junior high stunt, not if he does not want to risk a court-martial and a possible prison term. I am wondering if Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are on the editorial staff as consultants?
Posted by: stan25 at August 9, 2007 12:16 PMI worked in the publishing industry for years. I'm not an apologist for TNR--truly I'm not--but in the fact-checker's defense, it is not any publication's policy to hand an entire article over to someone else to verify. It is a fact-checker's job to take the relevant portions of the article and make sure that they are true.
This sounds to me like one of two things: Either the fact-checker was given specific areas to check by his/her editor, or the fact-checker simply isn't that good. If the former, then yes, it's a whitewash. But it's also possible that TNR's fact-checkers really suck. Jonathan Chait's surprise that the Atlantic Monthly actually fact-checks every quote in a story leads me to lean towards the latter. But my gut tells me it's the former.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at August 9, 2007 12:19 PMHaving also worked in publishing for years, I can say that while we wouldn't provide the complete text of a story, we definetly would provide the relevent section for context, etc. In the case where the question was with something that we're unfamiliar with (such as driving a Bradley) or it's a potentially hot issue/story, we'd be doubly sure. I concurr with Yourish that either the fact-checker was well below standard or TNR was trying to make it look like the did their work when they did not.
Posted by: Neal5x5 at August 9, 2007 12:32 PMWell researched, well written. Well done.
Posted by: Don at August 9, 2007 12:34 PMIt sounds like Beauchamp is saying they drifted the Bradley into the dog. I'm sure you've seen a car let its back end slide out on a turn before, can a treaded vehicle do that?
Could it do it on dirt roads? It sounds like a no, but I don't really know. Just a thought, I used to run over pedestrians with cars that way in Grand Theft Auto, I'd floor it, then throw the handbrake and turn sharp on a RWD car and run over people with the back end.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at August 9, 2007 12:38 PMI was refering to CY not TNR
Posted by: Don at August 9, 2007 12:40 PMWow! Great work.
Posted by: Warden at August 9, 2007 12:52 PMDid you get the name of the reporter who called him?
Posted by: Warden at August 9, 2007 01:00 PMDid you get the name of the reporter who called him?
It wasn't his wife (it was a "he"), but that is all I found out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 9, 2007 01:03 PMExcellent fact checking, really shows how little effort TNR put into 'fact checking'.
Posted by: shank at August 9, 2007 01:14 PMI've never driven a Bradley, but I was a qualified driver on the M113 (older, smaller. lighter than the Bradley - see links below). For me, this whole story stunk from the start. While the movement of the vehicle seemed vaguely possible in theory, there's no way it could have happened in practice, certainly not repeatedly. And dogs are generally too wily - those vehicles are LOUD.
Doubleplus - we could skid/drift the M113s on very slippery, wet paved roads, but it was pretty scary and not recommended. Skidding on dirt roads just didn't happen. The Bradly is even heavier than the M113.
M113:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm
M2 Bradley
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm
Thank you for keeping this story going. If you let this die easy, we will continue to see Winter Soldier slander stories hit the news again and again.
Without the support of the American public, the sacrifices of our soldiers will be meaningless.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at August 9, 2007 01:20 PMI kinda feel sorry for the fact checker. I'm sure he was trying his best, but really couldn't ask the right questions probably due to the fact that he probably didn't know a single thing about the military or military equipment.
He asked, "if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks" but the real question he should have asked was "if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks and be dragged for some distance." You asked the right question, so if you are ever looking for a job, think about becomming a fact checker for a left wing rag with a penchant for fabrication.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 9, 2007 01:21 PMPosted by: doubleplusundead at August 9, 2007 12:38 PM
To answer your question. You can't really make any sudden movement of a tracked vehicle, especially an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), without slinging everything and everyone inside of it around. It is not something that is appreciated by the occupants in the rear. It can also lead to damage or destruction of the vehicle. The last thing you want is be stuck with a disabled vehicle in the middle of somewhere that would open you up for attack. And if that occurred because of childish behavior the person doing it would have more to worry about then possibly being held responsible for the damages to the vehicle. When it is a matter of life and death, not the video game type either, peoples attitudes tend to sour real quick when somebody engages in activities that places others at risk.
You want to mess around with your own life fine, buy a crotch rocket and head down the autobahn at 200 MPH but leave me out of it.
Is it possible that the "squadmates" who supposedly corroborated Beauchamp's lies for TNR did so by email, and were in fact sock puppets of Beauchamp himself?
Posted by: Korla Pundit at August 9, 2007 01:26 PMHmmm.
@ doubleplusundead
APCs, even wheeled APCs, aren't all that maneuverable. Cars are designed to be maneuverable, nimble and quick. APCs are designed to protect their passengers and win fights.
I've never driven a tracked vehicle before but I have driven wheeled APCs quite often. You can put them into a slide, where the rear end slides out from behind and rotates the vehicle, but it's extremely dangerous to do so. In part because you the driver has just lost control over a multi-ton vehicle. If you're on a crowded street or road then it's likely you're going to hammer someone's personal car into junk or run over a pedestrian. If you're in combat then you've just made your vehicle and it's passengers a nice big fat target.
In either case it's a very bad idea.
Another big problem is that cars have a relatively low center of gravity. Armored vehicles, because of the missions they are designed for, need to have high road clearance and carry a lot of stuff. The Bradley is around 14' tall. You start trying to slide that vehicle and you'll have a very good chance of flipping it, and that's a deadly proposition.
Honestly even if a Bradley could slide you'd have to be completely out of your mind to even try it. And if you survived trying to slide the Bradley, your vehicle commander would probably stake you to the front of it and drive it himself back to base.
Posted by: memomachine at August 9, 2007 01:31 PMCool, I was just throwing that out there, because that's the only thing I could think of reading Beauchamp's description. I always read it as Beauchamp saying they drifted the Bradley. I could totally see him ripping that concept from GTA, given how most of his stories sound like crappy rips from movies and books anyway.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at August 9, 2007 01:41 PMDoubleplusungood's comments about GTA are important: this is the way you drive in a video game, not how you drive in real life. You can screw around somewhat like this in an empty field or a vast wet/snow covered parking lot, but it's not what you do driving down the road, even if you're a hormone addled teenager.
I've been in more than a few spins in high-school (only one wreck), and they were really, really not fun. It's not something that you intentionally do as you're driving, but it is fun to do when you're in a deserted area. I still love to swing the rear end around on heavy snow days when the streets are empty, but you can only do this in real life under a very limited set of circumstances. Those of us who survive highschool driving realise that spins and flips in cars are only fun to WATCH, not live through!
STB needs to have his GTA III: San Andreas privileges revoked, along with access to his laptop. Great to see some real fact checking going on!
Posted by: Hey at August 9, 2007 01:44 PMKorla,
I smell a sock-puppet, too. The emailer is not your average grunt but a writer or aspiring writer. The email is full of red flags. For example:'The driver swings his yoke... and the dog becomes a chalk outline.'
I'm not calling it proof. I'm saying that if Franklin Foer had an iota of real-world experience, that email would have worried him rather than satisfied him.
Posted by: lyle at August 9, 2007 01:57 PMFirst, anyone who has ever ended up topside down in a car (it wasn't my fault, honest) and survives can tell you that you never, ever really want to do that again, and you in all probability get serious about not doing anything that might cause it. It is not, I repeat, not, fun.
Second, my experience over the past almost 20 years with journalism majors (lots of them take poli sci courses -- the easy ones) leads me to believe that most of them are just pig-ignorant of a great deal of the real world and real world physics. I'm surprised some of them can figure out how to put gas in their car let alone drive it well enough to qualify as adequate (but then I'm in Michigan). The j-majors (and especially grad school j-majors) apparently, on average, couldn't hang a picture without doing serious damage to walls, the picture, and various thumbs and fingers. They are severely deficient in understanding the physical world around them.
Thus, I am willing to believe that the 'fact checker' from TNR was just an ignorant j-major working down the food chain at TNR. Unfortunately, the odds of this person improving are pretty much nil.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 9, 2007 02:02 PMReally, that's the best part of GTA: driving and sliding around on the sidewalks/citizens...
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 9, 2007 02:04 PMI'm sure you've seen a car let its back end slide out on a turn before, can a treaded vehicle do that?
If you watch the opening minutes of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" you'll see a tracked vehicle do exactly that. But, as "holdfast" described, it's on a hard, wet surface. I'm sure he's right that it's virtually impossible to do it on a soft surace. The tracks would dig in and, rather than slide, you'd just flip.
Posted by: Tedd McHenry at August 9, 2007 02:08 PMYou try to do that with an APC or IFV repeatedly and you WILL throw a track, sooner or later. In the middle of Indian country. Sounds like my idea of fun...
Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 9, 2007 02:08 PMHaving driven an Abrams MBT and Bradleys, I can tell you that it's not possible to drive a tracked vehicle in the manner described. Driving buttoned up means you can't see squat. You rely on your vehicle commander a LOT. There's no way in hell you're going to swerve right and hit a dog. Bradleys and M1's are friggin loud... no dog is going to lay still and get killed.
Bottom line, Beauchump is a liar. And the TNR are turds. Turds for publishing that crap. Turds for not verifying that crap. And now they are Turds for covering up their negligence.
Someone ought to get canned.
Posted by: Cro at August 9, 2007 02:11 PMFrom what I understand, it takes more than one person to operate this vehicle and no one in their right mind will participate in a junior high stunt, not if he does not want to risk a court-martial and a possible prison term.
Just like no soldiers in their right minds would drag a crippled innocent man out of his bed, march him a half mile, and the shoot him in the head four times and leave his body in a shallow grave.
Or invade a house and rape a fourteen year-old Iraqi girl and then burn her body to hide the evidence.
But kill a dog with a Bradley? Never.
Posted by: tbogg at August 9, 2007 02:19 PMtbogg makes a play for the 'soldiers have done bad things before, so all allegations of bad things against troops, no matter how outlandish and no matter how impossible or improbable, must be considered to be absolutely the truth' angle.
Let's watch and see if it works...
Posted by: Enigmaticore at August 9, 2007 02:25 PMtbogg,
There's a difference between "could" and "would," really, look it up.
Even if the soldier in the story would have run over dogs in a Bradley, the fact is, he couldn't. It's not possible to do what STB claims.
Look up red herring while your at it.
IFV's can slide but not in the manner described. You have to accelerate to full speed and pivot turn. The slide is short-lived. I have seen it done and been an IFV that has performed the manuever. We did it on the way to a range. The following conditions are a must. NO dismount vehicle occupants. No equipment inside. Gravel on a paved road (generally at an intersection). No other traffic or vehicles. And ABSOLUTELY no roadside obstructions. A curb, stump, or any other rigid obstruction would snap/break a road wheel or track or both.
To be blunt - there is no way in Heaven or on Earth to perform the manuever in the manner described. The vehicles are LOUD. Really loud. Dogs are not going to wait around or be lured near the vehicles.
As the manufacturer rep explained, the driver cannot see beyond the midline front of the vehicle. His position is front-left and low.
So much is factually wrong with the story that it is laughable.
Posted by: SSG Collins at August 9, 2007 02:30 PMstan25 said: "left track locked to make a right turn and vise versa."
it seemeth to me that to turn right in a tracked vehicle, the RIGHT track must either stop, slow down(compared to the left) or reverse.
NO?
Posted by: quasimodo at August 9, 2007 02:32 PM"...slinging everything and everyone inside..."
The inside of a Bradley (or any AFV) is a hard metal wall with stuff bolted to it -- radio cases, racks for supplies and equipment, etc. It's very unforgiving, not at all like the padded interior of a car. The one time I rode in a Bradley, I took a modest slosh as the driver crossed a culvert at low speed, banged my shin on a metal box of some sort, and got a bone bruise that took weeks to heal. In addition to the hazards in the vehicle itself, you have other people inside with loaded rifles and kevlar helmets, so having someone fall on you is a huge hazard.
So beyond whether it's physically possible to do this once, there's the question of whether it's socially possible to do it repeatedly. If I'd had any notion that the driver took that dip deliberately, he would have wound up hurting more than I did. Much more.
Posted by: Texpatriate at August 9, 2007 02:37 PMThis may be completely off the mark, but doubleplusundead's thought that maybe Beauchamp had picked up the idea for the move from GTA finally focused something that's been nagging in my head since the first time I read that story about the Bradley.
A guy in a vehicle, tear-assing across the countryside, having fun killing whatever gets in his way. I kept thinking that I'd seen it before somewhere, and I couldn't figure out where.
Get it off the ground and put it in the air. In the movie Full Metal Jacket, Pvt. Joker is being transported by helicopter to a combat zone. There's a doorgunner having a grand old time machine-gunning water buffalo on the ground, much to Joker's horror.
Sounds like the same type of guy, same attitude, same personality.
Could this scene be Beauchamp's inspiration?
Posted by: Rick at August 9, 2007 02:42 PMThe left clings to its lies. It cannot let them go. It clings to the lie that John Kerry was a true war hero who was "smeared," when the facts show he schemed to get back to the safety of a state-side desk job. It clings to the lie that Cheney and Rove conspired to punish the Wilsons for telling the truth about Iraq and Niger, when the facts show that the outing of Valerie Plame came from an opponent of the Iraq war (Richard Armitage) and that Joe Wilson lied about what his so-called investigation revealed, and even lied about how he was chosen for it. And now, it will cling to this lie. Desperately. It will keep telling this lie (that the Iraq war has "dehumanized" the brave soldiers who are fighting it) until it becomes the acknowledged substitute for the truth.
Keep plugging away with the facts. Don't let this myth live along with the Kerry and Wilson myths.
From my own experience with tracked vehicles I would judge that "pvt" Beauchamp has been in such a protected position that he has never actually seen a tracked vehicle in operation, but he certainly should get an A+ for imagination.
Posted by: Bill Brown at August 9, 2007 02:56 PMHey, can't you guys give tbogg the benefit of the the doubt? The way I understand it he'd signed enlistment papers to fight the just and true war on terror in Afghanistan, under Jesus General's command no less, but too many other liberals had gotten there before him. It was only his sense of pride and honor that kept him from joining up to fight the illegal war in Iraq. True story, I heard if from one of the guys in line with him.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 9, 2007 02:57 PMBut back to the story at hand.
I might have gotten a couple of the details mixed up. I've tried to better clarify things here. I'd log in and post at TNR, but can't get in for some reason.
I sure hope Frank isn't too mad at me.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 9, 2007 02:59 PMLet's make sure that wikipedia stays fixed. I just added a paragraph at the bottom to reflect the contents of this post.
Posted by: DaveS at August 9, 2007 03:04 PM"maybe Beauchamp had picked up the idea for the move from GTA"
Yes, and he also picked up the "square backed Glock rounds" from CSI.
You know, I am certain that at some point, some soldier hit a dog with their Bradley. I wouldn't even put it beneath a sick soldier to keep count of how many times it happened. Its just that there's no physical way for it to happen the way ex-PFC Beauchamp dscribed it.
Oh and another thing, how do you get "a roar of laughter" over a radio? Think about it...
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 9, 2007 03:14 PMTrivia puzzling me: Aren't dogs, like pigs, unclean to Muslims? How many of them are running around as Bradley targets in Iraq anyway?
Posted by: mister1111 at August 9, 2007 03:52 PMOh fer' christ sakes TBogg you idiot, are you 3 years old? Please don't hurt yourself as you strain to turn Beauchamp's wimsy into your version of "reality".
Posted by: MisterPundit at August 9, 2007 03:52 PMtbogg has a point. We can tell Beauchamp is lying because TNR has had lying reporters in the past...see how easy that was...no actual intellectual argument on the facts is required.
The whole real pint tbogg is that YES, sometimes bad people join the Army, beauchamp and the rapist you speak of prove that. TNRs attempted point was that the Army makes rapists and dog killers out of perfectly normal people.
Posted by: Poppy at August 9, 2007 04:22 PMEither the fact-checker was given specific areas to check by his/her editor, or the fact-checker simply isn't that good. If the former, then yes, it's a whitewash.
The former theory -- that the fact-checker deliberately tailored his questions in order to elicit the least-unfavorable responses from the "corroborating expert" -- is, to my mind, given credence by the fact that it took TNR a full week to figure out that the Burned Woman had been in Kuwait, not at Falcon FOB in Iraq.
It would appear that in the course of their rigorous "re-reporting," TNR had never put to Beauchamp such simple, straightforward, fact-checking questions as: "Are you certain that you saw the Burned Woman in the 'chow hall' of Falcon FOB, and not at another location?"
Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 9, 2007 04:55 PMJim O'Sullivan: Keep plugging away with the facts. Don't let this myth live along with the Kerry and Wilson myths.
Hell, I still run into people, on-line and off, misrepresenting Bush's 16 words during the SOTU as being based on that forged nigerian document.
Anyone care for a serving of plastic turkey? How many YEARS did it take to finally kill off that left-wing shibboleth?
Posted by: Mike L at August 9, 2007 04:57 PM"This sounds to me like one of two things: Either the fact-checker was given specific areas to check by his/her editor, or the fact-checker simply isn't that good. "
I think it goes beyond that - unlike, say, financial or sports reporting, a lot of people who are writing about the war don't actually seem to know much, if anything, about the military. Even if they want to be accurate (which is debatable), they are highly susceptible to others manipulating them.
I see similar things among my professors, as well; people who are so sure that they are educated and enlightened, that they don't know they're totally ignorant because they don't really believe they could be.
In the case of many journalists, we seem to be looking at a congruence of bias, laziness, and incompetence.
Posted by: Tim in PA at August 9, 2007 05:09 PMMeryl says: ""I worked in the publishing industry for years. I'm not an apologist for TNR--truly I'm not--but in the fact-checker's defense, it is not any publication's policy to hand an entire article over to someone else to verify. ""
That's might be true if the article hasn't been published yet. BUT, we are talking about an article that had already been published weeks earlier.
There certainly wasn't any reason at that point to not send the guy the article so he knew what he was commenting on and what TNR was trying to defend.
Forget the Bradley specs for a sec. How does a Private, the lowest rank in the Army, do what he pleases with a multi-million dollar piece of equiptment which puts everyone in the convoy at risk(slowing down, IED's, that sort of thing), and have every higher ranking soldier "laughing, nearly rolling with laughter"? I served in the Army. I've been in trouble a few trivial matteers. I can't imagine anyone in a position of responsibilty not recommending this private for courtmartial.
Posted by: Marty at August 9, 2007 05:39 PMI POSTED THIS ON SOME OTHER SITES AS SOON AS THE SCOTT THOMAS STORY STARTED TO BECOME A CONTROVERSY. THE STORY ABOUT THE DOG IS MADE UP. ALTHOUGH I'VE NEVER DRIVEN A BRADLEY I USED TO BE A TANK CREWMAN SO I KNOW A LITTLE ABOUT HOW TRACKED VEHICLES WORK. THE PART OF THE TRACK IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND WILL BARELY MOVE IN RELATION TO THE GROUND UNLESS YOU ARE DOING A NEUTRAL STEER (WITH THE VEHICLE AT A HALT TURNING THE VEHICLE ON ITS AXIS WITH THE TRACKS SLIDING ACROSS THE GROUND IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS) OR A TURN AT VERY LOW SPEED. EVEN IF YOU COULD STEER A BRADLEY ACCURATELY AND QUICKLY ENOUGH TO RUN OVER A DOG RUNNING NEXT TO THE VEHICLE AND SOMEHOW GET JUST THE DOG'S LEG CAUGHT BY THE TRACK WITHOUT CRUSHING THE WHOLE DOG THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WAY YOU COULD DRAG A DOG DOWN THE ROAD WITH THE VEHICLE. THE DOGS LEG WOULD MOST LIKELY BE CAUGHT BETWEEN THE TRACK AND THE ROAD OR THE ROAD-WHEEL AND THE TRACK AND WOULD BE PULVERIZED/AMPUTATED. IF IT WASNT FULLY AMPUTATED OR SOMEHOW GOT LODGED BETWEEN TRACK PADS (VERY UNLIKELY, THE SPACE IS TOO SMALL) THE DOG WOULDNT BE DRAGGED BUT WOULD BE PINNED IN PLACE BY THE PART OF THE TRACK IN CONTACT WITH THE ROAD (WHICH DOES NOT MOVE IN RELATION TO THE ROAD) UNTIL THE TRACK REACHED THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AT WHICH TIME IF THE LEG WAS STILL STUCK TO THE TRACK THE ANIMAL WOULD BE FLUNG INTO THE AIR AS THE TRACK WENT AROUND THE IDLER WHEEL. IF THE LEG SOMEHOW REMAINED ATTACHED TO THE TRACK AFTER THAT (EXTREMELY UNLIKELY) IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE AMPUTATED BY THE TRACK SKIRT THAT COVERS THE UPPER PART OF THE TRACK AND BEGINS IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE IDLER. THE ONLY WAY A BRADLEY COULD DRAG A DOG ALONG THE ROAD WOULD BE FOR IT TO GET SOMEHOW CAUGHT ON THE TRACK SKIRT. THE DOG WOULD HAVE TO BE FAIRLY LARGE AS THE BOTTOM OF THE SKIRT IS PROBABLY 2 FEET FROM THE GROUND. THIS IS UNLIKELY AS THERE IS NOT MUCH THAT PROTRUDES FROM THE SKIRT THAT COULD CATCH AN ANIMAL FOR OBVIOUS REASONS AS ANY PROTRUDING FIXTURE WOULD BE LIKELY TO GET CAUGHT ON TREES AND OTHER STUFF THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVING THROUGH AND EITHER COLLECT DEBRIS ON THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE OR THE FIXTURES WOULD BE TORN FROM THE VEHICLE.
Posted by: CHRIS at August 9, 2007 06:01 PMtbogg,
Get a grip. The reason that many called BS on Scotty Von Munchausen's tales is not because all soldiers are angels. My team certainly weren't.
But Scotty's stories -- like those of many who have later been proven to be BS artists -- demonstrate mistakes in the small details. Little things -- like physics -- add together and tell me he wasn't there, or it didn't happen that way, or both. And if it didn't happen as described, and it's inflammatory, it's reasonable to infer that it didn't happen at all.
When you mess up one story, it's not a big deal. But when each of your stories has significant holes in it, it's a con. It's Baron Von Munchausen.
As I posted elsewhere, if someone in Iraq emailed me that, despite being counseled several times, PFC Snarglepuss kept going to the dump with a captured AK47 and shooting dogs, I'd have little reason to doubt it. Because there's nothing difficult to believe about it:
a. bored GI's are dangerous
b. if there's no rats to shoot (anyone else have 'rat hunting' stories to tell ? Trade ya!), dogs will do fine in many third-world countries. Many countries do NOT share our ASPCA feelings for Lassie.
c. 7.62 x 39 mm ammo is probably not inventoried. Note that Snarglepuss is NOT consuming nor abusing US military equipment (which does happen, but is punished when identified).
d. Not sure that there's anything in the UCMJ to prevent it. If the locals don't care, why should Uncle Sam ?
e. Unless you go at the same time each day, it does not appear to be stupid tactically -- i.e. it won't get you killed. (never been to Iraq, maybe it is stupid, but it doesn't strike me that way at first glance)
But that's not what Scotty wrote about. He wrote of doing odd things, in an exceedingly unlikely manner, repeatedly.
The Brad didn't just squash a dog (a very possible event, especially one sick or already dead), the driver swerved to hit it. It probably didn't occur to Scotty that 24-ton vehicles don't do donuts really well. It probably didn't occur to Scotty that if anyone inside the Brad got nailed by an unsecured .50 cal ammo can, the Brad would come back in with the now-former-driver fastened to its glacis with 100-mile-an-hour tape. (In peacetime, everything inside a Brad is probably squared away, but I suspect that's rare in theater) It probably didn't occur to Scotty that a dog corpse might make a dandy IED, and that the idea of running one over would not only be cruel (he might not care), it could prove to be tactically stupid. And if so, that would be unforgivable. I may not care if you squash Lassie, but getting my *ss blown up cranks me right off.
In summary, Scotty wrote an event that -- in Iraq -- was not credible in the manner described. It does read like a story of squashing a sick dog, as told by GI 1 to GI 2. GI 2 then adds "smashing down the stalls," and passes it on to GI 3. GI 3 adds another fantasy event, and passes it on as well. GI 4, who's never even seen a Bradley up on the honk, adds in the "swerve" and recounts it to Scotty, who writes it up and passes it on as something he saw himself.
(My friend Curtis used to work in the 9th SRW with SR-71 aircraft. He used to truly enjoy the fantastic stories told by folks not in the 9th about the birds and what the purportedly could do. He said "If half of the stories were true, Lockheed would have freaking anti-gravity by now.")
Similarly, the "chow-hall" incident is embellished beyond reasonableness. A young, stupid, uncaring *sshole might mutter under his breath. But Scotty says they couldn't tell if she was military and that someone still mouthed off loud enough to be heard. And was uncaring.
Setting aside the (large) problems with "couldn't tell if she was military," even young enlisted know better than to gratuitously and openly insult someone who might outrank you. Or who might be friends with someone who might outrank you. Maybe even by A Lot. Or to mouth off openly in the sometimes-PC environment of a DFAC. It's not merely the cruelty of the act, it's contra-survival for a young enlisted. Even if she was not military, and didn't know an O-6 to take her complaint to, Lt. Inyourbusiness (sitting at the next table) might take offense and decide to make an example of you. However crude you might want to be, you learn long before your first deployment to watch your mouth around strangers. Or you get an LOR or two and then you learn.
None of this may matter to the reader (or editor) that implicitly believes their stereotypes of the "ugly brutes" in the military, so I won't continue at length. But I will leave with one thought.
In the truly-stellar movie "Ronin," there is a character named Spence, played by Sean Bean. He is a "bad-*ss wannabe" who is telling tall tales, claiming to have served with the 22nd Regiment (the British SAS). Robert Di Nero plays Sam, who is also not who exactly he says he is, but has certainly seen the elephant. As Spence is blustering his idea (that will get everyone killed), Sam has had enough. He confronts Spence, and asks one question: "What color is the boathouse at Herefordshire ?"
Spence tries to bluff beyond it, but Sam hammmers at it over and over, verbally pounding on him until Spence finally is forced to admit he was never SAS -- he made it all up. (I think Spence was military, just not SAS.)
But the best line comes just after. I believe it was Vincent (Jean Reno) who then asks Sam "What color is the boathouse at Herefordshire ?"
Sam's answer is "How the **** should I know ?" He never knew, but he could smell BS when little things didn't add up.
It's not always the big things that trip wannabes up. I could ask someone one question: "how many points did you start with in training ?" and know immediately if they had the T-shirt.
So, does all this mean we get a sequel to the excellent (from a sceptics point of view) film "Shattered Glass"?
Posted by: glenn at August 9, 2007 06:44 PMSo, does all this mean we get a sequel to the excellent (from a sceptics point of view) film "Shattered Glass"?
The Shattered Glass 2: Doubting Thomas fake-DVD PhotoShop has already been done.
And I second the endorsement of Shattered Glass, by the way -- coincidentally, I'd watched it for the first time less than a week before the "Scott Thomas" controversy broke, and if anything, the movie made me initially more sympathetic to TNR's editors.
Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 9, 2007 07:07 PMI'm a former Cavalry officer. I commanded a Bradley platoon. The dog-killing, as described, is completely impossible. First of all, the driver's vision is restricted, and you can't see immediately in front of you, and nothing to the sides. You rely on your commander for that, who sits up higher. Even his view is limited, which is why it's so dangerous for civilian kids to get too close when begging for candy.
And the vehicle rides on its tracks. This may sound confusing to someone unfamiliar with tracked vehicles, but the tracks don't move. You don't catch anything under your tracks. You throw your track forward, and then drive over it on your road wheels. Sounds confusing, but obvious once you've seen it.
And if you did lay track on top of a dog, you'd leave nothing but a bloody patch on the ground, not a severed half. The vehicle is way too heavy for a dog.
So you can't see a dog to hit it. And you can't roll over it, because the tracks don't move. And there wouldn't be much left if you did. Try this in your car -- black out the side windows, eliminate all mirrors, and don't use your brakes. How many dogs can you hit?
This story is pure anti-military slander.
That said, the Bradley is a hell of a lot of fun to drive.
Posted by: John Shephard at August 9, 2007 08:17 PMI propose the Tbogg Rule: If an accusation is possible, that proves it happened; if an accusation is impossible, well, you're a wingnut.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 9, 2007 08:33 PMIs this a Bradley?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=550_1179995477&p=1
I still think Beauchamp is full of it regardless of any wet pavement shenanigans by these guys.
And a doffing of the hat to Throbert, good luck out there.
Those that would are probably dead now because the dumb ones die first.
Barry,
Sometimes it doesn't matter how smart you are. I knew a couple of pretty smart guys who didn't make it back. Just sayin'
Posted by: Stashiu3 at August 9, 2007 09:25 PMWhere could a private, such as Beauchamp, sit in a Bradley so that he could even SEE a dog get severed? Is that even possible?
Posted by: Holmes at August 9, 2007 09:25 PMThe Bradley has less than 10 PSI ground preasure. Unless there was some object on the ground, it would make a puppy pancake. It would not cut the dog in half.
Every one here who has driven track vehicles of any type know that what Scott claims is pure BS. Its nearly impossible to get them to slide due to the low preasure. You have just too much area on the ground. Couple that with the high center of gravity, and you have a recipe for disaster. Generally when a track flips, two people die, the driver and the T-C.
Some one mentioned 100mph tape to the glasis plate. I've heard of bad drivers getting taped to a tent pole stuck in a .50 mount, and of Tankers sticking a POS in the travel lock and firing up the smoke generator (on an M-60 series).
mister1111,
There are a surprising number of feral dogs that just roam around Baghdad - I cannot comment on all of Iraq because I was only around the capital. I also wonder why if they are so unclean, they just don't eliminate them. My overall feeling is that they are probably like rats in our urban areas and they just cant find them fast enough to get them all. I can say though that I never saw one being treated fondly by a local.
I held every position on a Bradley over my 6 years in the Army. I started as a dismount, moved to driver, then gunner and spent my last 2.5 years as a BC. A driver can't see his tracks. For the most part he can't see the ground from his left and right front tracks out to about 4 feet on either side and he can't see anything behind his hatch which is about 4/5 the length of the vehicle.
Even if a driver ran over a dog, no one on the vehicle would ever know it unless the BC turned around and looked behind the vehicle and saw the remains laying in the road. If my driver ever started jerking the vehicle all over the road or ran into buildings or curbs I'd personally kick his ass. The vehicle has such a rough ride, especially at slow speeds, I wouldn't stand for the my driver making it even more jerky.
It didn't happen. Funny how TNR refuses to just call the guy a liar and get it over with.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 9, 2007 11:06 PMPoppy, it really doesn't matter that the article has been published. Standard industry policy is that a fact-checker does not hand over the text of an article. S/he checks the facts of the article.
Or not, as the case may be.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at August 9, 2007 11:29 PMWow. Good retorts people. It makes me want to wait for more TNR lies to watch you guys rip em apart again. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Jon Brooks at August 9, 2007 11:44 PMWow!
Thanks CY, and to those with all the first hand details about how the Bradley actually operates. I knew nothing of how they did until I read this thread and I was wondering, thank you.
Also wouldn't others in the Bradley object to this wanton slaughter of these dogs? I would think that IF someone tried this once he/she would be smacked by his peers. Not too many people will tolerate cruelty to animals, no matter what.
What I do know a little about is feral dogs from living in Greece for a short time. Very quickly I noticed how 'street' 'car' and 'people' smart these dogs (and cats) become. Rarely did I see one killed on the roads. And we traveled many roads and were there for several months. I fed every..., well almost everyone I came across, cats too.
In regards to the tails being caught in the track, well... even the most pampered pet will move their tail with even a light touch, these feral animals are even more cautious and wary. With all the information I read above the dog would have had to have his butt perpendicular to the track to get it's tail stuck in it, no? I can see them running and being aggressive or excited and on occasion being run over or struck by a part of the vehicle perhaps, but to get themselves caught up butt first and by the tail from a maneuver of a heavy machine like a Bradley, just doesn't make sense at all IMHO.
(No problem on the posting delays, I despise spammers as well.)
i think everything about this story falls apart with the aparent victim. the dog..... what dog would ever be drawn to a loud vehicle...especially stray dogs..you cant even get close to them.
totally ridiculous.
Hey Charles, just what part of this post are we relying on Matt Sanchez?
It appears you and TNR fear Matt Sanchez. As soon as he got to FOB Falcon, BAM! TNR moves the melted women into Kuwait.
And if gay/semi-gay people are not to be believed by the left, I certainly didn't hear that in the
gay/Lesbian/trangender debate.
poppy, I deleted Charles' pathetic strawman. Sanchez is doing good work, but it is separate from this, and irrelevant.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2007 06:27 AMRick
Get it off the ground and put it in the air. In the movie Full Metal Jacket, Pvt. Joker is being transported by helicopter to a combat zone. There's a doorgunner having a grand old time machine-gunning water buffalo on the ground, much to Joker's horror.
Sounds like the same type of guy, same attitude, same personality.
Could this scene be Beauchamp's inspiration?
The door gunner in that scene is gunning down women and children in a a rice paddy - and utters a memorable line while Rafter Man gags;
Joker: How do you shoot women .. children?
Gunner: Easy - you just don't lead 'em as much. Ha ha!
Maybe. You'd think the pilot would ask his crew chief what-in-the-hell he's shooting at ...
I don't recall that scene from the book - but in the book there is a scene where a tank - an M48? - runs over a water buffalo and a child. The TC is irked at the driver, explains to the protagonist that grandpa is upset at the water bull and wants reparations and isn't so upset about the child.
I like the movie just fine, loved the book because it was by former Marine Gus Hasford and it's a well written novel. But it's not a memoir - it's more in the realm of fantasy.
Posted by: Brian at August 10, 2007 06:44 AMLiberals are big into the SO WHAT about TNR and Beauchamp, because they don't want you to think about what it really says about TNR.
When I first read Beauchamps first article I could tell it didn't ring true, it was to pat a story. Then reading all three I knew the guy was lying, then reading his blog I figured why he was lying.
Yet, through all those months the editors and reporters at TNR were gullible, ignorant or stupid enough to print what he wrote. They were punked by a young, ignorant college drop out, writer wanna-be.
If they can be so badly misled by one of their own, what does it say about their intelligence, their thoughfulnes about foriegn policies like Iraq?
Do they want their subscribers to know their staff was that ignorant, do people want to pay for such incompetence each month? And how many other things got past them? How bad was their judgement, their editing, their research on other subjects?
Should they be advertising, come to TNR, we make up stories that will fit your world view and make you feel superior (Fact checking optional).
I believe TNR is rightly frightened by memory of the Literery Digest, a magazine that called the 1936 election so bad [they relied on a telephone poll back when democrats were less likely to have phones] it went under.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 10, 2007 07:28 AM"poppy, I deleted Charles' pathetic strawman. Sanchez is doing good work, but it is separate from this, and irrelevant."
Charles is obsessed with Sanchez, and has certainly drawn the conclusion that by deleting his comment, you are too. If fact, it means you're in lust with him, as well as complicit in his vast conspiracy.
Charles is quite insane. Pay him no mind unless insanity interests you.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 07:38 AMLet me go into a little more detail about the radio problem. First off, almost all radios (including modern military CINCGARS) allow only ONE radio to broadcast at a time. If two people try to talk at the same time, one person gets stepped on. Point two, I am not entirely sure, but I believe the radios in the Bradley go through the headset mics in the CVC helmets. Point three, to my knowledge there aren't radios in the back of the Bradleys.
So, according to ex-PFC Beauchamp's story, he heard "a roar of laughter" over the radio and then later heard "everyone laughing." Really? How is that considering only one person can be heard talking on a radio at one time? I guess maybe if the K9 killing Bradley was being followed by a Humvee and the radio used a hand mic. Then you might pick up two or three people inside the Humvee laughing. Otherwise, its impossible to get multiple people broadcasting on a radio at the same time. The other question is, what position was ex-PFC Beauchamp in. If he is a crewman in the back of a Bradley, either he can't see anything at all, or he doesn't have a radio.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 10, 2007 08:11 AMCompliments to 1Charlie2 for providing the reality of life in theater for soldiers. The typical soldier is a professional working among a team of professionals. Slackers and joyriders are quickly taught to get their act together else they put their team at risk.
Boredom is a real issue yet no NCO or Officer is going to accept damage to equipment that they depend on for their lives. Shooting dogs, maybe. Wasting fuel, damaging the country, damaging equipment - if real then there's a number of Officers and NCOs that would be held accountable, not just the joyriding PFC.
Fact checkers should be asking the Army PAO, who will go on the record, if the events in this story are violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Willfully damaging equipment by running into corners of buildings is clearly a violation. There are too many professionals in the line to allow this when the threat is real and troops are injured or killed every day. A second question to ask the PAO is what action does the Army plan to take against Beauchamp for fabricating this story and violating regulations if not the UCMJ.
Posted by: Wolf at August 10, 2007 09:17 AMWhat I wonder about is the quoute:
"How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on."
How did he see this? And more than once?
This was supposedly done out on the streets, so how did he witness it?
As a former commander of USAF (yeah, Air Force) ground combat troops assigned to a heavy Corps and one who's seen/watched Bradleys up close, Beauchamp's BS just made me laugh. Doing what he described with a Brad is like running a European Formula One race course through downtown Paris in a full-sized garbage truck at top speed. Not bloody likely, mate.
Alas, millions of people swallowed it whole (at least for awhile) because their collective military experience is miniscule...a fact that makes public opinion in times of war even more vulnerable to the kind of information warfare TNR practices.
But I'll tell you what really chaps my britches--we are spending a lot of energy and time refuting this miscreant's drivel AND we are discussing the limitations of a combat vehicle in an open forum to do so. Not only are we trying to defend the nation's fighting men and women against slander, but also having to do it while increasing the potential risk to our troops.
As a former attack pilot, I don't like anyone discussing ANYTHING about my jet that may increase the likelihood of me getting killed because someone on the other side pieced together a system vulnerability via an open forum.
Let's be clear...Beauchamp and TNR may have done even more damage than they had intended.
And this strikes home for me even more today. Today, the 24 year-old son of a friend, killed in Afghanistan last Tuesday, is being buried at Arlington. He was a hero whose reputation cannot be sullied by the likes of Thomas Scott Beauchamp or Franklin Foer, no matter how hard they try.
Posted by: Instapilot at August 10, 2007 09:51 AMHmmmm.
@ 1charlie2
It's amazing how many people there are who were in the SAS, Special Forces, Rangers and Marine Recon.
I experienced something like this when I was a serving Marine grunt. Our unit got a new Major coming in from a Fleet unit who was supposedly "Recon". All the talk was that the guy was a badass who'd hammer us into being more shipshape than the 35% s**tbirds/45% don't-give-a-f**k/20% hardcore that we really were.
Come the first day of morning PT that this new "Recon" Major was going to lead he has us dress in green t-shirts, camo trousers and boots for the run. He gets out in front of the formation and does this "I'm a badass" spiel.
Then we go for the basic, routine and pretty ordinary 3 mile in July where the temp is 85 degrees and the humidity is somewhere north of 100%. The pace started *off* nice and quick but that lasted all of about 5 minutes. Once we got out of the barracks area the pace started to slow down a great deal until it was barely crawling.
Finally the whole formation stopped ...... because the "Recon" Major crapped out and couldn't go any farther. So far we'd done about 1/3 of a mile! Heck even the s**tbirds weren't even sweating.
After that you can pretty much guess what happened. All the Marines in the formation found out the Major had crapped out after only 1/3rd of a mile, we all started laughing our butts off and rolling on the ground, the Captain and other officers and NCOs got a bit pissed off and made us do recruit-training style exercises off the road and in the brush.
*shrug* we were still laughing while we did them.
Never ceases to amaze me that so few people can stand on up and admit: "I carried a rifle and that's about it".
Posted by: memomachine at August 10, 2007 10:31 AMHmmmm.
@ 1charlie2
Oh I forgot. Evidently the Major had been in a Recon unit. But was in the administrative section and had absolutely nothing to do with actual operations.
Or PT for that matter.
Posted by: memomachine at August 10, 2007 10:33 AMThe real hoot here is TNR's own statement of their original, pre-publication fact-checking:
"We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details."
That's one, repeat ONE, corroborating witness...plus, I guess, "experts" who agreed, "Yeah, that could happen."
And what's with this? "Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report."
"Personally"? So they knew him well? Had met him face-to-face? When?
"Professionally"? They were relying on his credentials and reputation? Such as?
Posted by: John at August 10, 2007 11:04 AMi think everything about this story falls apart with the aparent victim. the dog..... what dog would ever be drawn to a loud vehicle...especially stray dogs..you cant even get close to them.
totally ridiculous.
On planet wingnut dogs never chase cars!
I like this fantasy world you all live in. Is there a way for me to experience it short of a lobotomy?
Posted by: Sarcastro at August 10, 2007 11:05 AMPutting the best light on this,our "soldier/writer" heard "war stories"(not based on fact) and decided to embellish them. TNR,having no military experience and against the war, bought the tall tail,hook,line and sinker.
Posted by: Stu at August 10, 2007 11:29 AMHas anyone verified the existence of the "melted" woman anywhere? Someone like that would be memorable, surely someone could say "Yes, I've seen a woman who was disfigured like that".
Posted by: LarryD at August 10, 2007 12:15 PMBeachamp Radio Procedure:
"Charlie-one-one, this is charlie-one-two: Ha-ha, over"
Sarcast0 - "car" does not equal 25 tone armoured vehicle with tracks clanking, roadwheels screeching (I bet dogs hate that) and a really load diesel engine roaring. Given the noise that an AFV puts out, I would think all the dogs would run the other way.
Posted by: holdfast at August 10, 2007 01:02 PMSarcastro:
You're kidding, right, in a "fake but accurate" kinda way?
I mean, you're not actually equating your local well-fed, car-chasing family dog with a feral animal trying to feed itself from scraps in the streets? In a place where the local drivers look on dogs as we would look at rats?
Use the grey stuff between your ears and actually think before you type.
Posted by: Doc at August 10, 2007 01:57 PMPeople,
My name is Ali. I am the dog in question that was supposedly hit by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Very frankly the BFV didn't hit me but I did piss on it a lot.
Then Fifi, my bitch said that I could sue the US military for a one million dinars if I was hit. I mean what can I say. Have you seen the living condition here in Iraq?
We needed a patsy --er PFC and we saw this Beauchamp guy and heck I moaned and whined till he finally got the message and decided to write the story.
I am really ticked that he got all of the press notice and I got zip. So here I am stuck in Iraq with Fifi and no money, no food.
Any of you guys, just send me some Iams, or Alpo or anything. Its just scraps here.
Thanks in advance,
Ali
Posted by: subrot0 at August 10, 2007 02:41 PMAnd, uh, for the record, just exactly who are your sources for the Beauchamp story being untrue?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 03:26 PMHmmmm.
Here's something new:
This is pretty odd:
"Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy.""
Ummmm. Are they saying that the Army is holding Beauchamp incommunicado? Or is it that Beauchamp doesn't want anything to do with TNR and the Army is refusing to make Beauchamp talk to TNR?
You can read it either way.
Still. This is another example of long on prose, low on detail.
You mean the Army wouldn't want Beauchamp to confirm to TNR that his story was false? And that would be because the Army doesn't want the falseness of the story confirmed by Beauchamp? So we have unnamed sources alleged to exist by the Weakly Standard claiming that the story is false but no one in the Army willing to come forward, be named, and confirm this. Now THAT's solid reporting, isn't it?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 04:00 PMdigitusmedius - The same guys who can prove that aliens are not visiting our planet.
Posted by: Bugs at August 10, 2007 04:06 PMSo we have unnamed sources alleged to exist by the Weakly Standard claiming that the story is false but no one in the Army willing to come forward, be named, and confirm this. Now THAT's solid reporting, isn't it?
What kind of crack are you on?
Col. Steven Boylan, LTC James Crider, Major Steven Lamb, Major Renee D. Russo, Major Kirk Luedeke, SSG Hartley... the question seems more to be, who in the U.S. Army hasn't said that Beauchamp's stories were false, a myth or urban legend?
And, uh, for the record, just exactly who are your sources for the Beauchamp story being untrue?
You mean in addition to those above?
How about William "Big Country" Coughlin, a contractor at the base in Kuwait where the burned woman story was supposed to have happened, who flatly denies she exists? How about Doug Coffey, TNR's own expert, who was cited above?
Nice try... actually, it wasn't even that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 10, 2007 04:22 PMLamb is on record for saying he didn't know anything about the story being proven false and doesn't know who told the Weakly Standard that it was. As to the others: I'd love to see what they've actually said.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 04:33 PMOh, and when the Weakly Substandard is reduced to arguing whether a 35 ton vehicle is capable of splitting a dog in two after it runs over it, you have reached the very definition of grasping at straw.
Posted by: digitusm at August 10, 2007 04:37 PMdigitusmedius:
I'll be your source for disproving the dog story. As I said in a previous post, there is no way a driver could even see the dog he claims to have run over with quite a bit of finesse. I spent 6 years holding every position on the Bradley from dismount to driver to gunner to Bradley Commander. It can't be done. It simply never happened. What more do you need to know? I'll be glad to explain it further as so many others have done here. If he lied about the dog story and the DFAC melted face story why do you think he told the truth about anything else?
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 04:43 PMK. Anderson:
With all due respect, I don't think you're an unbiased source. I accept that that's your opinion, but just your opinion. And why should the source who says the Kuwait story is false be any more believeable than the original diarist. By the way, the diarist never claimed to have witnessed all of these events personally, did he? Was he not sometimes relating a variety of stories told to him? It may be that a lot of people around him made up stuff but that's doesn't mean the diarist is lying.
digitusmedius,
Lamb is on record for saying he didn't know anything about the story being proven false and doesn't know who told the Weakly Standard that it was.
Wrong. He said he didn't know anything about Beauchamp's statement. But he also said:
“We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”
Which finds him confirming, on the record, that the claims are false and have been proven so.
Do you still believe in square backed rounds and Glocks being exclusive to the Iraqi Police?
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 05:27 PMBy the way, the diarist never claimed to have witnessed all of these events personally, did he? Was he not sometimes relating a variety of stories told to him?
No, he claimed to be a witness or participant in all of the stories. The only exception was that of the THIRD dog being run over by a joyriding BFV driver, which he heard about on the radio with everyone laughing about it.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 05:30 PMPablo, Where did that quote from Lamb come from because that was decidedly NOT what he told TNR when they contacted him 2 days ago. And where did this idea that the TNR was anti-war come from. TNR supported the invasion of Iraq 100%. It is only in the last year that the mag. has come to the conclusion, as have 70% of the country, that it was a bad, bad idea.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 05:49 PMRead the link. It's the New York Times.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 05:52 PMThe army claims that the Beauchamp diaries are false but won't disclose on what basis their investigation came to this conclusion. This is shades of Jessica Lynch, Abu Ghraib and Pat Tillman all over again.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 05:54 PMOh, and as for TNR, read this from June 2004 and tell us again how pro-war TNR has been. And let's also not fail to note that TNR has taken a hard left under Franklin Foer, where Peter Beinart was more of a moderate.
And then pardon me if I don't trust your fact checking.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 05:56 PMThe army claims that the Beauchamp diaries are false but won't disclose on what basis their investigation came to this conclusion.
Nonsense. Read Lamb's statement (and Boylan's and a host of others) again.
“The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”
There's your basis.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 05:59 PMBTW, there's this from TNR's latest statement:
Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army.
Shouldn’t everyone who has been pursuing this story now be asking the Army for comment on this new allegation?
digitsumedia:
First off, I'm sure you don't recognize the irony when you demand to know where Lamb's comment came from.
It was TNR that made the assertions that what Beauchamp was writing is true. Therefore, it is incumbent upon TNR to show that the stories are true.
Second, in referring to Jessica Lynch, you do realize that it was the Army that was saying, "Whoa! Let's find out what happened."? And that it was the media (based on "unnamed sources") that was hyping the heck out of it, yes?
Third, in referring to Abu Ghraib, exactly what are you claiming? That the Army lied about it? Or that the Army was investigating Abu Ghraib already when the story was broken?
Finally, what exactly would it take to convince YOU that Beauchamp was lying? That a Bradley cannot do what he claimed to have been part of; that there are no shell casings that match his description; that there is no apparent record of a woman matching his description at the location he gave; most of all, that he himself lied about both the time and place of the incident involving the woman (Iraq after the war began, versus Kuwait before the war began).All of this seems to have been pretty well established.
What are you looking for, exactly?
Tell me, are you someone who also believes that the Texas Air National Guard commander used a type-setting machine to type memos to himself in a font that matches Microsoft Word's default setting?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 10, 2007 06:01 PMBTW, the Jessica Lynch fabulism was the WaPo's story, not the Army's, and it was the Army that reported Abu Ghraib. In Tillman's case, while the truth was manhandled, it came out in relatively short order and those responsible for the manhandling have paid for it.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:02 PMWhat are you looking for, exactly?
A reason, any reason, to believe.
Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army.
Let's look at the next line:
He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles.
So, they're saying that he was pressured by the Army to sign statements that don't contradict his articles.
I call bullsh*t.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:08 PML.O.
Let's see. The army hasn't released anything about its inestigation but you seem to have all the information. That's pretty odd. I'm glad you brought up the TANG story because everyone who knew Bush and his commander confirmed the basic validity of the CBS story.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 06:08 PMPablo,
Then I'd think you want to demand that the Army make its investigation public. I sure would like to see it.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 06:09 PMThe army hasn't released anything about its inestigation but you seem to have all the information.
What part of "his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made." do you not understand?
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:10 PMPablo: where'd the WaPo get it's Lynch story? Are you saying they completely invented it (when, in fact, it was fed to them by military PAOs--the same breed falling all over themselves to attack the Beauchamp account; they have as much credibility as "the insurgents are in their last throes" Cheney). The army sat on the Abu Ghraib story until an Israeli newspaper broke it shortly before the photos saved by one of the soldiers there got distributed. And we STILL have not gotten the truth about Tillman.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 06:13 PMIt's people who believe the army PAOs, like the ones who fed the Lynch story to the press and told us there was nothing to see at Abu Ghraib and that Pat Tillman died while taking out a bunch o' Taliban, that really need to wake up to how the military goes into defensive mode when it tries to hide something embarrassing.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 06:16 PMI also find it more than funny that the kinds of things that Beauchamp reported as happening are exactly the kinds of things right wingers love to fantasize about our soldiers doing. If his story had been picked up by, say, Free Republic, you people attacking him now would be hootin' and hollerin' your approval.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 06:19 PMThen I'd think you want to demand that the Army make its investigation public.
The Army isn't claiming any wrongdoing. TNR is. The burden of proof is on them. What you're asking for is that someone put his platoon/company mates on the record. The Army isn't going to do it because of privacy concerns. But I'd like to see someone do it, and the Army, we have been told has talked to all of them and has found no one to confirm the stories.
What more do you need to know from the Army? Time for TNR to get their sources on the record.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:20 PMSomeone isn't listening.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:21 PMI also find it more than funny that the kinds of things that Beauchamp reported as happening are exactly the kinds of things right wingers love to fantasize about our soldiers doing.
So you're an expert on right winger fantasies? Time to cash in your chips, moonbat. You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:26 PMPablo,
Already to the personal name calling? How very third grade of you. It does tell us something about your argument, though. It's flimsy and cracking up.
Did I say it was the tracks that cut the dog in half. Umm, my bad, I meant to say that the gunner opened fire on it and 1,000 well placed 50 caliber bullets sawed him in half.
I'd just really like to put this dog stuff behind me so I can get back to writing about things that really happened. Like us having to wade through streets of raw sewage and terrorists cutting our interpreters / informants tongues out while an entire battalion watched.
digitusmedius, don't let the haters get you down. WE KNOW THE "TRUTH". Those darned Army "PAOs" are all conspiring to cover up the actions that General Betrayus sanctions on a daily basis.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 10, 2007 06:33 PMYou're moonbat fantasies are a waste of my time, buddy. And I've destroyed every "fact" you've tried to put forward here.
You're out of your league. Now run along.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 06:34 PMBy the way digitusmedius, could you ship a Playstation or XBox over? They snatched mine during the investigation and won't give it back. At least contact my mom and have her call my CO.
Thanks!
Posted by: scott thomas at August 10, 2007 06:36 PMI think Tbogg and Sarcastro hit on something that might open our eyes a bit. I remember hearing about Gharib and thinking "I'll never believe that unless I see pictures." Dang if they didn't have pictures. I'm sure we all come at this from a pre-set viewpoint. My pre-set viewpoint is that military folks are typically professionals doing beneficial things for humanity. They're the people I want taking care of my kids and the folks I trust with guns. There is the occasional nutcase, but that is an outlyer (sp?), not a norm.
Zillions of folks have described why any military person would look on Beauchamp's story with scepticism. TNR's folks weren't military, so they got what they felt was objective backup for the story. I have no military experience at all (unless I can count dating GI's in college), but reading the stories Beauchamp wrote, I think anyone with sense could discount them. The rotting flesh story should send alarm into any thinking person's head. My challenge to you folks who still think he was telling a truth the military wishes to hide is: take a chicken and put it in a bag in your backyard for a week or two, then bring it into your house. Tell me how long you would be willing to live this way. OK, now what if it was in your car with you? No one but an idiot would believe some kid was wearing a skull with rotting flesh for a day with other human beings. One insane person might be able to live with that chicken in their car for a while, but you're expecting me to believe that nutball was traveling with other folks who just tolerated this? That is unbelievable. There is only one reason an editor or fact checker would let something like this go to press: because their pre-set viewpoint is that military folks are stinky people who do weird inhumane things for giggles and grins. I suspect their pre-set viewpoint combined with a liberal arts education that has left them over educated and under knowledged leads them to say stuff like: we talked to a forensic specialist that told us it is indeed possible for someone to do this. The same viewpoint prevented them from asking the next obvious question: would anyone do that? The forensic person would clearly answer: only if they have no sense of smell.
To me, this isn't a matter of what side of the aisle you are on, but what your viewpoint is. I like mine better than yours, but I guess that goes unsaid.
Big d, really I hate to be a pest and don't want to impose on you too much. But could you perhaps get this bit of information out to the network.
If they don't get the antidote to us soon I fear we'll have a nation full of killers coming home. And worst of all, when we take the whitehouse back from these Rethugs the monsters they've created will reek havoc under our watch.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 10, 2007 06:41 PMWhile Pablo continues with his tantrum, I thought I'd take this opportunity to say one thing that I'll bet the farm on. That is this: if it is shown without a reasonable doubt that the Beauchamp diaries were fiction, TNR will own up to it. On the other hand, if Beauchamp was telling the truth, the Weakly Substandard will never admit that it mounted an attack based on nothing but innuendo and fabrication and neither will any of its enablers on this website.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 07:56 PMLike Carolynp says, the closest she ever got to combat was fighting off GIs on a date...and it shows by what she wrote above.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 08:05 PMdigitusmedius,
When I tell you the dog story isn't possible it isn't an opinion, it is fact. I've spent more time in a Bradley than you probably have in your own car so I think I know what I'm talking about. Exactly how much time have you spent in a Bradley?
Scott Thomas, if that is your real name, exactly how man .50cals (Ma Deuce) are on a Bradley?
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 08:05 PMdigitus, you've not sustained a single point here, nor have you successfully rebutted one offered by anyone else here. You're standing behind TNR for requiring a standard of proof, complete transparency, that the Army cannot meet and that TNR itself refuses to meet despite the fact that it can.
It is not simply a "right wing fantasy" as noted in your name calling tantrum, but it is the titans of the MSM calling TNR to the carpet. The NYT, WaPo, and AP as well as numerous journalistic ethicists have condemned their behavior here.
The Weekly Standard has named and directly quoted all of it's sources but one. The WS has also reported every position that TNR has taken. TNR has done none of this. They've dodged and obfuscated. They've failed to report things that we know they were aware of.
There's only one reason for you to be supporting TNR here in the face of overwhelming evidence that they've been duped, or lied to us, or both: Ideology.
Have the courage to admit that.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 08:05 PMK. Anderson, that's a faux Beauchamp. Click his link, it's pretty funny stuff. And besides, I'm not sure the real Beauchamp would be able to answer you.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 08:08 PMK Anderson,
Most of them don't have any .50cals, but Xzibbit pimped my ride and put one on each corner. So I've got four.
Its a sweet ride, the neon green and black make it stand out from the crowd too.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 10, 2007 08:17 PMdigitusmedius, why hath thou forsaken me.
I thought we had a bond.
I'll be in my bunk, waiting, wearing just a smile.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 10, 2007 08:23 PMPablo continues to labor under the mistaken idea that his side on this has presented anything like proof to support his attacks. What do they have? A bunch of unsubstantiated statements by military flak catchers and PR types and the promise from the Army that it will not reveal anything from its investigation. In other words, nothing but pure, unadulterated b.s.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 09:05 PMYou haven't even read the post you're commenting on, have you, digitus?
Run along, child.
Posted by: Pablo at August 10, 2007 09:09 PMPablo,
You can't really expect digi to read can you?
Really, just what the hell would a person working in the media relations area of their company know about their products? I mean they're only answering questions about them on a daily basis.
Do you think Bill Gates knows a damned thing about DOS or Windows? I think not!!11eleven!!111
Posted by: scott thomas at August 10, 2007 09:16 PMPablo,
This isn't a criminal trial, where the jury needs to unanimously reach a verdict based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Fortunately. digitusmedious is, I think, sincere, and providing a useful function here. By a "reasonable person" or "preponderance of the evidence" standard, each of C.Y.'s posts on the Beauchamp/TNR scandal has been at least a base hit. A few, like this one, are home runs.
But as we see here, facts, logic, evidence, experience, testimony, and reasonableness cannot persuade a person who is convinced of the truth of a different narrative. There are an infinite number of "Aha! But what if ..." objections that can be raised to anything.
The more people know about the details of the case, the more they will be taken aback by the quality of the arguments being marshalled against you.
Posted by: AMac at August 10, 2007 09:42 PMSadly, digitus doesn't seem to be capable of even raising "Aha!" arguments, AMac. I look at this:
In other words, nothing but pure, unadulterated b.s.
...and I see a blinkered, shrieking moonbat with whom further discourse is utterly pointless. This is the kind of guy who will insist to this day that the Rather/TANG documents were real.
It's a pity, but not a problem we're going to resolve.
Noble efforts, digitusmedius, but you're dealing with the 26%ers. The Beauchamp articles *cannot* be true because they say so--hell, there's probably a bunch of people on this board who still think Jamil Hussein doesn't exist, or that that AP photographer was secretly trying to kill Dick Cheney by photographing a birdhouse--despite the fact that the Secret Service approved the photos.
What's really curious to me is that the Weekly Standard statement that Beauchamp had recanted didn't go up until *after* TNR made public that Beauchamp was unable to communicate with the outside world… so that he couldn't respond to the allegations. That, plus the fact that the Weekly Standard is on record as insisting multiple times that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al-Qaeda--not based on any facts, mind you, but based on the idea that Mohammed Atta *could* have been in the Czech Republic for three days (he could have been anywhere--Saudia Arabia, the U.K., Antarctica… there's no evidence to place him in Prague)--means the Standard has lost all credibility with me.
And of course, no one here is talking about the possibility of statements being coerced by the army.
A prediction: couple of years down the line (say, 2009), after they get out of the army, a couple of Beauchamp's fellow soldiers will come forward to confirm all the stories (acknowledging that one happened in Kuwait). And everyone on this board will either ignore it or find some reason not to believe them, either.
Money quotes: "when the facts show that the outing of Valerie Plame came from an opponent of the Iraq war (Richard Armitage)"
Er. The outing of Valerie Plame came from three people--Armitage, who, being a decent human being, regrets it--and Libby (who called up several journalists, including Judith Miller and Matt Cooper--forget about that, did you, Mr. O'Sullivan?--and Karl Rove. I'm always amazed at wingers' attempts to deny this simple fact.
Carolynp: "I remember hearing about Ghraib and thinking "I'll never believe that unless I see pictures." Dang if they didn't have pictures. I'm sure we all come at this from a pre-set viewpoint."
Carolynp, have you learned nothing from that experience? We may all have pre-set mentalities, but your mentality resulted in your *denying reality.* Would the Abu Ghraib have been any less true without pictures?
Some day, right-wingers are going to realize that denying reality is not a viable way to keep a political party afloat, and we can start having conversations based in reality. I look forward to that day. Until then, well, the wingers will continue to live in the wonderful world of denial.
Posted by: JacksonR at August 10, 2007 10:03 PMJacksonR, have you ever served in the US military? I think not. You have several people on this board with experience in the military who are telling you that what Beauchamp said isn't physically possible. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY HE SAID IT DID. I know. You would have a better chance of convincing me that sky is green and water isn't wet.
Why do you left wingers keep bringing up Abu Ghraib? It was a non story. A bunch of moronic West Virginians made some terrorists put underwear on their head. Boo Freaking Hoo. Who cares? They were disciplined and are serving their time. Why don't you guys show the same kind of outrage for the cowardly muslim bastards who use a dull machete to saw the head off a conscious and innocent American? Or kidnap a reporter and behead him? Or kidnap innocent Koreans who are trying to help people and execute them? Why don't you aim your anger at the bad guys instead of the brave men and women of the US military who are defending our nation against these animals so they don't do this kind of horrendous behavior in the streets of the US?
What in God's name is wrong with you anti-military, America hating, leftwing communist bastards? I'm just glad that people like me are willing to give up our own safety and comfort to keep this country safe and I don't undersand why we have to put up with your whining and sypathizing witht he enemy when you should be kissing our bloody and blistered feet that you are able to live in freedom. You guys disgust me.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 10:30 PMthe Weekly Standard is on record as insisting multiple times that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al-Qaeda--not based on any facts, mind you, but based on the idea that Mohammed Atta *could* have been in the Czech Republic for three days (he could have been anywhere--Saudia Arabia, the U.K., Antarctica… there's no evidence to place him in Prague)Google search "Atta Prague al-Ani".
"[Stanislav Gross, the Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic,] explained that Atta had been in the Czech Republic at least twice: on June 2, 2000 and in early April 2001." From Edward Jay Epstein's timeline.
G'night.
Posted by: AMac at August 10, 2007 10:48 PMAhh, the last refuge of of the right wing know-nothings: "you hate the military, you hate the military." Good, God, do you 25%ers really think it's that easy...what am I saying, of course you do. Everything has to be reduced to something that fits on a bumper sticker for you people to grasp. Are you so naive as to believe that there aren't people in the military who will lie to protect their asses? You people who say you've served in the military must know that it's not like the people in it stop being human and suddenly don't have all the human weaknesses and failings that everyone else does. Go ahead, keep trying to hide behind that "they hate the military" gauze barrier that is so delicately trying to mask the fact that you can't stand it when you've been wrong time, after time, after time. By God, it's your support of George Bush that has nearly destroyed our military. Oh, but you'll never let yourselves see that. It'll always be someone else's fault. Those damn liberals are always to blame even when it's your hand in the broken cookie jar, right? When will you ever grow up and take responsibility for your lies and your foolishness?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 10:49 PMdigitusmedius,
Give me just 1 LIE that GWB told. Just 1. I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 10:51 PMI only just saw the unbelieveable (and I mean that in all senses of the word) post from something called AMac in which we find this gem:
"facts, logic, evidence, experience, testimony"
Can someone really delude themselves so entirely as to transform a total stonewall by the military into "facts, logic, evidence, experience, testimony." I'll go on record as saying that I have no idea whether Scott, or Thomas, or Beauchamp, or whatever the hell his name is, was accurately telling a story about real events or not. But nothing that the Weakly Substandard, the Army flakcatchers or this website has come up with puts even the slightest dent into the TNR story. It's like you think yelling "it's a lie, it's a lie" at the top of your thin, high pitched, whiny voices for as long as you can draw breath somehow makes it so. It's so absolutely puerile, it'd be funny if it weren't so damn sad.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 10:58 PM"we're fighting the same folks in Iraq who attacked us on 9/11"--how's that K. Anderson. Now, it's your turn: Give me one "truth" George Bush has ever said.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 11:00 PMWe ARE fighting the same people in Iraq, you idiot. Islamic fundementalism is a world wide problem but it is concentrated in the middle-east. These people we are fighting are the EXACT same people, have you heard of Al-Queda in Iraq. This is so easy.
NEXT!
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 11:02 PMCan someone tell me: when did it become patriotic to send our military into a quagmire and let it get stuck in someone else's civil war and get run into the ground? The right wingers told us we had to do that in Vietnam. And they were wrong. Now they tell us we have to do it in Iraq. And, they're wrong again. How many times do we have to learn this lesson?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 11:04 PMdigitusmedius said:
"It's like you think yelling "it's a lie, it's a lie" at the top of your thin, high pitched, whiny voices for as long as you can draw breath somehow makes it so. It's so absolutely puerile, it'd be funny if it weren't so damn sad."
You have just summed up the left wing Bush Derangement Syndrome in that one thought. Funny how projection works, you see your own flaws in others. AMAZING!
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 11:05 PMSo, K. Anderson believes the myth that George Bush is perpetuating every time he lies about the enemy in Iraq. It is not now, nor was it ever the same people who attacked us on 9/11. Those people are still at large and living safely in Western Pakistan, thanks to George Bush's complete incompetence and mendacity. You will not find one person who really knows about Al Qaida and what calls itself Al Qaida in Iraq who think they're even remotely connected other than by their own rhetoric and the Bush administration's lie machine. It's sort of telling how those two groups seem to match up these days.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 11:08 PMdigitusmedius,
Fist of all, Iraq is neither a quagmire, nor is it a civil war and the only ones getting "run into the ground" are those screaming allah akbar and wearing dirty rags on their heads.
Second, when did LBJ (Mr New Society) become a right winger?
I believe if you read your history it was a Republican with the initials RMN that got us out of the quagmire the Democrats created in Vietnam. And if you dig a little deeper in your history books, it was another Democrat that got us into Korea, where we still have troops enforcing the ceasfire along the 38th parallel.
Learn your history, son.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 11:10 PMI guess Pablo has retired to put his aching head to rest. He (I'm assuming "he") is so typical of most if not all right wing apologists for the Bush regime and the right wing lie Wurlitzer. Challenged to actually put up real facts instead of their stock-in-trade innuendo and inventions, they immediately start with the name-calling and then sulk off like some 8 year old who can't have his way. Sleep well, Pablo. You'll need it.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 11:13 PMSo I guess you also believe that the Germans we fought in the sahara desert were different from the ones we fought in France and totally seperate from the ones the Russians fought on the Eastern front.
You really are a piece of work.
Muslim extremists are all part of the global jihad movement. They are all part of the group that is trying to destroy western civilization and you are complicit in that destruction if you can't even admit that the people we are fighting in Iraq are the EXACT same breed who attacked us on 9/11. Evil is evil.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 11:13 PMK.A. I have to grudgingly give you credit on one thing. You have managed to insulate and inoculate yourself completely from anything remotely connected to the truth and reality of Iraq and George Bush disastrous rule. That is quite an accomplishment. If denial was a science you'd be a PhD.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 11:15 PMI've got an idea.
Let's find some abandoned field somewhere, get some used Bradleys, some stuffed toys in the shape of dogs, and let the lefties who say it's possible prove it.
We can call it Beauchamp-land. Charge a few bucks admission (with a refund if they actually do what Beauchamp claimed), and we'd be rolling in the dough.
We can donate the proceeds to the GOP.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 10, 2007 11:17 PM"Wurlitzer"
Ah, the lame prose of Ollie Willis gets a revival.
He, too, is "making a difference" in this world, I guess. Along with G.I. Scott.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at August 10, 2007 11:18 PMI've got to get up early in the morning so I just want to say this: I appreciate the freedom that CY has permitted in this comment section. I've been to other right wing fora and bbss and I was kicked off long before now for putting the pressure on the right wing posters. So much for their tolerance of dissent. But, it seems that CY is not afraid to have us go toe to toe, and let the chips fall. That's part of the American way. Or at least that's what I've always believed.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 10, 2007 11:19 PMdigitusmedius,
Once again, I've shot down all of your rhetoric with facts so now you have to resort to name calling. Typical. You people are so transparent.
Thank God your ilk isn't running the country. If you were we'd all be praying in Arabic 5 times a day and wiping our asses with our left hand after using the hole in the ground.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 10, 2007 11:20 PMC-C-G,
Naw...first, they should prove their chops (in the best Charles Johnson TANG mem font-matching style) by changing a Bradley's flat tire in a waist-deep river of poo.
Not too difficult for some folks here, as it seems to be their natural habitat. But mighty knowledgable about military and world affairs, and hallucinogens, one must say.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at August 10, 2007 11:23 PMDigitus, you seem to fail to realize that the only reason CY lets your ilk stay around here is because you are such good evidence of the intellectual vacuity of the modern left.
You absolutely refuse to believe facts from those who have actually driven the Bradley, as well as facts from the people who know more about the Bradley than any others--the manufacturers!
You're a poster child for the half-witted, brainwashed lefty, and for that, you deserve to stay here and show everyone what sort of people are running the Democrat party now.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 10, 2007 11:26 PMI can't believe I read the whole thing...
Lemmeseenow: in this corner, people experienced with track vehicles, people with military service and therefore intimate knowledge of the constraints on individuals in the military in situations ranging from combat to mess hall, people willing to identify themselves and go on record with statements. In THAT corner, people who apparently believe that (for instance) Statement A about a Bradley's capabilities, made by a Bradley operator, and Statement B about a Bradley's capabilities, made by somebody who's never seen a Bradley up close but can "visualize" the scenario, constitute equivalent opinions.
Wowee. Hence the Reality-Based Community. I do give digitusmedia full marks for single-mindedness, though.
Posted by: Jamie at August 11, 2007 01:11 AMTo Confederate Yankee: Fabulous work in your contact with the Bradley manufacturer and reporting of it!
To those commenters with first-hand military experience who've continued to add specific factual information from which those of us without military experience can try to make up our minds: Thank you!
To those of you tempted to continue arguing with the likes of tbogg and digitusmedius: Please, please, please stop feeding the trolls. One constant hallmark of trolls is that they want to change the subject. They would always much rather argue in this post's comments about something like, say, Dubya's TANG service or Abu Ghraib than the physical characteristics and maneuver physics of a Bradley. If you must debate the trolls, please try to limit your arguments with them closely to the subject matter of this post, and resist their efforts to change the subject. Otherwise, you help them spread their smokescreen — and make no mistake, that's their only real reason for posting here (i.e., it's part of the definition of being a "troll" rather than a legitimate commenter with opposing views).
Posted by: Beldar at August 11, 2007 02:26 AMYou guys are funny. Why are all rightwing clowns pathetic? I think that since you all are arguing about the maneuver ability of the bradley, why don't you talk about the temperment of dogs? How can you guys forget that? Why do you assume all dogs will just run out of the way when something like a bradley comes their way? Listening to the chickenhawk, 101st keyboarders here makes me laugh. You guys are truly pathetic
Posted by: gb at August 11, 2007 05:34 AMYou absolutely refuse to believe facts from those who have actually driven the Bradley, as well as facts from the people who know more about the Bradley than any others--the manufacturers!
Better yet, he refuses to acknowledge that this information has even been presented while commenting on a post that is built around it.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. digitusmedius has a severe case. He's terminal.
Posted by: Pablo at August 11, 2007 06:27 AMdigitusmedius, You claim to be looking for some facts, well here are a few:
Bill Clintons terrorism czar who Bill Clinton himself praised as the most knowledgeable man on terrorism wrote a memo to National Secutiy Advisor Berger long before Bush got to Washington. In it Clarke stated that if we put pressure on Osama Bin laden in Afghanistan he will 'BOOGIE TO BAGHDAD'
Perhaps you can explain why Clintons top terrorism advisor believed Bin Laden had such ties to Iraq that is where he would head if he felt threatened?
------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you can explain why Bill Clinton on August 24, 1998, four days after the he launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.
Was Clinton just making that whole thing up??
---------------------------------------------
Now let's look at your man Joe Wilson, who in liberal parlance blew the lid off of Bushs cover up of WMD.
Have you read any of Joe Wilsons OP-ED after his trip to Niger, but before the Iraq liberation?
Let me help you out, Joe Wilson claimed in his articles not only that Iraq had WMD, but that he would also use them against us if he felt threatened. That's Joe Wilson talking, no friend of George Bush.
February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.
There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.
THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF FACTS FOR YOU TO DIGEST, CLINTONS LEAD TERRORIST EXPERT, BILL CLINTON ADMINSTRATION AND JOE WILSON ALL AGREED WITH GEORGE W. BUSH, AND NOT WITH YOU.
Lighten up, CC. You keep this up, your head is gonna explode.
Posted by: Pablo at August 11, 2007 08:00 AMDigismedia: ""where'd the WaPo get it's Lynch story? Are you saying they completely invented it (when, in fact, it was fed to them by military PAOs--""
Its pretty obvious you have no facts at hand and you apparently haven't even read the TNR articles.
How do we know the story was false, because TNR and beauchamp admitted it was false...duh!
And you may actually want to read the Wapo follow-up of their Lynch exclusive. THERE INFORMATION DID NOT COME FROM THE ARMY, OR ARMY PAOs. Their story came from intelligence officials in DC who were reading intelligence dispatches of Iraqi reports -NOT AMERICAN ARMY REPORTS. In fact it was the army that was trying to knock down the story.
Apparently you are another Beauchamp, Glass character who likes to write a nice sounding post but don't bother to see if you have a single fact straight.
By the way, like Beauchamp, do you also believe that Glocks have square bullet casings and that people fry their heads in ovens to committ suicide??
Posted by: Poppy at August 11, 2007 08:54 AM...why don't you talk about the temperment of dogs? How can you guys forget that? Why do you assume all dogs will just run out of the way when something like a bradley comes their way?
Thanks, gb, for proving that you haven't been paying attention.
The propensity for feral dogs (and Muslims do not keep dogs as pets for the same reason they do not raise pigs) to avoid large, noisy machines has been commented on several times here.
You also proved you've never been within earshot of a Bradley, or for that matter any military vehicle with tracks, such as an APC or tank.
They are big. And they are very very noisy. Thinking that they're as quiet as your Lexus is a big mistake, gb.
You have also shown that you don't bother to research what you are talking about before you put fingers to keyboard. There are multiple websites out there (and each word there is a separate link) that go into the specifications of the Bradley and even have pictures... some with people in close proximity so you can eyeball how big it is; though specifications are also readily available, so there is no excuse for not knowing that it is 10 feet, 6 inches tall and weighs approximately 50,000 lbs--that's 25 tons or approximately as much as four elephants. Logic would suggest that something that large and heavy would be somewhat more noisy than your average SUV.
In short, gb, all you've done is prove that you're a troll. You can go away now.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 09:22 AMThanks for your concern, Poppy, but this is actually enjoyable for me. I like showing lefties how wrong they are about how the world works. It's stress release for me.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 09:24 AMYou really know that right wingers are down to throwing air punches when they drag out their long, frayed, threadbare list of Lies They Keep Telling About Clinton. Clinton didn't bog us down in an Iraq quagmire. Clinton didn't call off the hunt for OBL in Astan to start a stupid war in Iraq. Clinton didn't fall asleep getting his portrait painted while terrorists put the finishing touches on their 9/11 plan. Clinton didn't grind our military into the dirt with this terrible military and foreign policy disaster called Iraq. These are all the lovely work of Geoge W. Bush and no matter how fond of your lies about Clinton you are, nothing changes that fact.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:07 AMAnd, not to put too fine a point on it, not one of you has yet posted a single fact that refutes Beauchamps account. You've all made up a lot of fantasies about how none of it could be true but the only place their considered 'factual' is inside your imaginations.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:10 AM"they're" for "their"
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:11 AMdigitus, not to be argumentative since you're hooking me up with a playstation and all, but you're a tad bit mistaken with this statement:
And, not to put too fine a point on it, not one of you has yet posted a single fact that refutes Beauchamps account. You've all made up a lot of fantasies about how none of it could be true but the only place their considered 'factual' is inside your imaginations.
The for instance here. The square-backed cartridges fired from the Glocks that only Iraqis use.
Things wrong with the statement that are backed by fact.
1) Civilian Contractors, British Military Members and US Military Members also carry Glock Sidearms.
2) There's no such thing as a "square backed" cartridge.
So theres one, unless, you know, you can show us a square backed bullet.
Sorry for shattering the one illusion. Keep the faith, stay strong, and don't forget to send me that damned XBox!
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 10:22 AMtesting
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:24 AMGee, I'd love to take your opinion for it, "S.T.", but the track record for right wing veracity doesn't warrant it.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:25 AMNext up, the dog being sliced in half by the tracks of the Bradly. Have you ever seen a Bradley? I'll wait while you click the link. Back? Good. You'll notice the width of the tracks is pretty wide, roughly 24 inches.
A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.Lets say the dog in that was "sliced in half" was a large breed, maybe a Rotty or something. Even if the Bradly track hits dead center it isn't going to slice. Have you ever tried to cut a steak with a 2X4? You're arguing against the laws of physics. How something 24 inces wide is going to slice something at most 60 inches wide in half and leave one part twitching and one part undsturbed is beyond the realm of reason.
Now, maybe you can use your brilliant wit here to explain how you're going to cut something in half with a blunt object. But I image I'll hear another diversion since your rapier type wit slices like a hammer. And dude where's my XBox????
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 10:33 AMNot really sure where my "opion" came in to play on the square-backed cartridge. If you can provide pictorial proof, I'll buy in to it.
Really, don't you think you could pull something like that from the Glock web site? I've searched all over and haven't found a single square cartridge.
But you know, that's probably me being simple minded ReichWinger, but with your superior intellect you can definitely find us a picture on the intertubes...
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 10:37 AMSo, because you haven't found it on the web, the only possible conclusion you could think of was that it doesn't exist. That's pretty shoddy reasoning but I realize that's the right wing standard.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:39 AMDigitus, it's been shown by the manufacturers of the Bradley that the vehicle cannot do what Beauchamp claimed.
There's your "single fact that refutes Beauchamp's account."
Ignore it if you wish, but if you keep claiming that we haven't said it, well, that makes you a liar.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 10:41 AMHey, "S.T.", why do you assume that the dog was cut into two perfectly intact halves. Beauchamp never says that. It's only a simple minded idea which shows us the limits on your ability to reason. You could use a course in logical thinking.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:43 AMOn another topic, how widespread and popular is this idea written about yesterday by a Philadelphia columnist (who has since become a darling of the right wing media like Gallgher, Drudge and Gibson, so far):
"Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland [to] quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
How many of you actually hope that a lot more Americans get killed so you can try to play it to your political advantage? And what kind of sick idea of patriotism is that?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:44 AMdigitus, really, theres a reason you can't find it on the web.
Really, don't you think that Glock would have some mention about one of their firearms firing "square-backed" cartridges? Especially since it would deviate from the centuries old standard of round cartridges?
They'd be the first, world innovators, and yet, you're implying that either: a) They've kept it under wraps so only the Iraqis would have them or b) The ReichWing is so far stretching that it could keep a Global company from displaying one of its products.
Now, back to the slicing like a hammer...
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 10:45 AMfor CCG, with love:
The manufacturer's rep clearly admits he doesn't know what happened when he opens the quote above with "I can't pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq." Then he goes on to pure speculation.
And that's the basis of all the right wing's attack on the diaries: pure speculation.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 10:48 AMdigitus,
First, quit trying to change the topic and explain the physics of the track slicing a dog in half. A simple youTube video of you slicing a steak with a 2X4 or a Hammer would suffice.
Second, do you really, in your twisted mind, think that people here would hope for the death of their friends and neighbors to keep a democrat out of office?
I'll be the first here to say that if Hillary taking office will ensure noone ever dies from another terrorist attack she has my vote.
But with Obama saying that he'll never use a nuke...well, lets just say I like to leave an option or two on the table and Mutually Assured Destruction has its perks.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 10:50 AMdigitusmedius,
Make the baseless accusation that anyone here hopes for the death of their fellow Americans again I'll ban your silly ass. CY is tolerant of a lot of things, but that isn't one of them and since he's away and I have the keys I will step up.
Now, back to your civilized liberal denials please.
Posted by: phin at August 11, 2007 10:54 AMEven more incredible, an Austrian company sells their products, with "square backs", *only* to the Iraqis, and not to anyone else in the world, and they obviously use some kind of dna-coding in them so that *only* Iraqis can use them. And the "square backed" ammunition is *only* manufactured for the Iraqis.
With such a small production line, custom made for that small market segment, you kind of wonder how expensive they are to buy and use, and why the Iraqis dont just get a cheaper alternative, where ammunition is easier and cheaper to find.
(Oh, and just to be safe: /irony )
Posted by: Erik at August 11, 2007 10:54 AMNice cherry picking, Digitus. Try these on for size.
In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.
The driver's vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to "suddenly swerve to the right" and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.
The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.
As it is logically impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof is now back on you, Digitus. Prove that it can be done without pointing us back to Beauchamp. Be sure to have your witnesses and/or experts sign with their name and rank, as many of those who say that it cannot be done have signed.
I anticipate that, instead, you'll continue to spin, however. Which proves my point for me very nicely, that you can't prove it can be done simply because it cannot be done.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 10:57 AMdigitus,
If you're concerned that I'm pulling my "laws of physics" from the ReichWing media guide, maybe you could enlist the help of some friends with an understanding of applied sciences to help explain it to us.
CCG
So in Coffey's opinion, never having seen how the Bradleys are used in Iraq by a 20-22 y.o. hotshot driver (who's been doing this now for, what, a year?) that it's "highly unlikely." Funny, how Coffey's story seemed to change depending on who was interviewing him. And why, like you buddy ST do you continue to assume that the dog was alleged to have been sliced neatly in two as with a scalpel when that was never what was claimed? But keep swatting at those gnats anyway. It's fun to watch.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:05 AMST, I'd love to talk physics with you. Exactly what "law of physics" are you referring to?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:06 AMDigitus, prove that it can be done.
Enough spin. Time to put up or shut up.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 11:07 AMBy the way, Digitus, you did know that vehicle manufacturers do extensive testing before shipping the units, right? I can't imagine that a Bradley that wound not do something at the test facility in the US (and BAE does have locations in desert areas of the USA) would suddenly gain the ability to do that thing in Iraq.
And the test drivers are generally professional drivers who can make a vehicle do things that even a young "hotshot" driver would never even attempt. The concept of a young driver being able to outdo a professional with years of experience is right out of Hollywood, and has nothing to do with reality. (You did know that movies don't accurately reflect reality, right? Guys in blue tights can't fly, for one.)
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 11:13 AMNever claimed it was a scalpel like cut. I do however claim it would be damned near impossible to cut something as soft as flesh in half with a blunt object 24 inches wide.
Back to the first question. Where's your proof that the only Glocks in Iraq are being used by Iraqis? That should be the simplest of tasks.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 11:14 AMST: I've got as much proof that they exist as you've got they don't. IOW, exactly none. Let's look at the bigger picture again, although I know you'd like to bog this whole discussion down into what's normal behavior for feral Iraqi dogs and what's impossible for a skilled Bradley driver to do. Can you tell us why the Army, having claimed that Beauchamp's story is false, and further claiming that he actually signed statements admitting that (which is just the opposite of what he told TNR before he was put incommunicado by the Army) won't release those statements or let Beauchamp talk to anyone? I mean, really, if he's admitting lying about this, wouldn't they want the whole world to see the proof?
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:21 AMI can't help but notice that no one has answered my question about the right wing hope for another big terrorist kill here in order to bolster Bush's sagging status and enable his renewed shredding of the constitution.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:22 AMScott Thomas:
If it'd help, I'd be happy to provide some chicken wire and cinder blocks. They were so very helpful in proving the fallacy of the government's version of what happened to the WTC, after all.
digitus:
Your mode of argumentation is clearly "if it COULD (under any circumstances) happen, then we are in no position to judge whether it DID happen."
That may score you points in high school debate ("Are you suggesting that this could NEVER happen? Hmmmmm?"). It may also persuade the Truther community about what happened on 9-11. ("Are you saying it's not POSSIBLE that the planes were remotely flown by Bush/Cheney/Rove into the WTC and the Pentagon?")
But in the real world, the issues are not only could it happen, but could it happen in the way it was described ?
In the case of square-jacketed Glock rounds, while it is POSSIBLE that there are such rounds, Occam's Razor (limit your assumptions) and the fact that NO ONE has ever seen such rounds (we're talking a lot of folks w/ lots of experience w/ guns and ammo) should make you skeptical. That the only person who has not only seen them, but would then RECOGNIZE THEM AS GLOCK ROUNDS is Beauchamp should raise even more questions.
Similarly, is it possible that a Bradley Fighting Vehicle could fly through the air, survive a 16 story drop, and continue to function? Insofar as the statistical probability is not zero, the answer must be yes.
But could such a vehicle, as part of a larger organization, do so with any regularity, while loaded with personnel onboard? And not be noticed, or draw down the wrath of not only the track commander, but also the unit commander (not to mention the fellow troops)?
That is the problem w/ the Bradley story, even leaving aside the physical issues Coffey, K. Anderson, and others have identified: How do you maneuver a vehicle that is supposed to be stable, across a surface that is NOT slippery, not once, but several times, in order to hit something that you cannot see at the time of the maneuver?
Like the Truther material, you are compounding assumption upon assumption, and your fall-back is "Well, you can't say it couldn't happen this way." At some point, there are so many assumptions that must hang together (and remembering that this isn't once, but several times) that the actual answer is that "No, it is so vanishingly small that it did not happen this way."
Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 11, 2007 11:22 AMCCG--prove that it can't be done. Enough b.s.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:23 AMdigitus will no longer be with us.
I warned him once, that was enough.
ST: how can your statement "no one has ever seen" a square back cartridge be a "fact?" Have you personally talked to everyone who's looked at the backs of all cartridges ever produced to be able to claim that? Your criteria for what you decide is a fact is as loose and worthless as what you decide is "proof" (which in your case is when you've made up your mind based on your opinions regardless of whatever facts may or may not have been discovered).
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:27 AMI can't help but notice that no one has answered my question about the right wing hope for another big terrorist kill here in order to bolster Bush's sagging status and enable his renewed shredding of the constitution.Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 11:22 AM
Good Lord, you must be blind.
digitusmedius, Make the baseless accusation that anyone here hopes for the death of their fellow Americans again I'll ban your silly ass. CY is tolerant of a lot of things, but that isn't one of them and since he's away and I have the keys I will step up.Now, back to your civilized liberal denials please.
Posted by: phin at August 11, 2007 10:54 AM
I guess that means you'll be going bye-bye now, Digitus, thus relieving you of the onus of proving that it can be done... or so you think.
However, I invite you to post your proof that Beauchamp's described maneuver could be done at my blog. Be warned, tho, I have the same tolerance for lefties that DU and DailyKos have for conservatives.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 11:27 AMdigitus, if you'd like to plead your case, feel free to send me an e-mail.
Posted by: phin at August 11, 2007 11:30 AMHe'll just sock puppet under another name, Phin.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 11:31 AMSince digitus seemed to share his perspective w/ several other folks (tbogg, sinestro), on the issue of square-backed rounds, it's hardly hypothetical.
Glock, as a manufacturer, has catalogs of its products. It's a business, remember?
So, either Glock makes these things for sale, in which case it's in their catalogs, or:
1. They're super-secret rounds;
2. They're one-offs.
3. They don't make such things.
This then rapidly resolves itself. If they make them and they're for sale, it'd be a simple matter to put a copy of the URL up.
If they're super-secret rounds or one-offs, then it becomes an interesting question of exactly how they could be secret, yet Beauchamp would know they were Glock rounds? (Of course, much would be resolved by showing a photo of such a casing.)
Or, of course, they don't exist at all.
And the burden of proof is with those who make the accusation. This is Beauchamp's story---the burden of proof is on him and his supporters.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 11, 2007 11:37 AMOf course, on the issue of the rounds, even if such rounds DID exist (per digitus, since it's possible it must be true), there's one other little question:
Are such square-backed rounds supplied only to the Iraqi police?
B/c that was the heart of his contention. He found square-backed rounds, knew they were Glock rounds, and more to the point, knew that only the Iraqi police were issued Glocks.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 11, 2007 11:40 AMBut, Phin, he obviously thinks that conservatives are too dumb to know how to do that.
I am gonna keep an eye on my own humble blog's comments section, tho, just in case he decides to troll there.
And you know that he's now over at DU whining about the "intolerant right" because you banned him. Of course, he'll leave out the part about you warning him and his blatant comment that almost seemed designed to invite banning.
And the DUmmies won't bother to check here, either.
Ah, well, such is life.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 11:41 AMBut, but, but, Lurking Observer, you can't prove that Glock provides only the Iraqi police with Square Backed rounds and that noone else hasn't stolen the a gun and the rounds and that STB isn't an international super seekrit ninja sent by Rove to expose the Iraqi Police as murderous Pig-Dogs, so it must be TRUEEEEEEEEEE!
/end digi type screed since he can't make it.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 11:43 AMGee, I'd love to take your opinion for it, "S.T.", but the track record for right wing veracity doesn't warrant it.
IOW, everything you say is lies because I say you're all liars! Except for that Maj Lamb who was totally credible until I realized what he actually said! Lying Army liar! Pvt (E-1) Beauchamp is trooth!
Why are you here, digitus? It certainly isn't to learn or to educate.
Posted by: Pablo at August 11, 2007 11:44 AMScott, you forgot the black helicopters. -LOL-
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 11:45 AMI should never have underestimated the right wing "pussy factor." Of course, CY had to ban/block me to this comment section. It's a lie, of course, that I was warned. What would he warn me to stop doing: beating the verbal crap out of him and all you other right wing running cowards? Thank God you're out on the fringe of America and humanity and really only amount to a bunch of screeching rodents heard in the distance. You're safe now. You can continue your lying to each other safe in the knowledge that big mean liberals won't come around to call you on your bullshit. I hope "Phin" can scrub out all my comments so you won't have nightmares when mommy tucks you in at night. Have fun jerking each other off.
Posted by: digitusmedius at August 11, 2007 12:00 PMIt's a lie, of course, that I was warned.
Truth is a lie. Obvious is impossible. Black is white. Penn is Teller.
Posted by: phin at August 11, 2007 10:54 AM
Who you gonna believe? Digitus or your lying eyes?
Posted by: Pablo at August 11, 2007 12:04 PMSince you're back, digitus, you can prove that what Beauchamp claimed a Bradley did is actually do-able.
And you know that it's impossible to prove a negative, so don't try spinning it around to me.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 12:05 PMYou guys know what really sucks, I bet digi's not going to ship me that XBox now.
Posted by: scott thomas at August 11, 2007 12:06 PMdigitus, thanks for providing me with the abusive language I need to contact Comcast and have your service revoked.
Your comments won't be removed, they'll be preserved, that way Comcast can check them out and see, without a doubt, that you've violated their Terms of Service and have been using abusive language on a site that isn't yours. You were warned, then banned and now you're using a proxy and still using abusive language.
g'nite now...
Posted by: phin at August 11, 2007 12:13 PMGotta give Digitus credit, his denial of reality really is astounding.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 12:25 PMNot only do I have extensive experience with carrying side arms while in uniform. I also have years of experience reloading my own amunition.
Anyone who knows anything about firearms should know a couple of things.
1. The barrell of a gun is round and has rifling which consists of lans and grooves which twist through the barrell like threads on a screw. These twists impart spin to the bullet, stabalizing it in flight and making it more accurate. This means that the projectile, the bullet, has to be round so it could fit tightly in the barrell and take the spin from the rifling. Also, if the bullet wasn't round, it wouldn't fit tightly in the barrell, sealing it and capturing the expanding gasses as they travel down the barrell accelerating the bullet and expelling it from the gun at a high rate of speed.
2. Pressure is what makes a gun work. The pressure of the expanding gasses as they explode push the bullet out of the barrell of the gun. The most efficient and strongest pressure vessel is ROUND so that it distributes the pressure evenly across the surface of the vessel. If it has square corners, those are weak points and if they didn't rupture they would still not be as efficient as a round vessel.
So, what does this tell us. We know bullets are round, so why would the base of the casings be square? Making the bases square would be an unnecessary and impractical step in the manufacturing process, not to mention it would greatly increase the cost of production. While I have seen glasses and vases that are round at the top and square at the bottom, it simply isn't practical to do the same thing in brass for a bullet. Aesthetics are not important in ammuniction production.
We also know that a square cartridge would not be practical from a physics standpoint as it simply would not function well at containing the pressure of exploding gas in a cartridge.
I believe anyone who knows anything about the above would readily admit that the square backed casings simply do not exist.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 11, 2007 12:33 PMAs far as digitus' insinuation that we right thinking conservatives who dearly love America (as opposed to democrats and leftists) would want another attack on our country, it is simply ludicrous.
We on the right want nothing more than to prevent any future attacks. That's why we are all for fighting muslim extremists on their own soil rather than our own.
Democrats are praying for another attack so they can blame it on Bush and say "See, he isn't protecting our country".
As with ALL of his arguments, they are really projections of his own views onto others.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 11, 2007 12:37 PMMy brother has been in the firearms manufacturing bussiness fo more than 25 years. He is a Design Engineer. I was the small arms instructor for my NG unit. I know whats going on in the firearms industry. For once and all; THERE....IS....NO....SUCH....THING....AS....A....SQUARE-BACKED....GLOCK....PISTOL....ROUND!!!!
PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE.
Posted by: Jack Coonan at August 11, 2007 01:15 PMI was MOS 11H for 4 years in the Army, with service in Desert Storm, and served with the 1st ID, 101st ABN, and 1st Cav. I've driven M113 APC's, and served in Bradley units.
The Bradley dog death dealer story is full of crap. Let's dissect it line by line. My comments will be in brackets.
I know another private
(by the way, why is Beaucamp a Private? I take that to mean he's and E-2, as no self-respecting PFC would call himself a Private. Why hasn't this clown been promoted above a mosquito wing? Or was he, and then got busted down. You should reach E-3 within 6 months of joining up.)
who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs,
(how do you take out a curb? A curb is two inches high. What are you running over?)
concrete barriers
(if you hit a barrier with a Bradley, you're going to smash your BC (Bradley Commander and gunner, both of who outrank you, into the front of the turret. Not a wise move on the part of the driver)
corners of buildings,
(now the Bradley is more powerful than a wrecking ball, taking out corners of buildings. What is he hitting them with? The track? That's ludicrous. You'd throw that track right off the sprocket, then be stuck until an M88 came by to drag you back to base. Again, not something that your BC is going to let you do more than once before you get AR15'end, and removed from the driver's seat.)
stands in the market
(even better, now a 30-35 ton depending on the amount of armor bolted on, vehicle is running through stands in a market, like a car chase scene in the movies where someone ends up driving down the sidewalk, knocking hot dog stands down left and right. You don't drive a Bradley alone, you have an E4/E5 gunner, and an E5/E6/E7 BC. Does anyone think that they're going to let some buck private smash through a crowed market with their vehicle? Sort of bad for their next NCO ER.
and his favorite target: dogs.
Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America—providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks.
He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch.
(I've never driven a Bradley, so to the 11M's, is there a dashboard in an M2? You don't have on on the M113 series. If not, it's a dead giveaway this story is a crock.)
One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road.
(OK. Now Beaucamp shows that he's not an 11M (Bradley infantryman). You can't catch something in the track, since as others have pointed out, the track doesn't move once on the ground. It's planted on the ground when it's run over by the first road wheel, then stays put while the vehicle moves over it. You could run it over, but that's not what he's saying. He said the Private caught it, and dragged it down the road. You can't drag something down the road in a tracked vehicle unless it's caught in the top tracks, which are what (help me 11M's - 2 feet off the ground). Also, how would anyone know if it was in the road afterwards? Was the turret spun around 180 and the BC acting as a spotter to record what happened?)
A roar of laughter broke out over the radio.
(As someone said, the radio isn't a party line. Did they take turns keying the mike to record their laughter?)
Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley.
(Bradleys are a Klingon Warship with a cloaking device, and a sound silencer. They go 30-40 MPH, and are loud as hell. I find it hard to believe a dog can't get up and move 2 feet to get out of the way).
Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.
(A total fabrication. The tracks of a Bradley are so wide that unless the dog was the Hound of the Baskervilles, you wound'nt have much left on either side. You're not going to server it either, just crush it flat, as many Iraqis were during the 3rd night of the ground war in Desert Storm when we turned a Republican Guard unit into a speed bump.)
In sum, the dog running over story is total crap. I'm sure some fool has run over a dog in Iraq. But the stories recounted by Beaucamp are embellished fabrications. Just like the rest of his writings.
We've all know guys like this in the Army. Monday morning you'd ask them what they did over the weekend, and they'll tell you some wild story about going out to the club, picking up some hot chic, going back to her place, doing her down in the ground, all night long. Then you'd ask someone else about it, and he'd say no, they all went to some dump bar (like the Red Carpet Inn), shot pool till 11, then went back to the barracks and ordered a pizza. Just a bag of crap.
Posted by: I Kress at August 11, 2007 01:25 PMI don't understand why you guys who believe the Beauchamp story are so closed minded.
And Digitus: Typical liberal backwards thinking and assumptions about women. Who says I was fighting off the GI's and they weren't fighting me off?
Posted by: Carolynp at August 11, 2007 01:28 PMRe: Glocks: It's been pointed out (by CY among others, IIRC) that Beauchamp probably meant to claim that the Glock's firing pin leaves a square imprint on the back of the (round) 9mm ammunition casing. This part of this claim would then go:
-- At the "crime scene", I found 9mm casings on the ground.
-- The casings had the distinct square indentations left by Glock firing pins.
-- Only Iraqi Police carry Glocks (9mm, with square firing pins).
-- Therefore, reader, you should deduce that the murder must have been committed by the I.P.
Suppose this patrol wasn't experienced by Beauchamp himself, but was a story he heard from a friend--or a friend of a friend, etc. Suppose further that Beauchamp doesn't know much about handguns, beyond the training he got and his experiences in Germany and Iraq. It seems easy to imagine that the casings-at-a-murder-scene story could be garbled up, and end up as the fake-but-accurate first-person account that was presented in the Diarist piece.
This version doesn't reflect well on Beauchamp's credibility or on TNR's skepticism or fact-checking, but it doesn't seem to stretch Occam's razor. Any thoughts from readers who know Glocks (I don't)?
Posted by: AMac at August 11, 2007 01:48 PMWell, seeings I'm on the record already, why not add to the mix a bit of reality for ole' Digi-Troll. Tell you what there homeboy: You fly into KWI (Kuwait International) and I'll pick you up, and I'll ride you out to Arifjan and then I'll let you see a Bradley up close and personal, and even let you climb in and see EXACTLY what people here are talking about.
BC, he'd be scared to set foot on a military base. He clearly thinks that all service members are a step or two below Neanderthal.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2007 02:04 PMhttp://glockmeister.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/10_18/products_id/258
Above is a link to picture of a Glock firing pin.
NOT SQUARE TIPPED.
Better pics- close up
http://glockmeister.com/fpupgrad.shtml
"""And, not to put too fine a point on it, not one of you has yet posted a single fact that refutes Beauchamps account. You've all made up a lot of fantasies about how none of it could be true but the only place their considered 'factual' is inside your imaginations.
Posted by: digitusmedius"""
Pretty said that you simply cannot recognize a fact when you are shown it.
Simple FACTS:
1. There was not melted face women at FOB Falcon
2. Beauchamp couldn't have verbally attacked her due to the strain of war because he hadn't even been in a war.
3. Drivers of Bradleys can't see within 14 feet of the right side of the Bradley track.
4. The are no such thing as square shell casings.
5. Alot of people have Glocks in Iraq besides the Iraqi Police.
Its no wonder Bill Clinton and his liberal buddies managed to convince everyone for 8 years that Iraq was a huge threat and had WMD. That's why they engaged in a 8 year genocide of the Iraqi poeple in bed with Saddam Hussein. Clinton and the left killed far more Iraqis then Bush could ever dream of. Of course Clinton on went after the innocent Iraqis, the women, the children, at least Bush has gone after the terrorists.
Posted by: Poppy at August 11, 2007 02:34 PMLooks like digitusmedius is more of a digitusanalus
Posted by: Poppy at August 11, 2007 02:40 PMThanks for the fact-check, Jack Coonan. My theory (1:48pm) was nice for the 18 minutes it lasted.
Hey, let me know if you want a recommendaton for this line of work. I know this magazine...
Posted by: AMac at August 11, 2007 02:41 PMI was just at my favorite neighborhood gun store and counted no fewer than 37 Glocks in the display case of which about 1/2 used the 9mm parabellum round (the NATO standard).
If little ole me can walk out my front door and in the space of about 20 minutes can find enough Glocks to arm an entire infantry platoon, what makes you guys think that on the most active battleground in the world I couldn't find 20 Glocks per square mile?
Yeah, only the IP carry Glocks...what a crock.
Posted by: K. Anderson at August 11, 2007 03:01 PMThanks for the fact-check, Jack Coonan. My theory (1:48pm) was nice for the 18 minutes it lasted.
Hey, let me know if you want a recommendaton for this line of work. I know this magazine...
Posted by AMac at August 11, 2007 02:41 PM
Heh, Thanks! But I don't think that they'll be in business long enough for me to even get a resume updated. But relying on what they're (TNR) willing to believe..... I bet that I could come up with a resume that'd be "killah" (sic). But, alas I've my own company to run. Maybe you heard of it. It's called HOO-AHHS. www.hooahhs.com
Wow. Just. Wow.
I haven't seen anybody cling so tenaciously to a delusional state outside of a clinical setting before. digitusmedius, seek help. Now. Your life will be much fuller and richer once you embrace the real world.
For instance, there is no such thing as a "square back cartridge." For reasons that K. Anderson explained nicely, there is absolutely no impetus to produce such a novelty. Yes, I can build one: but I ain't gonna because it's a waste of time and material for a reduction in performance.
Now, there is such a thing as a programmable bullet that you could use to kill someone standing around a corner, or hiding in a foxhole or even crouched behind a wall. But it doesn't work by changing its flight path. It works by exploding at the programmed range set by the operator and striking the target with shrapnel. And it doesn't come in 9 mm, but 25 and 40 mm (although the 40 is called a grenade rather than a bullet).
Lurking Observer, in response to 'middlefinger' you stated:
Similarly, is it possible that a Bradley Fighting Vehicle could fly through the air, survive a 16 story drop, and continue to function? Insofar as the statistical probability is not zero, the answer must be yes.
For future reference, just because a "statistical probability is not zero," does NOT mean that there is a possibility of somethng occurring. The "vanishingly small" point (where the possibility of something happening really does vanish) has a real number associated with it. That number is 1 x 10^±14, and was proven by a pair of mathematicians at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab several years ago. (I didn't see the proof, and likely wouldn't understand it if I did. I'm sure it was published outside the Lab as well, but I don't know where~I just saw the announcement in the little glossy monthly that circulates inside the Lab to keep people informed of Lab news.)
Anyway, grab yourself a mechanical engineer and calculate the stresses involved in a Bradley falling 16 stories and you'll find that the vehicle will suffer catastrophic deformation. The possibility that it could continue to function is "vanishingly small," or outside the mathematical limit of 1 x 10^±14 that applies in this universe.
It's always good to see Beldar out and about the Interweb thingy, but I'm gonna disagree with his characterization of ditzymediocrity as a troll. Trolls are generally competent to care for themselves and know that the crap they spout is false, they're usually just trying to get a rise out of somebody. But this one, this one needs to be under medical supervision...he's a danger to himself and possibly others.
Posted by: EW1(SG) at August 11, 2007 10:45 PMWow - I just got finished reading through the entire comments thread for this post. That was one helluva half-hour - and time I will never get back. Thank goodness for people like digitus! The more he (I am guessing he is a he - he could be a she - or a he-she or a she-he - you get the idea...) writes, the more proof we have of the pure insansity of those on the far left - and the danger of putting the left into power in '08. I am truly worried about what happens should Clinton/Obama/Edwards gets elected - we could be in for some deep stuff.
There were some great posts in there, but one really caught my eye. Poppy made a point about how many people were killed during Clinton's reign in Iraq. I had truly not thought about this before - but that is one heckuva point. I will bet that more "innocent" Iraqis were killed during the eight years Clinton was in office than during the entire Iraq war so far. Not to mention - one of the reasons why we are so hated by the rest of the world now (as those on the left love to say) is that we took away a huge funding source for some European countries when we shut down the Food for Oil scam.
I would love to see this point come up during the campaign next year - maybe even during a debate. Great point Poppy!
Posted by: Reptevye at August 12, 2007 12:51 PMI just wanted to point out one other thing, below is a link to a picture of a Bradley operating in Iraq.
http://www.gregspotts.com/photos/uncategorized/bradley300cropped.jpg
Please notice the crew and dismounts have tied their rucksacks on the outside of the hull. Our mythical driver is not going to be driving through walls, curbs or stalls because that would get the equipment, rucksacks and sponson boxes (the two boxes at the back of the Bradley ripped off) The ruck is where most people carried personal items. In mine there was always an extra roll of Skoal. If my driver knocked my ruck of the Brad to go through some stall or the side of a building and he is not doing to save the life of one of the dismounts he would wish that he was dead. That doesn't even cover what the BC or his Platoon leader would do to him if he knocked the TOW launcher or some mission critical equipment off the Bradley.
One other thought, no one has mentioned what the Iraqi's would do if some Mech Company ran wild through their town on a daily basis. The insurgents would make sure that this was splashed on every TV in the world. The owners of the houses and stalls would be coming in and asking for compensation for their house. You can't tell me that the Civic Action teams in these towns paying out these claims would keep silent? Yeah, right. Some LTC or full bird would ignore this, for what reason? So some private can have fun with a Bradley? I don't think so. These were the same people that made us call Chaplin moral officers so we would offend the locals and they are going to let all of that be ruined by some wild Mech Infantry company or worse one rouge private. HA!
EW1(SG):
Thanks for the reference to "vanishingly small." I'll have to look that one up.
Sadly, if you read the thread regarding the (presumably) bad joke by Beauchamp, you'll see the latest defenders' arguments.
It would seem that the statistical meaning of "vanishingly small" is lost in the renewed argument "You can't say it can't happen, therefore, how do you know it didn't?"
Posted by: Lurking Observer at August 13, 2007 11:50 PM
