I think that was a punchline, not a statement of fact...

Dogs have green eyes?

Me again, back with just another tidbit of info: During my first tour in '04 in Baghdad, one of my projects was rebuilding a warehouse for use as the CRSP/CIF on Camp Victory. One of my jobs was to collect a draft of LN (Local National) Workers who were doing the refurb. This entailed going to ECP 1 (entry control point one) also known as "The Hajji Gate" and getting temporary passes for all of my workers. In order to do this, they had to provide me with a picture ID, that I would then exchange for a "Red Badge" (temporary LN work badge).

Normally this would be a simple thing, but seeing that the Iraqi Governmental infrastructure had broken down, and that it had NEVER been that good to begin with, the IDs that the average Iraqi had was pathetic to say the least. No ID cards were the same, the 'civil ID' was a cheaply laminated card with a poor black and white photo that usually appeared to be either years out of date, or could have been any "Joe Hajji" as the picture quality was so bad. The concept of a drivers licence pretty much was nonexistant, never mind that ALL the IDs were in arabic, and I had a hell of a time even telling one ID from another, and who owned which one. Hell... the Iraqis themselves often had arguements over whos ID was whos. No Joke! Yet again, another bogus claim by DoucheChump and his never ending heaping pile type one each, Bull flavored.

In regards to the organ donor comment, I think Beauchamp is only guilty of not being clear that he was making a joke.

The funny thing is, I could imagine that it was a joke.

BUT

That's not how it's written, is it? Not "It says he's an organ donor," I joked.

More to the point: Is the idea that he stole the guy's license also a joke?

If we accept the idea that he was joking, how far can we take that? Perhaps all of Beauchamp's columns are humor, and intended as such?

I mean, c'mon, everybody knows there ain't no such thing as square-backed rounds, right?

And I never meant for the Bradley story to be believed!

And how big an a**hole would I have to be to have actually insulted a woman who'd been burned by an IED?

Yes, this might have been a joke. Or part of it. Or none of it was.

The point is, Beauchamp never makes it clear, and TNR presented it as fact. (I suppose those layers and layers of editors and fact-checkers must've slipped up in this one case.)

Yep, gotta agree with the others - dumb joke, not a lie, though the story itself remains suspect.

Hmmm.

Sorry folks but these stories aren't written as dark war humor. These stories aren't posited as fiction by TNR. TNR has promoted these stories as being first hand accounts *by a soldier in Iraq*.

This isn't Dave Barry or Lileks here.

This is intended to be non-fiction and must, absolutely MUST, be treated in that manner. We might all think it's so completely idiotic that it should be fiction. But it's not presented as such either by Beauchamp or TNR.

And we must take both of them at their word that this is not supposed to be fiction.

Alas, poor Thomas, I knew him Jamil. A man of infinite jest.

Is Beauchamp merely making a joke above? I admittedly didn't read it that way, but it very well could be the case.

The first experience most of us had with Beauchamp was with his last article first, and his allegation that he verbally assaulted a burn victim. It doesn't seem much of a stretch from abuser of the burned to robber of the dead, so I took his comments at face value as a real claim.

Odd, that. With just about anyone else, I think I would have immediately take it as a joke, but with Beauchamp's statements so full of holes all the way around, it seeemed logical to question every word coming out of his mouth.

Question. Has anybody try to contact "Hernandez" to see if he saw the mysterious "Square-backed" bullets and the doggies having lunch?

I haven't chatted with a PAO, so I wasn't sure if they'd confirm if there was even a Hernandez in STB's platoon...

On a more serious note, didn't you guys read my bio? I mean, I can speak 3,00 different languages and 12,000 different dialects. Man, you I hate dealing with knuckleheads who don't understand my genisss.

The joke part would be the comments between the soldiers - the implicit claim isn't that Iraqis have driver's licenses with organ donor info, but merely that US soldiers, knowing that in fact Iraqis don't carry DLs with donor notices, might make a joke on that very basis.

On second thought, it does in fact appear obvious that Iraqis wouldn't have an organ donor system in place, but the joke isn't very well framed, so readers unfamiliar with the environment could be excused for getting the intent wrong. It's actually almost funny. Almost.

I agree it's confusing, and, given the rest of STB's performance, it's hard to know for sure what he believes and, differently, what he expects us to believe, but this particular point isn't one of the better ones raised against his work, in my opinion.

What about, "We chuckled in the dark..." is hard to understand that it was a sarcastic comment meant as a joke?

Get a life, will ya? You're getting a little obsessed with this aren't you?

What's it to you, Ed? Your point adds nothing to the discussion. Why don't you run off to ESPN and criticize commenters there for discussing the latest NBA trade rumors?

Hmmmmm.

@ CK MacLeod

"I agree it's confusing, and, given the rest of STB's performance, it's hard to know for sure what he believes and, differently, what he expects us to believe, but this particular point isn't one of the better ones raised against his work, in my opinion."

Sure if you read that last bit in complete isolation that might come off as a joke. The old "I stole this driver's license off a corpse and it was an organ donor card" bit. Not funny, but it could be construed as a joke.

But not when read as a part of the overall article. At no point does the author attempt to show that this is at all humor. Additionally I'll point out again that TNR has not, does not and doesn't appear that it will portray any of this as battlefield humorous fiction.

Instead these articles have been portrayed **AS NON-FICTION**. So quite frankly I don't see how you could possibly slice off this tidbit and call it a joke. Sure it's idiotic, but that's par for Beauchamp's writing.

Seriously. How do you get past the fact that at no time has TNR ever represented any portion of any article written by Beauchamp, even when it might have been advantageous to do so, as *fiction*?

Even the incident with the IED woman, relocated as it were to Kuwait, was still represented as if it was non-fiction.

So if you really want to press this point then you're the one who is going to have to offer some compelling arguments.

I'll try again, memomachine, especially since I'm confident that you and I are overall on the same side here. (Of course, I might have to withdraw from the discussion if the Other Ed finally publishes his comprehensive list of permissible topics, and this one turns out not to be on it.)

All the references to organ donors and licenses occur as within the quoted dialogue. If one soldier was quoted as saying, "I think aliens from the planet Xenon left those bodies there," we wouldn't impute to Beauchamp the statement that Xenonians were in Iraq. Furthermore, the exchange is framed with references to laughter.

Even the burned woman legend is supposed to be darkly funny. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the emphasis in all of these stories is dark humor with a political subtext - that's what makes it such effective war porn for liberals. It's a popular ironic element in war stories going back to Herodotus at least (and I acknowledge that that's going back pretty far).

We could carry this discussion into the theory of humor and of the grotesque, but that would be to divert from the main problem, which is that, though TNR and/or Beauchamp could early on have acknowledged that these ugly stories were autobiographical fiction. They could have even gone further and apologized for their adolescent approach to serious subjects.

Instead, they repeatedly doubled down, insisting that the stories were accurate and verifiable down to the details - something that anyone with any meaningful experience of the world and with literary efforts of this type had to laugh off. They reacted like a teenager caught doing something naughty, refusing to admit it, and adding to his humiliation by sticking to his story - just reading the articles while changing his pants, NOT looking at the pictures and getting aroused.

Maybe they just didn't want to confess that they liked their war porn precisely because it defamed the US Army and everyone who supported the war. It's hard to say. I'm not sure that the cover-up really is worse than the "crime" in this case, but it has served to draw attention to and deepen it - which all along has been the incompetence, immaturity, and bad faith of TNR's editors.

Overwritten made-up crap.

Zombie dogs has quite a google track:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22zombie%20dogs%22

Had it not been hidden behind the subscriber firewall, I would have found this example of The New Republic's unwillingness to fact check Scott Beauchamp long ago.

Yes, because everyone knows that TNR uses it's subscriber firewall to hide articles from prying eyes.

Not like one can actually go out and buy a copy of TNR at your local 7-11.

Those bastids.

There was nothing to do but laugh. INSERT STUFF HERE. We chuckled in the dark for a moment

Yeah, why would anyone think that the stuff in the middle was a joke? Sometime liberals are so dumb you wonder how they remember to breathe.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

memomachine may very well be onto something there. Similarly, we must treat as ABSOLUTELY SINCERE Beauchamp's assertion that he loves "chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses . . . .” He LITERALLY means that disfigured women turn him on. Isn't that sick?

And when, in the story, he said, “In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’ We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles," he meant it. He MEANT it. Beauchamp was not relating a classless, sick joke that he once made at the expense of another human being; he LITERALLY MEANS that he's going to try to make a calendar of disfigured women. How do we know that he means it literally? Because this is NON-FICTION. It's TRUE. And in real life, people don't make jokes.

Or if they do, memomachine doesn't understand them.

Hey: if I don't buy a copy of that calendar, does it mean that I hate the troops?

And thus, nunaim starts the rewriting of history.

The whole calendar thing was a joke.

In fact, even the story about laughing at a scarred woman was a joke.

The whole series was simply a conceptual, post-modern stab at humor, which only right-wing nutters would take seriously.

And, thus, history is rewritten.

No, Observer, you fool. I'm not trying to spin the whole series of articles as a joke. I'm saying that within these stories Beauchamp shows himself making inappropriate jokes about people who are dead or disfigured or whatever--that, in fact, was his point: that he had become so crass as to joke about such matters.

memomachine (hmmmm) didn't seem to understand that--and I guess you didn't either.

Sorry to deflate your "rewriting history" meme.

I think the point here is that it was BOTH, A DUMB JOKE AND A LIE.

The basic fact is these events never occurred to begin with, so while someone even Beauchamp might have told sucgh a joke at some point, these particular events COULD not have happened.

You simply can't find a single shell casing in a dark street with dogs fighting over a corpse for who knows how long.
Then he ties the casing to the Iraqi Police by it being square and IP are the only ones with guns - those are both lies.

Then to top the night off, what happened to the trip to the Iraq police station????

The whole thing was a badly made up story with a dumb joke thrown in like the end of a Chevy Chase movie.

You can tell it didn't happen or the guy is a total dufus because it is an American cultural reference completely out of place in the Middle East.

So, BOTH are truem, the story never happened and the joke certainly didn't happen in this context. It was probably some smart saregeant that he heard the joke from and made it his own.

that, in fact, was his point: that he had become so crass as to joke about such matters.

Actually, nunaim, even TNR admits that the burned face story happened in Kuwait, before Beauchamp ever got to Iraq.

Therefore, he didn't "become" crass, he already WAS crass before getting to Iraq.

Now, the argument could be made that it was Army Basic Training that did that to him, but that is most emphatically NOT the argument that TNR was making... they were trying to make the argument that it was being in Iraq that did that.

Thus, once again, you are rewriting history. And we won't let you. So go back to DU where they specialize in that sort of bovine fecal matter.

Why don't you morons give it a rest! It should be obvious to everyone that Beauchamp is merely a bit immature, but has good intentions. I would certainly have been happy to serve with someone of his caliber when I was in the service.

"I would certainly have been happy to serve with someone of his caliber when I was in the service."

Who wouldn't happily serve with a 9mm squarebacked guy like Beauchamp? (the Sicilians would call him a pezzonovante, or bigshot, before they mirthlessly laughed and laughed)

[I]t should be obvious to everyone that Beauchamp is merely a bit immature, but has good intentions. I would certainly have been happy to serve with someone of his caliber when I was in the service.

I did serve with some people who, as you termed it, were a bit immature. And I wasn't happy to have done so.

In fact, later in my career, I helped to get rid of some people of Beauchamps (lack of) caliber.

He's a buddy f'er. He cares about Scott Beauchamp and his dialog and advancing his frame of reference and his personal ambitions with no regard for his fellow soldiers nor the US Army.

What I suspect is you were someone just like Beauchamp.

I think you are missing the point. We're well beyond the point where the veracity of Beauchamp's stories make a bit of difference. What a trivial issue to bother over. Rather sad, really.

CCG, I want to believe that you are not as breathtakingly stupid as you are pretending to be.

As would be clear to anyone whose IQ is larger than their waistline, I'm not even talking about the freakin' veracity of the guy's stories any more.

Let me rephrase the situation for you as I would tell it to a little kid.

The Big Bad Scott Beauchamp made up a story about an army man. The made-up man in the story was named Scott Beauchamp, too. Isn't that silly? The name of the guy who wrote the story is Scott Beauchamp, and he was writing about a made-up character named Scott Beauchamp. Weird!

Anyway, to show how mean and nasty and icky-rude-rude he was, the made-up Scott Beauchamp--the character in the story-- said some mean things. The made-up Scott Beauchamp was trying to make jokes, but they were mean jokes, and they made a lady sad. Isn't it mean to make jokes about somebody and make them sad?

Why would the author make that story up? Good question. I guess that he was trying to make you think that army men are bad, and he did that by showing an army man making a mean joke about somebody.

I hope that clears things up, CCG. And you can take your whole "rewriting history" thing, fold it until it's all corners, and insert it rectally.

Try to use your brain, you fool.

"Had it not been hidden behind the subscriber firewall, I would have found this example of The New Republic's unwillingness to fact check Scott Beauchamp long ago."

Good gracious, you mean you hadn't actually *read* the Beauchamp material until now?

Because it was 'hidden' in the subscribers-only section?

I'm having trouble believing this.

So, the fact that Beauchamp was writing a non-fiction column and the fact that, as nunaim puts it, he made up his story about an army man is irrelevant.

I guess this is how history is rewritten. By denying that anything was rewritten.

George Orwell would be quite familiar with that, of course.

nunaim, I would try explaining this to someone of your intellectual capacity, but that would preclude being able to read, therefore I won't bother talking down to you.

Simply put, TNR is not, as you seem to want us to believe it is, a journal of fiction as is, say, Asimov's Science Fiction. It purports to be a journal of fact, similar to, for instance, National Review.

Therefore, the burden was, and is, upon the editors of TNR to indicate clearly if and when an article is fictional--which, by the way, includes satire. They did not.

Therefore, being that they were published in a journal that purports to be a journal of fact, and not fiction, is is wholly reasonable for the average reader to conclude that they are not reading fiction.

So, you can have your crow baked or fried.

Baked: TNR knew the stories were fictional and did not include a notice to the reader of such.

Fried: TNR believed the stories to be factual and published them as such, and now they and their defenders (such as you, nunaim), are now desperately spinning this any which way you can in order to save your precious reputations.

Which shall it be?

Therefore, being that they were published in a journal that purports to be a journal of fact, and not fiction, is is wholly reasonable for the average reader to conclude that they are not reading fiction.

So, you can have your crow baked or fried.

So wait. Let me catch up here. You guys have managed to establish that one incident took place in Kuwait, not Iraq. Therefore, and for that reason, the articles are 'fiction.'

No, SNCS, the Army has established that none of the incidents recorded have ever taken place, based on sworn testimony from the soldiers who were supposedly there, backed up with the threat of court-martial if they perjured themselves.

We have Army officers going on record with their names and ranks saying that these incidents never happened.

Who does TNR have that is willing to stand up with their name and rank to say that they did, besides Beauchamp?

Of more importance, Sadly (how apt), TNR and Beauchamp have not been able to produce any legitimate sources to confirm any of his allegations.

Whereas the Army has not been able to produce any evidence of the veracity of the Beauchamp's stories, and moreover, Beauchamp himself has submitted statements to the Army that he made it up.

You can say all you want that he was coerced, under duress, whatever. Bottom line is this - TNR and Beauchamp haven't presented any evidence to prove his story - except for Beauchamp's own scurrilous charges.

No, SNCS, the Army has established that none of the incidents recorded have ever taken place, based on sworn testimony from the soldiers who were supposedly there, backed up with the threat of court-martial if they perjured themselves.

Where is this sworn testimony? And why is the Army denying that Beauchamp recanted?

SNCS, where has the Army denied that Beauchamp recanted? I want a verifiable link, and not to some wacky lefty site like Kos or DU.

And now we see Phase II of the rewriting of history:

Repeatedly ask the same question over and over.

Never mind that CY and his commenters have torn the Bradley stories apart.

Never mind that CY and his commenters have torn the square-backed casings apart.

Never mind that CY, his commenters, and the Army have not only shown the story about the female contractor would have occurred at a different time and place than Beauchamp claimed, but no one can identify this woman. Not from mess hall records, not from eyewitness confirmation.

Yet, SNCS claims "except for putting it in the wrong place, everything else is true." And, like digitus (if they're not digitus themselves), they'll go through the whole kabuki over again, through a 200+ comment thread.

And, when thoroughly picked apart, SNCS or digitus or nunaim will come back, perhaps in another guise, in another thread, and yet again question "How was Beauchamp lying?"

Until, like the Rosenbergs' innocence, or Truman's Hiroshima perfidy, or the Holocuast deniers' claims about the gas chambers, their "questions" and the historical reality sit side-by-side.

Lurking Observer, excellent. You've nailed it.

Even as hundreds of refutations of Beauchamp's fantasies roll in, the Beauchamp supporters and apologists can't come up with one bit of evidence to prove that he's not a liar. All they have is the words he wrote in some fantasy articles and TNR's assertions that they fact checked his story.

SNCS, where has the Army denied that Beauchamp recanted? I want a verifiable link, and not to some wacky lefty site like Kos or DU.

Um, if you've been following the story at all, you ought to have seen in the Weekly Standard followed this sourced one at TNR:

When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.”

That is, the anonymous claim in the Weekly Standard was followed by the sourced one in TNR.

Okay, I have to admit, I hadn't expected Phase III to kick in quite so quickly.

Simply making s*** up.

As though none of the exchanges here and elsewhere have occurred, which details that Lamb's comment about "no knowledge," is not knowing about any claim of a recantation, but (Lamb) knowing:

1. That the Army investigation showed that Beauchamp lied; and
2. That Beauchamp had signed a statement

now we have SNCS and their ilk claiming that Lamb is actually accepting that Beauchamp has recanted.

The kind of tortured reading that's required, of course, to arrive at this is just like the use of ellipses to claim "no imminent threat" is the same as "imminent threat," or that WTC-7 was deliberately demolished.

But what does that matter?

The TROOF must be served!

Okay, so one (1) Army officer has no knowledge of Beauchamp's statement and that means it doesn't exist?

Puh-leeeeeeeeze. Get a good argument or go back to DU.

No, C-C-G, it's not that way at all.

Lamb is saying that he has no knowledge of a recantation.

In other words, there is a report that Beauchamp has personally recanted his stuff. Somebody asks the Army PAO (Lamb) what this recantation is about.

And Lamb says he knows nothing of a recantation.

Which SN!CS and company then jump on as proof that the Army does know of the recantation.

Like I said, just making s*** up.

OK, you guys have me totally convinced.

Has anyone debunked the assertion that zombie dogs have green eyes? I am pretty sure they have red ones. Is there someone who could email an expert and debunk this outrageous lie?

Dogs have green eyes?

Occasionally. Its one of the least frequent colors though. There are astronomical odds against a whole group having them.

And now we see Phase II of the rewriting of history:

Repeatedly ask the same question over and over.

Never mind that CY and his commenters have torn the Bradley stories apart.

According to TNR's explanation, the method is to swing the Bradley's tail out briefly, at which point the dog runs into the vehicle's path. I haven't seen anyone debunk the explanation they actually gave.

Never mind that CY and his commenters have torn the square-backed casings apart.

You might be aware that the Glock 17 and 19 are remarkable among handguns in that they leave a square impression in a casing.

Never mind that CY, his commenters, and the Army have not only shown the story about the female contractor would have occurred at a different time and place than Beauchamp claimed, but no one can identify this woman. Not from mess hall records, not from eyewitness confirmation.

I guess this part is still developing, then.

Yet, SNCS claims "except for putting it in the wrong place, everything else is true." And, like digitus (if they're not digitus themselves), they'll go through the whole kabuki over again, through a 200+ comment thread.

I didn't claim any such thing, as anyone can clearly by scrolling up the page.

So this Digitus has an award-winning lefty satire blog, for instance being the 2006 Weblog Award winner in the humor category? If so, he or she might be us!

(We work hard for the money, so hard for you honey, so you better treat us right!)

[...]

Until, like the Rosenbergs' innocence, or Truman's Hiroshima perfidy, or the Holocuast deniers' claims about the gas chambers, their "questions" and the historical reality sit side-by-side.

You forgot Alger Hiss?

I note that SNCS didn't even bother to respond to the fact that he is conflating one officer's statement that he doesn't have knowledge of a document to mean that the document doesn't exist.

Probably realizes that he dug himself a good deep hole there, so he'll move on to the next spot to dig a hole at. -LOL-

Okay, so one (1) Army officer has no knowledge of Beauchamp's statement and that means it doesn't exist?

Puh-leeeeeeeeze. Get a good argument or go back to DU.

Major Steven F. Lamb is the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad.

The Weekly Standard's source is "a military source close to the investigation."

You didn't even Google, did you?

SNCS, you glossed over an important word: DEPUTY.

He is not the PAO himself.

And, given that much of the investigation was conducted in Kuwait, Baghdad may not have been aware of parts of the investigation.

It may also have been that he hadn't read the briefing on that particular document yet.

In short, Major Lamb's statement that he, personally, has no knowledge of the document does NOT equate to evidence of the non-existence of the document.

Quit digging that hole before you end up in China, okay?

Talking about not reading.

Bradley drivers, Army tracked vehicle drivers, and the BAe public affairs guy are all here at CY talking about whether TNR's version of the Bradley story could occur.

Oh, and not just the part about the dog, ranging from Bradley's sliding to whether tracks would leave dogs cut in half, but still smiling, but also the parts about knocking over curbs, and taking out corners of buildings, but SN!CS claims "it's not been addressed."

Similarly, SN!CS takes it upon himself to modify the story (square-backed casings, NOT square impressions) to suit him/themselves.

Of course, that Glocks are not solely in the hands of the Iraqi police (the whole point of the square-backed casing story---Beauchamp saw the square-backed casings, and knew not only that they were Glock rounds but only the Iraqi police used Glocks) is again wholly ignored by SN!CS.

But, when you're supporting the TROOF!, warping the argument to suit your point, rewriting what Beauchamp actually wrote, it's all good, man.

It's all good.

In short, Major Lamb's statement that he, personally, has no knowledge of the document does NOT equate to evidence of the non-existence of the document.

I see what you're saying. If Maj. Lamb says something that contradicts what the Weekly Standard's anonymous source says, he must not know what he's talking about.

But when Maj. Lamb says the following, it's undeniable:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by Pvt. Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

In other words, all you need to do is throw out the notion of logical consistency, and you can have things whatever way you want.

But, hey, SN!CS was the 2006 WEBLOG AWARD WINNER IN THE HUMOR CATEGORY!!!!

[Cue slow clap.]

So, is this you trying out new material?

'Cuz if it is, you might wanna work a bit harder for that money.

(Your reputation follows you wherever you go)

SNCS, give me your address. I wanna send you a quarter so you can buy a friggin' clue.

One officer not knowing about a document does not mean the document does not exist.

Can you get that through your durned skull, please?

By the way, since you are accepting Major Lamb's words as gospel, can we now conclude that Beauchamp is a liar and a fraud?

Talking about not reading.

Bradley drivers, Army tracked vehicle drivers, and the BAe public affairs guy are all here at CY talking about whether TNR's version of the Bradley story could occur.

Did the public affairs guy comment on TNR's explanation? Go check and see.

Oh, and not just the part about the dog, ranging from Bradley's sliding to whether tracks would leave dogs cut in half, but still smiling, but also the parts about knocking over curbs, and taking out corners of buildings, but SN!CS claims "it's not been addressed."

I believe his answer was in the realm of 'it seems unlikely that they'd do that, because they'd get in trouble.'

Similarly, SN!CS takes it upon himself to modify the story (square-backed casings, NOT square impressions) to suit him/themselves.

I think it's a rather conclusive explanation, don't you? Much better than the zany notion that Pvt. Beauchamp is somehow unaware that casings are circular and not square.

Of course, that Glocks are not solely in the hands of the Iraqi police (the whole point of the square-backed casing story---Beauchamp saw the square-backed casings, and knew not only that they were Glock rounds but only the Iraqi police used Glocks) is again wholly ignored by SN!CS.

I don't know who uses Glocks in Baghdad. Notice though that you're making a special pleading that Beauchamp couldn't know for sure where the Glock round came from, and therefore might have been wrong. Not exactly a 'debunking.'

But, when you're supporting the TROOF!, warping the argument to suit your point, rewriting what Beauchamp actually wrote, it's all good, man.

It's all good.

Did you read what Beauchamp actually wrote, or have you just read quotes of it here and there?

SNCS, give me your address. I wanna send you a quarter so you can buy a friggin' clue.

One officer not knowing about a document does not mean the document does not exist.

Right, 'one officer' being an official spokesman for Multi National Division-Baghdad.

Okay, so in that case, there might be a document that says Beauchamp is a child sex predator. How can we know there isn't?!?!?!

I like how you keep telling me to get a clue and stop digging a hole. The 'Beauchamp recanted' story is 100% unsourced and was specifically denied by the same official MND-B spokesman you guys are quoting elsewhere.

Do you see a problem with that?

This whole thing has given me such a bad case of tired-head. TNR is standing by the stories but wont release the names of soldiers who might be war criminals? And just what was TNR's stance when Abu Ghraib broke? I'm sure coverup was printed somewhere even though the military was investigating well before the press was aware of the situation. And by accusing the Army of pressuring Beauchamp to recant aren't they accusing the military of a coverup? Why would the military want Beauchamp to recant unless they knew it was true? Otherwise just the truth would be fine and they would proceed from there. My god, this is making the hair on my arms hurt!! Make it all stop someone!

WHAT logical inconsistency.

The Army conducts an investigation. Lamb is informed of that investigation, and issues a statement.

Other people claim that Beauchamp has signed an official statement that he is recanting his claims.

Unless that statement was part of the investigation, why would Lamb necessarily know anything about this? Lamb's own comment, and that of the investigation, is that they checked w/ Beauchamp's fellow soldiers, and they denied any knowledge of the incidents.

Did Beauchamp sign such a statement? An anonymous source tell the Weekly Standard "yes," TNR claims that an anonymous source told them "no." Lamb's point is not contradictory, if such a statement was not part of the investigation.

More to the point, if Lamb himself is not aware of such a document, does that mean that the document does not exist?

As for the rest:

Hey, if what Beauchamp MEANT to write was square-indentation, maybe he meant to write Kuwait, instead of Iraq! And BEFORE going to Iraq, not AFTER going to Iraq.

Maybe he meant to say that they hadn't cut dogs in half, or slammed into buildings, or he had a TC who enjoyed being knocked about.

Maybe he meant to say lots of things. And SN!CS knows it all, thanks to that special clairvoyance granted to the writers of an AWARD-WINNING humor/satire blog.

Sure thing.

G'night SN!CS.

(C'mon baby, dance that dance, come on baby, dance that dance.)

SNCS, the one officer is the DEPUTY Public Information Officer.

Do you have any comprehension of what the term "DEPUTY" means?

It means that there is someone above him. Someone that might know more than him. Someone that is the true official spokesman for that division.

Now do you get it?

In Iraq the normal and common form of ID is called a "Ginsea". It is a laminated, greenish photo ID, which invariably is fake. Driver's licenses are almost unheard of. This story is BS, like all the rest of Beauchamp's idiocy.

Oh wow, take a look at what else Major Lamb has said

An Army investigation into the Baghdad Diarist, a soldier in Iraq who wrote anonymous columns for The New Republic, has concluded that the sometimes shockingly cruel reports were false.

“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."

from this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/washington/08diarist.html?ei=5124&en=33f5f5d8678c992a&ex=1344225600&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1186581767-NqjRAZ3XpB7hxmlnQ2MYGg

SNCS, the one officer is the DEPUTY Public Information Officer.

Do you have any comprehension of what the term "DEPUTY" means?

Why yes. If you've ever done any reporting, you'll be quite familiar with these 'deputy' entities. Frequently, their job is to be official spokesmen -- i.e., to talk to people like journalists.

If you're implying that there's an unknown higher-up who would know more about this case, you must have done some basic research. I.e., who is he?

Did Beauchamp sign such a statement? An anonymous source tell the Weekly Standard "yes," TNR claims that an anonymous source told them "no." Lamb's point is not contradictory, if such a statement was not part of the investigation.

The Weekly Standard cited an anonymous 'military source close to the investigation.'

TNR cited a named Army spokesman.

If the statement was 'not part of the investigation,' then why is the Weekly Standard citing a source close to the investigation?

You didn't go read the Weekly Standard piece, did you?

Did the public affairs guy comment on TNR's explanation? Go check and see.

No, he commented on STB's tales. Said they were found to be crapola, IIRC.

TNR cited a named Army spokesman.

Who said he has no knowledge of the document in question, and then allowed that someone else who does might have commented on it and that this would not be Army policy. You're assuming that the PAO would have intimate knowledge of every facet of the investigation, and that just isn't the case.

But did you notice that when TNR quoted Lamb, they left out the "stories are all a bunch of hooey" part? You know, the part you quoted up above there. Any idea why they decided not to relate that part of the story?

The 'Beauchamp recanted' story is 100% unsourced and was specifically denied by the same official MND-B spokesman you guys are quoting elsewhere.

Someone apparently cannot read. "I have no knowledge of X" does not equal "There is no X".

I think Sadly No must be stupid.

Yes. He also seems to think that "anonymously sourced" is the same thing as "100% unsourced". Which is pretty damned funny given TNR's "corroboration" of the Beauchamp tales.

Someone apparently cannot read. "I have no knowledge of X" does not equal "There is no X".

Fair enough then. There might be a document unknown to the spokesman, but known to the Weekly Standard's anonymous source.

Meanwhile, TNR's explanation isn't credible because it relies on anonymous sources.

Are you failing to see the problems with this reasoning?

But did you notice that when TNR quoted Lamb, they left out the "stories are all a bunch of hooey" part? You know, the part you quoted up above there. Any idea why they decided not to relate that part of the story?

Okay, TNR's brief, single-paragraph followup statement could've included some phrase like 'despite official denials.'

This proves exactly what, now?

He also seems to think that "anonymously sourced" is the same thing as "100% unsourced". Which is pretty damned funny given TNR's "corroboration" of the Beauchamp tales.

Yes, bad phrasing on my part. I apologize.

So let's move on. You were about to explain how TNR's anonymous sourcing means that you can't believe anything they say, whereas the Weekly Standard's anonymous sourcing is perfectly understandable.

Unless you want call me stupid or quibble over diction, evading the issue entirely. I'd totally understand if that were the case.

There might be a document unknown to the spokesman, but known to the Weekly Standard's anonymous source.

Yes, exactly.

Meanwhile, TNR's explanation isn't credible because it relies on anonymous sources.

No, TNR's explanation isn't credible because it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence, and their sources, when independently verified, say different things than what TNR tells us they said. See all of the members of Beauchamp's company, and Doug Coffey. Also, see Beauchamp himself. You'll recall that the Army says they interviewed his platoon and company and "no one could substantiate the claims." That set includes Beauchamp. And once you get yourself wrapped around that, consider why TNR didn't name any of their experts, like Mr. Coffey.

Okay, TNR's brief, single-paragraph followup statement could've included some phrase like 'despite official denials.'

But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.

So, the Army completes it's investigation, issues a statement of its findings, TNR fails to mention it at all, and you think a "despite offficial denials" qualifier would cover it? You don't think that's substantive information that ought to fall under their promise to report? Alllllrighty then. What do you think of the fact they they didn't offer even the vague qualifier?

You were about to explain how TNR's anonymous sourcing means that you can't believe anything they say, whereas the Weekly Standard's anonymous sourcing is perfectly understandable.

I'll type this slowly. TNR's sources have either been refuted or have contradicted what TNR says they said. WS's source is simply an anonymous source. Not gospel, mind you, though WS might see it that way given that the source isn't anonymous to them. It could be true, it could be false. But Goldfarb has been upfront with all of his sources except that one. TNR has been quoting people anonymously for no journalistic reason whatsoever and has been leaving pertinent information out of its reportage. If anyone gets the benefit of the doubt here, it isn't TNR.

If all you've read about this was from WS, then you'd know exactly what TNR's positions and arguments are. If all you've read was from TNR, you'd be missing about 3/4 of the available information. Why do you suppose that is?

Okay, I'll type this slowly too. Apropos unnamed sources, when you say "all of the members of Beauchamp's company," can you provide a single name or quote? Is there a single word attributed to any of the unknown number of people that the Army says were interviewed?

Moreover, can you provide any detail at all of this investigation besides a single terse quote by Maj. Lamb? Where are 'the findings' that you say were issued?

Can you explain this assumption that Coffey was the only source at that company who talked to TNR, and explain why he wasn't asked to comment on TNR's extremely clear and concise explanation of the Bradley anecdote -- but was instead asked about some wacky theory that someone else made up?

While we're at it, there's one ironclad reason for journalists not to name their sources. You know what it is, right?

And yes, if you follow the Weekly Standard, you get a better sense of the controversy over the Beauchamp articles. See, on the one hand you have TNR, which published articles that the Weekly Standard is whooping up a controversy over, while on the other hand, you have the Weekly Standard, which is whooping up a controversy over those articles. Not exactly a comparable pair of goalposts there, is it? Should TNR be leading the pack in finding new accusations to hurl against itself?

At a certain point you have to sit down with yourself and be like, "Wait a minute, what are we doing here? This is another of those Jamil Hussein deals, isn't it? We're in danger of losing our way."

Well, maybe the soldier could have been able to read "organ donor" on the ID, but probably not likely. Most soldiers have basic Arabic only.

Story sounds like crap, anyway.

At a certain point you have to sit down with yourself and be like, "Wait a minute, what are we doing here?

Since Sadly, No! is a lefty humor blog, why is there any point in taking them seriously, especially when they reason in circles. Just because they are fond of masturbating in public doesn't mean others have to join in.

I salute everyone's efforts nonetheless.

Of course, they claim their inquiries are serious, wouldn't you in their place. Heh!

Dear Sadly, No! Customer Services,
Your defense of my honor is greatly appreciated. I've tried to express my gratitude, but with my limited interweb access and censorship I can't go into too many details.

You sir(s) are the real American heroes.

Dear Sadly, No! Customer Services,
I really hate to be a bother, but as one of the ReichWing's persecuted, you probably understand my plight. They're trying to destroy my moral by forcing me to endure days upon days locked in the barracks.

Worst of all, my XBox got busted in the "investigation". Could you hook a brother in arms up? I know they're expensive, so maybe you could lead a little fund-raiser or something?

Thanks a ton!

Is there a single word attributed to any of the unknown number of people that the Army says were interviewed?

The Army isn't doing journalism, and they cannot, BY LAW, release the details of an investigation unless they're bringing charges. You want a single name? Scott Beauchamp.

Moreover, can you provide any detail at all of this investigation besides a single terse quote by Maj. Lamb? Where are 'the findings' that you say were issued?

What part of "We talked to everyone and no one could substantiate the claims" do you need fleshed out? You were just ready to wave the Army's findings away with "despite official denials" but you want a freaking novel to explain "We can't confirm any of it with anyone."? Furthermore, Lamb is not the only person to say this. Peruse the front page of this blog and you will find no less than 4 other named Army sources saying the stories are false. Do your homework. Boylan, Sams, Russo, Luedeke. Google it.

Can you explain this assumption that Coffey was the only source at that company who talked to TNR, and explain why he wasn't asked to comment on TNR's extremely clear and concise explanation of the Bradley anecdote -- but was instead asked about some wacky theory that someone else made up?

I assume you're referring to "Shock Troops" because that's what Bob showed him and asked him to comment on. Heh. What leads you to believe that there's another source at BAE Systems? You know, one who believes that TNR's "extremely clear and concise" explanation is actually plausible? Coffey doesn't. If there was, TNR ought to name them, don't you think? Can you explain your assumption that there's another source?

And yes, if you follow the Weekly Standard, you get a better sense of the controversy over the Beauchamp articles. See, on the one hand you have TNR, which published articles that the Weekly Standard is whooping up a controversy over, while on the other hand, you have the Weekly Standard, which is whooping up a controversy over those articles. Not exactly a comparable pair of goalposts there, is it?

I assume you've heard of The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, The Columbia School of Journalism and a kajillion milblogs and other blogs. You have, haven't you? WS broke the story, but they're not alone in debunking it. Bob has done as much reporting here as anyone else has.

Should TNR be leading the pack in finding new accusations to hurl against itself?

They should be leading the pack in determining the veracity of the story and getting to the truth, unless they want to be regarded as a partisan ideological rag, given that it is their credibility on the line. But they're not doing that at all. Corrections/retractions are perfectly acceptable in journalism, and should be considered a mark of honest reporting. It's their honor being questioned. If I were them, I'd be debunking the claims against me in great detail. They're not even close to that.

You still haven't addressed TNR's failure to report the Army's findings other than to wonder whether those findings have really been issued. Why is that? And while you're contemplating that, you can also think about why we didn't hear from TNR about the Camp Buhering PAO's statement that even in Kuwait, melty-face lady is "an urban legend, a myth" didn't make it into TNR report, despite Jason Zengerle being fully aware of it, having been in contact with her.

daleyrocks,

Since Sadly, No! is a lefty humor blog, why is there any point in taking them seriously, especially when they reason in circles.

Same reason kids used to play with tops. It's fun watching them spin out of control. :-P

Pablo - It must have been a slow news day over there yesterday or something, with Rove resigning and all.

I question the timing!

The entire Bradley incident is based on a segment on "YouTube". I'm surprised that this has not been picked up. Type in "Stalingrad" and go to the movie clip (auf Deutsch ). A T 34 cuts a soldier in half- with the torso "sitting up" exactly as in the article! This would have been impossible, but Private Joker didn't realize this.He substituted a dog for the soldier -not too many soldaten in Iraq. I believe tha.t most of the stories are lifted from "Full Metal Jacket"

Peruse the front page of this blog and you will find no less than 4 other named Army sources saying the stories are false. Do your homework. Boylan, Sams, Russo, Luedeke. Google it.

I'm familiar.

So when Lamb says he has no knowledge of something, that doesn't mean it isn't true. But when these other military sources say they have no knowledge, have not been able to confirm, etc., it does mean it isn't true.

See, I'm not going to be able to explain this to you, but 'reasoning' requires that you apply the same standards to both sides of a question. Otherwise what you're doing is called 'rationalizing.'

'Rationalizing' is when you decide what you're going to believe, and then go looking around for things to support it.

You know, whenever I engage a claim here, it magically changes into some completely different claim. For instance, you asked why you get more detail on the Beauchamp controversy from the Weekly Standard than from TNR. And I gave a reason, and now you're all like:

I assume you've heard of The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, The Columbia School of Journalism and a kajillion milblogs and other blogs. You have, haven't you? WS broke the story, but they're not alone in debunking it.

That's what I mean by goalposts shifting. You just find any argument that contradicts the last thing I said, whether or not in makes any sense in context.

The beautiful thing is that you finish it off with projection, saying that I can't read, haven't done my homework, am irrational, am determined to spin things, and so forth.

So let's return to the central issue here.

What part of "We talked to everyone and no one could substantiate the claims" do you need fleshed out?

The part where you apply a very strict standard of evidence to TNR, and another very different standard of evidence to that terse official denial by the Army.

On the one hand, the standard is 'every statement must be proven, or else it is false.' On the other hand, the standard is 'anything they say is assumed to be true.'

That's not reasoning, bub.

OK. We admit it. We've got absolutely nothing on this Beauchamp story. We're a bunch of gibbering gibbon ankle biters making strawman arguments that don't even pass the blush test.

Can you please give our Customer Service folks a break. They're just over here to annoy the crap out of you nutters because they are bored.

Is Beauchamp merely making a joke above? I admittedly didn't read it that way, but it very well could be the case.

And so we come to the point where the conservative/right-wing blogger makes a grudging and partial admission that he/she "might" have been mistaken about his/her all-too-quickly assumed opinion that was turned into a lengthy screed that proves to be embarrassingly long and wrong.

Is there a term for this? Given the frequency with which it happens on this end of the blogosphere, there really ought to be.

I'm familiar.

Then why are you asking if there's more than a terse quote from Lamb when you already know the answer to the question? Stick to jerking yourself off. I'm all set.

So when Lamb says he has no knowledge of something, that doesn't mean it isn't true. But when these other military sources say they have no knowledge, have not been able to confirm, etc., it does mean it isn't true.

Lamb didn't conduct the investigation. Lamb didn't interview the company. Now, if the lead investigator said he had no knowledge of such a statement, that would be dispositive. Lamb's statement is not. But of course, you already know that too.

'Rationalizing' is when you decide what you're going to believe, and then go looking around for things to support it.

And if you're going to do it, you ought to find some things that support what you want to believe instead of just wondering whether they might exist and using your wild ass guesses as evidence.

You just find any argument that contradicts the last thing I said, whether or not in makes any sense in context.

It doesn't make any sense. Your premise, which is that this is simply WS vs. TNR, one hand vs. the other, is wrong. This blog you're reading is proof of that, which you're studiously ignoring. So, what you said makes no sense, in context or out.

The beautiful thing is that you finish it off with projection, saying that I can't read, haven't done my homework, am irrational, am determined to spin things, and so forth.

Let's go back to the first statement quoted at the top of this post. I stand by my assessment, which you characterize accurately aside from the projection element.

The part where you apply a very strict standard of evidence to TNR, and another very different standard of evidence to that terse official denial by the Army.

No, not at all. The Army's statement is subject to scrutiny and can be easily debunked by finding anyone in the unit who will credibly contradict it. Unfortuantely for TNR, it seems that there is no one to toss them such a lifeline. They can't even seem to get in touch with corroborating Pvt Vandalay, scion of Vandalay Industries.

The Army, BY LAW (Did you notice this time where I said BY LAW?) cannot divulge the details of their investigation barring charges, but it seems there would be very few of them anyway. They haven't gathered evidence as much as they've looked for it and found that it doesn't exist, and that's what they've said about the matter. There's really not much more for them to say, even if they could. Now, there are people in a position to know who can talk about the investigation, and Scott Beauchamp is one of them.

On the one hand, the standard is 'every statement must be proven, or else it is false.' On the other hand, the standard is 'anything they say is assumed to be true.'

Again, your premise is wrong. TNR's and Beauchamps claims are false because they've been disproven. The standard is reasonable doubt and there is miniscule reasonable doubt that STB is a fabulist who sold TNR fiction as fact, and that TNR is desperately trying to conceal the fact that they got suckered because they wanted to believe....and went looking around for things to support that.

HELLLOOOOOO, Sadly, No! Customer Services, HELLLLLLOOOOOOO?????

Dude, where's my XBox? Come on guys, I know you're busy, but I'm SOOOOOOOOOO bored.

And so we come to the point where the conservative/right-wing blogger makes a grudging and partial admission that he/she "might" have been mistaken about his/her all-too-quickly assumed opinion that was turned into a lengthy screed that proves to be embarrassingly long and wrong.

Is there a term for this? Given the frequency with which it happens on this end of the blogosphere, there really ought to be.

Yes, it's called "honesty", which is closely related to integrity. It comes from introspection, a willingness to consider new things and old things from new perspectives, and the desire to be factual. It's no wonder you're so unfamiliar with it.

Pablo, each episode in this exchange is like entering a whole new reality in which you've switched things around, 'debunked' things that nobody ever said, and redesigned your criteria for evidence.

For the record, I think Beauchamp is a chump and that he probably embellished his stories.

I also think your arguments are classic Internet chatter, designed to confound more than enlighten, and to create occasions to declare victory instead of actually proving anything.

By which I mean that maybe 10% of what you say about Beauchamp and TNR is worth thinking about, while the rest is like watching a monkey scratch his nuts.

Sorry to be impolite and all, but this isn't some fascinating new spectacle. It's boring, and you may now proceed to the "HAHA LOL Teh suxxor iz fl33ing in teh f@ce of my sup3r1or r34son1ng sk1||z" selection of today's entertainment.

Yes, it's called "honesty", which is closely related to integrity. It comes from introspection, a willingness to consider new things and old things from new perspectives, and the desire to be factual. It's no wonder you're so unfamiliar with it.

Well, I suppose a quasi-admission of the possibility of wrongness counts for "honesty" here, so I'll give you that. But the rest...no, those qualities would actually prevent someone from launching into an anti-Beauchamp tiraded prompted by their dogged belief that everything the guy says must-and-can-only-be a lie, while missing the fact that the statement he made could easily be taken for a joke.

And anyway, if my questioning someone else's willingness to leap into a deep crevice of assumption to make a political point makes me unfamiliar with the "desire to be factual", then I'll take that as a compliment.

And anyway, if my questioning someone else's willingness to leap into a deep crevice of assumption to make a political point makes me unfamiliar with the "desire to be factual", then I'll take that as a compliment.

It's probably the lack of consistency that's your failing. But, hey praise on. Church is in session and I'd hate to get in the way of your delivered troof!

Man, now I'm totally confused. If this is so friggin' boring, why does Sadly, No! Customers Services keep reappearing with John Kerry pretzel logic arguments that nobody sane would advance. Last night, this morning, etc., etc.

Not a very believable position that. After all, he could just polish his light bulbs or comb the hair on his palms, instead.

It's probably the lack of consistency that's your failing.

I'm not sure what that post has to do with anything I've said here.

Well, start with "A FRAUD!!!1!eleven!!11!" and the delve into the details.

You remember details, don't you? Like the ones that have demolished the Diarist?

Maybe you can wash that down with a bit of Der Speigel.

Pablo,

Try to be less clever, and more direct, in your writing. I'm still not sure what your point is. I don't see how an article in "Der Spiegel" about Iraq refutes the fact that the Pollack/O'Hanlon tour was a fraud (as recounted by Glenn Greenwald) or my original point that there ought to be a name for the silly "takebacks" that are all-too common on the right-wing blogosphere.

It's the fact that you think it's a fraud because Gleen(s) Greenwald tells you it is, based on what other people have had to say about O'Hanlon and Pollack and their failure to shout them down to his satisfaction.

Der Spiegel simply supports their FRAUD!!eleven!!111, with a detailed, balanced, optomistic report, very different from what they were printing a year ago.

Frankly, when you get your talking points from Socky McEllersburg, you've become a waste of time to talk to.

It's the fact that you think it's a fraud because Gleen(s) Greenwald tells you it is, based on what other people have had to say about O'Hanlon and Pollack and their failure to shout them down to his satisfaction.

No, he quite clearly states what went into their visit to Iraq and how they were shown a very limited view of the country, how the two were portrayed as "war critics" when they are anything but, and how they've been consistently wrong in the past about the future in Iraq. Unlike here, he doesn't do it by spinning ambiguous fact; he gives you O'Hanlon's own answers to his questions, which are damning enough.

And I read the Der Spiegal report, which was "optimistic" only in the sense that the writer states that there is yet some hope for Iraq. It is detailed yes, but there's very little discussion of the intractable divisions that beset the Iraqi government. The surge was designed to facilitate some kind of political solution, and yet the Iraqi government and society remain as fractured as ever. As has always been the case, peace and stability in Iraq cannot be enforced militarily, something that worshippers of American military might on the right just can't seem to comprehend.

I'll note again that none of this has anything to do with my original point. But if you want to have a debate on the merits of the surge in Iraq then that's fine, since that only makes clear that 2,000 long word blog posts on "the Diarist" provide absolutely no useful commentary on Iraq at all.

Pablo,

with all due respect, you are making rather a fool of yourself here, and I don't really think SNCS was putting a full effort in. I would advise dropping the Beauchamp thing, at then end of the day its a nothing story that has allready run its course,

thecaptain, if that were the case, you wouldn't be here babbling. Thanks for the advice, now cram it.

Ah, Pablo. Now I know where you're getting this connection between O'Hanlon/Pollack and Beauchamp; you've been reading George Packer!

While Packer does have a point, he seems to misunderstand the difference between revealing how Pollack and O'Hanlon came to their conclusions, and fact-checking Beauchamp's claims (only to accept the Army's word on the matter seemingly without question.) And so do you apparently. While O'Hanlon and Pollack were making a disingenous and incomplete argument in favor of our continued presence in Iraq, an argument that deserved critique, Beauchamp was writing about his own personal experiences, as soldiers tend to do in war. Also, Greenwald's case is persuasive, where as the right's case against Beauchamp is not.

Uh, no. I'm not making a connection between the two stories, I'm making a connection between the reaction that you're ridiculing and the one you're swallowing like a scoop of ice cream.

You'll believe what you want to believe and disbelieve what you don't and the truth doesn't mean a frigging thing to you.