Conffederate
Confederate

August 14, 2007

Liar's Parade

Why do the Scott Thomas Beauchamp stories published in The New Republic matter?

Beauchamp's stories—"War Bonds," "Dead of Night", and "Shock Troops"—contained material either suspect, exaggerated, or in several proven instances, completely fabricated.

It is suspect that the soldiers in "War Bonds" would stop their vehicles in a "dark brown river of sewage" to change a tire; both Humvees and Strykers feature run-flat tires and automatic tire inflation systems that allow the vehicles to continue on for miles after experiencing a puncture.

Beauchamp's libel of the Iraqi Police as murderers in "Dark of Night" is based upon not one, but two completely false claims. The first is that Glock pistols can be identified by a unique "square-backed" 9mm pistol cartridge. This is utterly preposterous. There are no "square-backed" pistol cartridges chambered by commercial weapons manufacturers. The 9mm NATO (AKA, 9mm Luger, 9mm Parabellum) cartridge chambered and fired by Glock pistols is common in military, police and civilian handguns, carbines, and submachine guns worldwide, they do not use unique identifying ammunition.

The second claim is that only the Iraqi police carry Glock pistols. A simple Google search easily disproves that claim. Glocks are common among all military, police, militia, insurgent, and civilian populations. In "Dark of Night," Beauchamp based his libel upon two easily demonstrated falsehoods.

In Beauchamp's final article, "Shock Troops," he provides us with three distinct tall tales that a U.S. military investigation has concluded were categorically false.

It was this third account, "Shock Troops," that matters most to active duty soldiers, veterans, and their families. In three separate accounts, Beauchamp tells stories of large groups of soldiers that allowed, encouraged, or participated in barbaric behavior, and in so doing, Beauchamp assaulted the honor and integrity of not just a rogue soldier or even a small unit, but his entire company and every soldier in every other company Forward Operating Base Falcon.

This mass libel offends or should offend everyone who supports our soldiers, even those who are against the war. Several weeks ago when Beauchamp was still nominally shielded by his pseudonym, I suggested that a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War who was based at FOB Falcon from Nov. 2005 to Nov. 2006 named Richard Peters might be in a position to tell us if he has heard or of witnessed these or similar stories while at the base.

After reading Beauchamp's "Shock Troops," and hearing of the various debunkings of Beauchamp's claims, IVAW member Peters responded via email:

Ok, yes it does seem to be "case closed" on this Scott Thomas fellow. People like him really get under my skin. The trouble with the antiwar movement is one of image, when losers like him spread elaborate lies it only weakens that image and the message is lost.

Whether you support the continuation of the conflict in Iraq, or if you favor a withdrawal as do Mr. Peters and the IVAW and other critics of the war, is frankly irrelevant to the discussion. Beauchamp's stories matter because they were fabrications created in the hopes of furthering the career of an arrogant, untalented writer, at the expense of the reputations of his fellow soldiers.

As a result of a military investigation into the allegations made in "Shock Troops," all of Beauchamp's claims were determined to be false, and Beauchamp himself faces administrative punishment for his serial fiction.

But Beauchamp's attempted collective character assassination is only part of the story, and at this point, isn't even the most offensive part of the tale.

Since this series of stories was first brought to the attention of milbloggers by Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, the editors of The New Republic have continued to defend Beauchamp's stories, and have gone to disconcerting lengths to do so.

Perhaps most disturbing is that on July 26, TNR editors flatly lied to its readers, when they stated:

Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail. This process takes considerable time, as the primary subjects are on another continent, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we've found nothing to disprove the facts in the article; we will release the full results of our search when it is completed.

Let me make this very clear: none of Beauchamp's three stories bears any evidence of fact-checking or rigorous editing.

The editors did not ask why vehicles with automatic tire inflation systems and run-flat tires designed to run for miles even after being punctured had to stop in waist-deep rivers of raw sewage in "War Bonds."

The editors did not catch the blatant "square-backed" cartridge claim, nor did they show enough diligence to even run a rudimentary Google search to check Beauchamp's claim that would have sent up immediate red flags when their correspondent alleged murder based upon a flagrant untruth that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police" in "Dead of Night."

In "Shock Troops," an act of depravity—verbally assaulting a female contractor for severe facial burns—at a combat base that the author blamed on the psychological trauma of combat was quickly exposed as not having occurred at the base in question at all. This bit of undone fact-checking exposed, TNR's editors shifted the story to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, never admitting the fact that that the shift in time and place means that the story was utterly false: one cannot be traumatized, hardened, or emotionally deadened by the horrors of combat in the Iraq War before having actually gone there.

TNR senior editor Jason Zengerle admitted that he received information from the U.S. Army PAO in Kuwait that "a couple of soldiers did say that [they] heard rumors about the incident, but nothing based on fact. More like an urban legand [sic]."

The editors of TNR has decided not to share this or similar conflicting information with their readers.

Nor have they shared the fact that named contractors at Camp Arifjan, named U.S. Army officers, and literally dozens of soldiers have disputed ever seeing a contractor at Camp Arifjan or anywhere else who has matched this description. The New Republic's anonymous soldiers and fact-checking apparatus have not produced the name of a contractor, the specific date or even a likely date range for the incident, and fall back on insisting that that anonymous soldiers that they claim corroborate the burned contractor assault, and that we must take their word for it, despite all the documented claims from named military and civilian sources to the contrary.

Another claim made by Beauchamp and "fact checked" by TNR's legion of diligent staffers was the discovery of children's bodies under layers of garbage, and the subsequent wearing of part of a child's rotting skull by one soldier for an extended period of time.

The editors of The New Republic would deceive their readers, and pretend that the acknowledgement that a children's cemetery was uncovered and relocated during the creation of a combat outpost proved Beauchamp's claim that a soldier wore rotting human body parts during the day and into the night to the amusement of fellow soldiers, and without a single dissenting voice or reprimand from an NCO. It does nothing of the sort, and merely shows that Beauchamp likely took a rather mundane event—the discovery and relocation of a cemetery—and wove fiction around it to create an atrocity tacitly supported and even laughed at by his fellow soldiers.

Beauchamp's third claim, of a murderous rogue Bradley IFV driver, has been refuted by the U.S. military, Bradley drivers, commanders, crewmen, and soldiers, the crewmen of similar tracked vehicles such as the M113, virtually without contradiction, with the one notable exception coming, once again, from anonymous TNR sources.

One of their anonymous sources was actually discovered and re-questioned openly about the Bradley's capability to be used as described in "Shock Troops."

Despite TNR's claim that he supported the Bradley's ability to operate as described, Doug Coffey, Bradley manufacturer BAE Systems spokesman, actually tore TNR's claims apart when presented with all of Beauchamp's claims, in context.

It makes one wonder just how much "in the dark" The New Republic kept their other experts in order to create the illusion of an investigation that supported their initial claims.

The New Republic posted the results of an "investigation" that hides the names, positions, companies, and qualifications of their experts, and when one of their experts was tracked down, he told a quite different story. It becomes readily apparent that TNR, never "rigorously edited and fact-checked" Beauchamp's articles before publication. They still haven't.

Nor have they responded to valid criticisms...

tnr_visits_the_expert2

...even though we know they have following such criticisms closely, and have been, daily.

What Franklin Foer and other editors of The New Republic have done is establish a pattern of deception, obfuscation, and blame-shifting. They continue to attempt to deceive their journalistic peers, their readers, and as their critics. TNR even purposefully hid the fact that one of their staff members is married to Beauchamp, and fired the temporary employee that disclosed this fact.

The New Republic seems convinced that despite the ever-growing collection of evidence that shows a clear breach of journalistic ethics, that if they simply find a way to "fool all of the people, all of the time," that they just might be able to save their credibility and their readership. Editor-in-Chief Marty Peretz does not seem willing to comment or act upon Franklin Foer's "rather" blatantly dishonest whitewash of an investigation, and Foer's obviously deceptive comments that the stories were fact-checked before publication.

As of yet, CanWest MediaWorks, the company that bought full interest in The New Republic in early 2007, has refused to act to salvage the credibility of their newest magazine.

One must wonder if they will wait to act until the magazine's already tarnished reputation is irreversibly damaged, or if that time is already passed.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at August 14, 2007 12:23 AM
Comments

They supported the Iraq invasion, so yeah, their credibility is pretty much shot.

Posted by: Righteous Bubba at August 14, 2007 12:31 PM

"...despite the ever-growing collection of evidence that shows a clear breach of journalistic ethics..."

I strenuously object to that characterization of TNR's Beauchamp articles. The 60 Minutes forgeries, the Jason Blair episode, Janet Cooke's "Jimmy's World", NBC Dateline's faking fires from GM truck crashes, Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize winning fabrications about the USSR in the 1930's, etc. clearly demonstrate that exaggeration, half-truths and outright fabrication are solidly in the mainstream of journalist practice and ethics.

The only thing unusual about this set of articles in TNR is that they got caught this time.

Posted by: Tom the Barbarian at August 14, 2007 12:35 PM

mmm. smell that Obsession. it's so manly.

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 12:50 PM

Excellent work - thank you.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at August 14, 2007 12:57 PM

Obsession, cleek? Yeah on this subject, pretty much.

It rather irritates me that a self-professed liberal joins the Army with the sole purpose of building his anti-war "street cred" as a writer, practices his atrocity fiction while still in Germany, and libels and slanders his entire unit with fictional accounts after he is in-theater.

Then to top it off, instead of the magazine doing the honorable thing and admitting they got snookered because they wanted to believe that the spouse of an employee wouldn't lie to them (an error in judgment that I think just about any of us would have forgiven them for), TNR's editors get "truthy." Instead of coming clean and admitting they got burned by a major league jerk, they concerned themselves with creating a plausible cover-up for their own editorial short-comings that turned out to be not very plausible at all.

Worse, the "but we support the troops" crowd uses this episode as an excuse to attack the military. So many will believe the atrocity claims concocted by STB unquestioningly, un-sourced, and unsupported, but when named U.S. Army officers, civilian contractors, military experts and even anti-war soldiers debunk the claims and/or declare Beauchamp a fabricating loser, you instead immediately align yourself with those who have every incentive to support TNR's continuing lie to maintain their jobs.

Why are you, cleek, and your brethren on the left so obsessed with denying TNR's and Beauchamp's culpability? If this issue really isn't worth commenting on, why do liberal blogs like Sadly No keep attacking the magazine's critics? If the articles savaging TNR are not accurate, why aren’t the find minds at top liberal blogs writing eloquent, fact-based defenses of TNR and its editorial staff?

Those, I think, are far more interesting questions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 14, 2007 01:28 PM

Come to think of it, there was one thing you left out, CY: Not only have the TNR editors obfuscated and lied, they've also seen fit to lash out at critics, in particular THE WEEKLY STANDARD and unnamed "conservative blogs," accusing them and others of being "reckless" and of having engaged in "smears." Foer even had the effrontery to demand apologies last week on the basis of one of the "editors"'s typically deceptive and empty "statements." This behavior is of a piece with the sickening character assassination aimed by TNR's defenders at individuals like Matt Sanchez.

What drives and continues to drive this discussion as much as anything else is the relentless and resolute refusal of TNR and its allies to engage their critics on a mature and thoughtful level, and instead to lie, mis-characterize, and, when all else including the incessant repetition of long-since debunked claims fails, to self-righteously demand that we shift attention to any other subject.

When TNR's editors, as they promised in their last major statement on this subject, accept responsibility on the basis of an honest accounting, this discussion may finally reach closure. In the meantime, their magazine will remain synonymous with bias, incompetence, unethical journalism, and intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at August 14, 2007 02:05 PM

Why are you, cleek, and your brethren on the left so obsessed with denying TNR's and Beauchamp's culpability?

feel free to link to as many instances of my "denying TNR's and Beauchamp's culpability" as you can find.

If this issue really isn't worth commenting on, why do liberal blogs like Sadly No keep attacking the magazine's critics?

because it's funny to watch you guys run around like little Wikipedia Browns, tirelessly sleuthing out the arcana in a case that is utterly meaningless. Beauchamp's story changes nothing about this war, not one single thing. nothing hinges on it, nothing is affected by it. but you guys are obsessed with this, determined as you seem to be, to be the guy who brings down the next Dan Rather. except now all you've got is a little wanna-be freelance writer for a political magazine. yay! so, you're inflating this into some grand symbol of all that is Left, as usual.

and, sadly for your crusade, nobody besides the residents of your echo chamber cares about this, because it is, in fact, a non-story. if Beauchamp's lying, then the only story is that he's lying; it changes nothing because, contrary to your grand extrapolations to the entirety of The Left, nobody outside TNR is basing anything on his story being true. besides hilarious, it's predictable; i mean, be honest, when was the last time you passed on an opportunity to try to make an issue into a denunciation of The Left ?

if he's not lying, his story is still nothing. you can read that kind of thing anywhere: war is hell, soldiers aren't polite? wow. pumped-up 24 year old guys in general are crude? wow. people in stressful situations sometimes make jokes around their peers that would be jaw-droppingly inappropriate anywhere else? wow. and the so-called "atrocities" he describes are simply petty, when compared to the things we actually know about (Abu-G, rape, murder, theft, loss of $6,000,000,000, 3000+ American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, millions displaced, etc.). his little tales of minor misbehavior don't even register.

it's the perfect right-wing blog swarm: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

why aren’t the find minds at top liberal blogs writing eloquent, fact-based defenses of TNR and its editorial staff?

why aren't liberal blogs defending the war-supporting TNR ? yeah, good question. you might as well ask why they failed to support Lieberman.

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 02:17 PM

Jeeze,

For someone who doesn't care about this "non" story, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time pounding the keys; and on the blogs, cleek=Geek.

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 02:26 PM

For someone who doesn't care about this "non" story, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time pounding the keys; and on the blogs,

i don't care about the story. i'm right there with the entire rest of the blogosphere laughing at CY and Ace as they desperately try to make something of this.

but CY asked a question, so he got an answer.

cleek=Geek

and proud of it, too.

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 02:29 PM

Cleek,

Thanks for the response..... But you are a liar.
You do care about this story. It is evidenced(sp?)
by your mere presence & posting. If it's such a non-story, why do you have so much emotional investment in it that you feel compelled to go on at length (posting) about it?

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 02:35 PM

why do you have so much emotional investment in it that you feel compelled to go on at length (posting) about it?

emotional investment? i guess you could say i'm invested in this for the laffs. TNR or Beauchamp? who cares. f' em both. but watching wingnuts self-reference themselves into a frenzy? that's pure comedy gold.

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 02:43 PM

So, cleek, were you equally amused by the left's Jeff Gannon wankfest a couple of years ago?

Posted by: Rob Crawford at August 14, 2007 02:50 PM

Sir,

Your comments are NOT indictitive of laughter or bemusement on your part. I say again .... You are either a liar, or a troll, but more than likely both. CY and others have taken this up as a matter of honor, honor for the truth, and honor for the 99.5% of our service members who are antithetical to the STB's out there. I find no humor there sir; and if you do...you should be ashamed.

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 02:53 PM

Jack, we've been through this with the cleeks of the world many times. For some reason (perhaps mental illness, or is it just flat out hypocrisy and dishonesty?), they feel compelled to attack other people for being interested in this story.

When I visit, say, movie poster collectors' message boards, they're not besieged by trolls attacking the assembled collectors for wasting time discussing movie posters. In the political realm, by contrast, they are hundreds of would-be discussion commissars who are under the impression that it's up to them to dictate what other people find to be interesting and meaningful. For their own part, they show themselves from square one to be incapable of and uninterested in polite discussion.

When dealing with such people, what could possibly be the point of re-stating all of the reasons, from concern for the reputation to the army to concern for journalistic standards and ethics to sheer intellectual curiosity? They don't want to investigate these matters in depth. If they did, they would by now already have seen this same issue discussed at length in several other places. They seem to take pleasure in the notion that someone cares about their uninformed and narrow-minded censure - just another trivial megalomania that crops up on internet message boards.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at August 14, 2007 02:58 PM
because it's funny to watch you guys run around like little Wikipedia Browns, tirelessly sleuthing out the arcana in a case that is utterly meaningless.

Oh, I'm sure you find it to be meaningless, cleek (though not meaningless enough to, you know, quit talking about it), but others obviously disagree.

Hundreds of angry soldiers have commented in various posts on this site, in emails, and on military blogs and message boards around the Internet. They obviously don't agree. They don't seem to find being libeled as those engaging in or allowing atrocities as "meaningless." They are, in the case of men posted at FOB Falcon, often quite personally offended.

Beauchamp's story changes nothing about this war, not one single thing. nothing hinges on it, nothing is affected by it.

Yep. What’s another empty slur against these baby-killers? Sure al Jazeera loves stuff like this when published in western media because it makes excellent propaganda to be used in terrorist recruiting, but no one is affected. Right?

And I’d also point out that quite a few people beyond this little "echo chamber" care about this story. USA Today, the NY Times, Newsweek and the Washington Post have all commented on this story, and I know for a fact that their are journalists who are delving ever deeper into this story.

Beauchamp's goose is pretty much cooked, butTNR's issues are only starting to get interesting. That a magazine continues to support false stories, attacks their critics instead do addressing their arguments, and composes a whitewash of an investigation is quite relevant and compelling.

If TNR can get away with running false stories, lying about their fact-checking and their investigation, and suffer no consequences, then there is little to keep any other news organization from even more blatantly fabricating stories. That might not matter to you now, but when they are able to get away with fraud on an issue that you care about, I suspect you’ll change your tune rather quickly.

And I’d once again note, since liberals seem to be ducking this fact, that TNR was a war supporter when Peter Beinart was editor, but that was well over a year ago. When Foer took over the job, his first editorial claimed that he was going to make TNR "more liberal."

As he has run anti-soldier fantasy as fact, and then attempted to justify it by deception, I'd say he's succeeded.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 14, 2007 03:00 PM
If this issue really isn't worth commenting on, why do liberal blogs like Sadly No keep attacking the magazine's critics?

Honestly? Stories like that of the Beauchamp affair speak to larger issues in the media and in politics. It isn't Beauchamp we're interested in, or Beauchamp's critics, but the recurring narratives that you find throughout postwar conservatism.

For instance, the way the right-blogosphere resembles the Goldwater movement in its purity and idealism, and how that plays easily into more problematic traits. I mean pace Hofstadter, specifically, although each of us has a different reading list.

That's really the underlying hook. It doesn't come out in every post, but every now and then one of us will do a little thesis statement.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 03:06 PM

So, cleek, were you equally amused by the left's Jeff Gannon wankfest a couple of years ago?

no, i was more amused by the fact that a gay hooker, who inappropriately used the Marine Corps as part of his on-line marketing, was allowed access to the White House press briefing. you'd think those seats would be a little hard to come by, and that it would take more than 8" uncut to get one. right? but, i suppose being a full-throated Bush supporter in this war against evil Leftism has its perks. so, good for him, i guess. a man's gotta make a living.

Your comments are NOT indictitive of laughter or bemusement on your part

of course they are. and i'm sorry if you're not picking up on that. but while i was writing it, i decided that if i slathered on any more mocking sarcasm people wouldn't be able to understand what i was trying to say... oh wait.

You are either a liar, or a troll, but more than likely both

calling someone a liar can be pretty serious business, so i'm a little wary of throwing that one around, m'self. sometimes, when i think someone is lying, i take a few deep breaths and try to see if maybe i'm just misunderstanding what they're actually saying. it saves embarrassment.

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 03:15 PM

CY,

Sorry, I don't normally resort to ad hom attackson blogs; but occasionally....

Geek... no apology to you.

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 03:25 PM

Hi everyone. I'm a newcomer to this story, so bear with me.

I honestly don't see how anything set forth above actually debunks or proves false anything in the TNR stories. All of what you call evidence seems like speculation based on cursory google searches and the like.

I feel like judgment ought to be reserved until the military makes a public report of the situation. Until then, it just seems like there are too many unknowns to make the kinds of definitive claims you are making here.

I admit that TNR's track record is not great. But they are under new management, so I don't think the current people should be tarnished with the errors of TNR's past.

Posted by: MRG at August 14, 2007 03:30 PM

Don't worry, Jack. I deleted your comment.

I'd advise all sides to refrain from personal attacks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 14, 2007 03:31 PM

"of course they are. and i'm sorry if you're not picking up on that. but while i was writing it, i decided that if i slathered on any more mocking sarcasm people wouldn't be able to understand what i was trying to say... oh wait."

Well, it would help us if you added a "LOL" or a " :-) / ;-0 ") to your comments. Then we would know you're using sarcasm in your posts here. LOL!

Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 14, 2007 03:37 PM

Hey, what happened to my comment? Did I break protocol here? There was no ad hom or profanity or BDS in what I said. OK, the Jamil Hussein/Scott Beauchamp link was a little over the top....but I'm dead serious about Beauchamp's connection to the Iranian Savak. Could be a Pullitizer Prize in fleshing that story out, CY!

Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 14, 2007 03:43 PM

I would respectfully remind Cleek that sarcasm is, in fact, lying, by use of context and connotation.

"Your comments are NOT indictitive of laughter or bemusement on your part

of course they are. and i'm sorry if you're not picking up on that. but while i was writing it, i decided that if i slathered on any more mocking sarcasm people wouldn't be able to understand what i was trying to say... oh wait.

You are either a liar, or a troll, but more than likely both

calling someone a liar can be pretty serious business, so i'm a little wary of throwing that one around, m'self. sometimes, when i think someone is lying, i take a few deep breaths and try to see if maybe i'm just misunderstanding what they're actually saying. it saves embarrassment.

Sir, I read your statements and perfectly understood the intended "sarcasm". It does not alter my statements.

You continue,....... so you have some emotional investment in this thread, whether you care to admit it or not.

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 03:47 PM

Oh, I'm sure you find it to be meaningless, cleek (though not meaningless enough to, you know, quit talking about it),

pshaw. i can talk about meaningless things all day!

Hundreds of angry soldiers have commented in various posts on this site, in emails, and on military blogs and message boards around the Internet. They obviously don't agree.

ok, fair enough.

but i still think you're trying to inflate this issue for partisan gain. at least, that's what it looks like to me.

Yep. What’s another empty slur against these baby-killers? Sure al Jazeera loves stuff like this when published in western media because it makes excellent propaganda to be used in terrorist recruiting, but no one is affected. Right?

again, you're completely mixing scales (ex. Beauchamp v Abu-G). and, no Beauchamp doesn't help, but the fire's already raging; throwing Beauchamp's little magazine articles on it isn't going to make things any hotter than they already are. do you think there are many fence-sitters out there, this far into this war?

that's my point - it's not the kind of story that's going to change anyone's mind, on any side of it (neither pro or against at home, nor on any side in the conflict itself), about the war.

And I’d also point out that quite a few people beyond this little "echo chamber" care about this story. USA Today, the NY Times, Newsweek and the Washington Post have all commented on this story...

most the MSM coverage i've seen/heard has been pretty thin, and mostly focused on the blogs' reaction to it, not to the story itself or how it proves that The Left hates America - the angle you (and Ace and the rest) seem to be trying to push. get the military to investigate if Beauchamp was lying? fine. but you're out on a limb with that stuff. it's making you look silly.

ah, what am i saying! please, keep it up!

If TNR can get away with running false stories...then there is little to keep any other news organization from even more blatantly fabricating stories. That might not matter to you now, but when they are able to get away with fraud on an issue that you care about, I suspect you’ll change your tune rather quickly.

oh come now. maybe you don't read many leftie blogs, but there's no shortage of them railing against shoddy reporting. don't even begin to presume you guys have some kind of monopoly on media criticism, or valid points to make about what they deliver.

And I’d once again note, since liberals seem to be ducking this fact, that TNR was a war supporter when Peter Beinart was editor, but that was well over a year ago...

maybe it's just hard to erase the taint of being a cheerleader for such a fiasco. and then there's Peretz...

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 03:54 PM

Jack C-

Can you point out where Cleek is lying about his opinion? By your standards, he may well be a troll, but I don't see any factual statement he/she made that would warrant such a hateful label. Now, if Cleek had used trumped up and fabricated facts to invade and devastate a country, maybe he'd deserved the liar label...but let's try to have some civil discourse here on a subject that appears to be relatively meaningless when compared to the big picture, OK?

Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 14, 2007 04:00 PM

I would respectfully remind Cleek that sarcasm is, in fact, lying, by use of context and connotation.

for the edification of all, here's the definition of "sarcasm":

sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See synonyms at wit1.

nope. nothing about "lying". maybe you're using a different dictionary ? (see, that was sarcasm, too. kindly note that it doesn't contain a lie of any kind. (more sarcasm. this is fun! (that last one wasn't sarcasm - it really is fun!)))

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 04:01 PM

Like many other works of fiction written by uncreative hacks, ex-PFC Beauchamps stories rely on stock characters and stereotypes. His portrayal of himself and his friends is as offensive to me as I suppose African Americans would be offended by certain stereotypes that they are often portrayed as.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 14, 2007 04:02 PM

Hm. I can't hang out here for long, but another thing apropos Beauchamp and TNR:

It's a point of context that we've made fun of TNR repeatedly over the years. Our loyalty to them as an institution is approximately zero, and unless I've missed something, none of us has expressed much of an affinity with Beauchamp.

I think the general feeling, both with us and generally on the left, is that the Beauchamp stories are quite likely embellished here and there, but that any importance such a thing would otherwise have is shaded out by this rage that's erupted at TNR, from the Weekly Standard and via the right-blogs.

Because TNR is universally regarded as a neocon magazine, sale or no sale, and they still have a strong pro-war editorial policy. The ideological lineup here doesn't make much sense -- especially since The Nation was simultaneously publishing a whole special issue on troops' negative experiences in the war.

There's a certain aspect of they-eat-their-own that's particularly striking, and unexplainable.


Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 04:04 PM

"TNR is universally regarded as a neocon magazine"

Evidently not universally, unless you are referring to the particular, insular universe you live in.

Posted by: notropis at August 14, 2007 04:12 PM
Because TNR is universally regarded as a neocon magazine, sale or no sale, and they still have a strong pro-war editorial policy.

Um, yeah. Sure they do. Not.

Posted by: Pablo at August 14, 2007 04:15 PM

cleek, your life must be poor indeed, if provoking a long chain of comment-response on this "meaningless" thread and issue is something you have so very much time for.

We're the ones laughing, cleek ;-)

Posted by: tjmmz01 at August 14, 2007 04:16 PM

cleek, your life must be poor indeed,

tjmzkzzz1@!, i appreciate your concern. but rest assured, my life is fine.

We're the ones laughing, cleek

then we're all laughing: i'm laughing at you, you're laughing at me. it all works out.

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 04:24 PM

Bystander,

Cleek said he didn't care about this; and he did so at length. I indcated that anyone who went to such lengths to say that they didn't care about this "non-story" in this obscure "echo chamber",
must actually care, or have some emotional investment in the story due to the continual postings. Hence, LIAR.

For someone who doesn't care about this "non" story, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time pounding the keys; and on the blogs,

i don't care about the story. i'm right there with the entire rest of the blogosphere laughing at CY and Ace as they desperately try to make something of this.

but CY asked a question, so he got an answer.

Posted by cleek at August 14, 2007 02:29 PM

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 04:27 PM

ok guys. i'm done.

i've had a fine chat with you all, this afternoon. nobody's minds were changed, and nothing was accomplished - another day on the blogs. but it's time to go home and see the wife and cats.

so, :cheers:

[buy yourself a pint]

Posted by: cleek at August 14, 2007 04:27 PM

Actually TNR is universally regarded as a far left wing fanatical kook magazine.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 14, 2007 04:27 PM

cleek, you were at work? What job weren't you doing? And while you obviously don't mind "talk[ing] about meaningless things all day," what's your employer's opinion? Personally, I can only talk about meaningless things all day when I'm on my own time (like now.)

Posted by: notropis at August 14, 2007 04:33 PM

Oh hi, Pablo. Have you come to offer trivial objections in order to position yourself as the winner of the discussion?

This guy Marty Peretz. Iran hawk, Likudnik. Editor-in-chief of TNR.

I know you'd like to challenge small specifics of what I said in order to achieve a victory in arguing on the Internet. But as I said earlier, it's not very interesting arguing with you because of the ratio of actual arguments to cheap Bwahahas.

Thank you. You're welcome.


Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 04:34 PM

for the edification of all,

"Yeah, right" can be sarcasm. It is also a lie.

Put all the spin on it that ya want. Feel free to cherry pick definitions.

How 'bout "STB is such a great writer!" or TNR has THE BEST fact checkers!"

Posted by: Jack C at August 14, 2007 04:35 PM
Actually TNR is universally regarded as a far left wing fanatical kook magazine.

You mean like when Peretz endorsed Bush in '04?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 04:48 PM

How TNR is seen "universally" is purely a matter of opinion, though I can't see a magazine whose most notorious recent article prior to "Shock Troops" was Jonathan Chait's "Why I Hate George Bush" as dependably "neocon." More to the point, as alluded to by others, Foer and much of the rest of the TNR cast have openly sought to distance themselves from previous editor Beinart's specific positions and from TNR's historically more hawkish stance - a move made explicit in Foer's open alignment of the magazine with "more liberal" positions within the Democratic Party.

Regardless of where you place TNR on the ideological spectrum, however, the particular case does point to a larger syndrome of overcompensation on the part of former war-supporters. In the past, around the same time Al Gore was known as a DLC centrist who thought Bush 41 stopped too soon during the Gulf War, he was also TNR's favorite son. Gore's swing to the left preceded TNR's, but the Beauchamp stories reflect the same patterns visible elsewhere in the media where older centrists and centrist organizations have sought to ingratiate themselves with younger and more dynamic forces on the left. Some of the most unhinged and irresponsible statements on Iraq have come precisely from establishment voices that formerly supported either Bush's specific policies or pre-Bush hawkish stances: In addition to Gore, names that immediately come to mind are NEW YORK TIMES Editor Bill Keller and Andrew Sullivan, though in the political realm we could look instead to people like Harry Reid & John Edwards. In that sense, publication and support for Beauchamp is just one case history in the study of a peculiar left-center disease.

As for Peretz, to my knowledge he hasn't spoken on STB yet. He may be compensating in a different way. Being out of step with the views of TNR staffers may make him hesitant to intervene, but I still believe he is standing by Foer in the same way that Foer has stood by Beauchamp - conditionally, until certain partly behind-the-scenes processes hinted at in the last TNR editors statement have run their course.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at August 14, 2007 06:08 PM

So glad you brought up the CanWest connection because that is an interesting part of all of this. Their purchase of TNR cannot be overlooked as a contributing factor in this. CanWest itself is implicated with the Conrad Black trial, of course, and it is his holding company that went over to CanWest under the auspices of the Asper family that has its own political outlook on things. Now that holding group of Mr. Black is associated with Hollinger Investments through the cooperative agreement to buy the J-Post...and who is involved with Hollinger?

In one of those lovely twists of fate two people that you would never, in your life, think of having anything close to TNR show up: Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger! There you go, two of the biggest movers and shakers in foreign policy involved with the very company that purchased TNR. Why, it would almost make you suspicious of what happened there...

Let a thousand conspiracy theories bloom!

Mind you, my position on TNR's lack of ethics and no one holding them accountable remains the same, either way. If you can't even figure out what a war crime *is* when you report one, then you really shouldn't be getting into a high dudgeon about things going on in a war: if you can't tell the difference between such activities, then you really have no place complaining about them and when you exploit a war crime for your circulation you should be expecting a prosecution. Apparently we are too refined to ever enforce laws these days... on anything.

Posted by: ajacksonian at August 14, 2007 06:12 PM

Jack C, your insistence on calling cleek a liar is absurd. Your expectation that each and every word he writes be taken absolutely literally is, first of of all, characteristic of a young child, and, second, unrealistic in the snark-and-sarcasm-filled world of the Internet.

Anyway: how about this one by you?

Put all the spin on it that ya want. Feel free to cherry pick definitions.

Now, anybody who has been reading the posts in this thread know that you don't actually feel that way. If you actually felt that it was okay for cleek to put whatever spin he wants on the story or his reaction to it, you wouldn't have engaged so strenuously by calling him a liar for what he said. You don't actually want him to "feel free" to cherrypick definitions. Therefore: a lie.

By your own standards, Jack C, you're a liar.

Posted by: nunaim at August 14, 2007 06:19 PM
Oh hi, Pablo. Have you come to offer trivial objections in order to position yourself as the winner of the discussion?

No, sweetie, I came to offer a TNR editorial that shatters the illusion you're trying to foist of TNR being "universally regarded as a neocon magazine". Mainly because you're full of crap.

Was there another question, Retardo?

Posted by: Pablo at August 14, 2007 06:50 PM

TNR is a neocon magazine?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Pardon me while I wipe my beverage off my laptop screen.

I just took a gander at the front page of their website.

On it were stories that included:

The Failed Architect
Exploiting 9/11 brought Karl Rove's dream of GOP domination within his grasp. Then he overreached.
by John B. Judis

The Overhyping of David Petraeus
by Andrew J. Bacevich

Should Attacking Al Qaeda In Pakistan Be Off Limits?
by Dennis Ross

That last one is Obama's big proposal... is Obama a neocon now?

Once again, SNCS, you are arguing against something for which ample evidence is readily available.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 07:05 PM

It does little good to feed the trolls.

Really.

TNR chose a committed idealogue and wannabe writer who was married to a TNR staffer and published his so-called "diaries" for the express purpose of showing the damage that combat does to men and by implication show that the war in Iraq is somehow "wrong."

These facts alone should give lie to the notion that TNR is a "neocon" enterprise.

And let's be honest, the term "neocon" in this or virtually any other context (made the more obvious by the descriptive "Likudnik") is virtual proof of moonbattery and not-so-tacit anti-Semitism.

What is interesting about this whole sordid mess is the silence of Matin Peretz.

Peretz is a brilliant man and someone with a lifetime of experience in all things political.

The answer lies perhaps in his allowing the young and not-so-experienced Foer work his way through the mess he made.

For now, anyway.

It would be surprising, to say the least, for Peretz to come out in favor of the way Foer created and handled this disaster, no matter what the moonbats and trolls say.

My guess is that there will be a formal and painful comeuppance for Frank Foer and that will be that.

Just sayin'.

And don't feed the trolls.

Just sayin', again.

Posted by: MTT at August 14, 2007 07:06 PM

This has been almost as fun and as high brow as an infestation of the minions of J.C. Christian, another gathering place of the intellectual elite on the left. Perhaps instead of boring themselves with a story they profess no interest in, the representatives of Sadly, No! could concentrate on forcing another progressive blogger to resign and join Jesus' General in that select circle of liberal achievement.

That was entertainment (and erudition)!

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 14, 2007 07:27 PM

So by cleek's logic, Stephen Glass's lies didn't mean anything because they didn't have any effect on the software industry.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 14, 2007 09:04 PM

This is just a suggestion, but, please stop.

Posted by: marc page at August 14, 2007 09:10 PM
How TNR is seen "universally" is purely a matter of opinion, though I can't see a magazine whose most notorious recent article prior to "Shock Troops" was Jonathan Chait's "Why I Hate George Bush" as dependably "neocon." More to the point, as alluded to by others, Foer and much of the rest of the TNR cast have openly sought to distance themselves from previous editor Beinart's specific positions and from TNR's historically more hawkish stance - a move made explicit in Foer's open alignment of the magazine with "more liberal" positions within the Democratic Party.

This is true, but I think the meaning of the term 'neocon' depends largely on where you stand.

TNR has held a strange position since the late '70s as the voice of a functionally imaginary constituency of right-wing liberals -- a creation of a certain very small policy elite in Washington that isn't represented by any sort of popular movement.

Sometimes it's been aligned almost perfectly with Republican interests, while other times it strays pretty widely. But the constants have been a sympathy for wonky center-left social policies (where possible), and a near-Podhoretzian neoconservatism on foreign affairs, specifically Mideastern, especially having to do with Israel.

Foer's editorship has seen a shift against Iraq and other Mideast interventionism, but it's matched by a similar shift within neoconservatism in that the big neocon question on the war is no longer how to spread the gains in Iraq throughout the wider Mideast, or how to win, but how to survive as a doctrine with Iraq as a sort of constant negative advertisement.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 10:02 PM

And let's be honest, the term "neocon" in this or virtually any other context (made the more obvious by the descriptive "Likudnik") is virtual proof of moonbattery and not-so-tacit anti-Semitism.

Well there's a blast from the past. I haven't heard that particular disgusting smear in a few years.

I guess the 'other contexts' include when neocons call themselves neocons. Or is it like that other n-word you always hear in rap music?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 10:19 PM

SNCS, I am sure you can provide quotes of prominent commentators and political figures (not minor bloggers like my humble self) calling themselves neocons within the last couple of years.

Please do so now.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 10:24 PM

Shorter everybody:

LIAR!
Anti-Semite
Rewriting history
LIE-berals
Clinton/Lewinsky
Smearing the troops
Where's my XBox? Come on, where's my XBox?
Moonbat
Hmmm
Scott Thomas Beau-CHUMP

Posted by: nunaim at August 14, 2007 10:24 PM
SNCS, I am sure you can provide quotes of prominent commentators and political figures (not minor bloggers like my humble self) calling themselves neocons within the last couple of years.

Please do so now.

You mean like leave out this person and instead cite sources such as this one?

Now you can go look for instances of the anti-Semitism smear. Hint: Comedian Julia Gorin in the WSJ editorial section.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 10:33 PM

SNCS, you are hilarious.

I specifically tell you not to bother including minor bloggers, and what do you go and find? A minor blogger! And, you point to an old site that hasn't been updated since March! Do you even read the links you post?

As for your book, it's so popular that it's rated as the 279,514th highest seller in books! Wow, watch out Harry Potter!

Thank you, however, for demonstrating your ignorance far better than I ever could.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 10:59 PM

It's amazing how non-interested the folks over at the Sadly, No! laugh factory are in this story. They just can't help themselves.

Either that, or they are taking a break from splitting atoms, with their minds.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 14, 2007 11:02 PM

Thank you for your impolite comment!

So perhaps you'd prefer her newer site with the Pajamas Media banner on it.

And if the AEI's Mr. Stelzer isn't selling well enough for you, perhaps you'd prefer Mark Gerson.

Now's your cue to descend into semantic quibbling attempting to claim that 'neoconservative' is totally different from 'neocon.'

Please show your work, link appropriately, etc.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:09 PM

Maybe they ran out of cheetos.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 14, 2007 11:09 PM
It's amazing how non-interested the folks over at the Sadly, No! laugh factory are in this story. They just can't help themselves.

Well, you know, sometimes we like to come out and match skillz with the top minds on the Internet.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:14 PM

Sorry, SNCS, I don't follow your cues.

Your Gerson "link" doesn't work, by the way. You really should link appropriately, you know.

And, out of 83 blogs on the Pajamas Media network, you found one out of the two that mention "neocon." That makes, what, about 2% of the blogs on Pajamas Media? Amazing, it's a neocon groundswell!

Every time I think you can't get more absurd in your ranting, you surprise me.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 11:17 PM

Welp, if I'm forgetting to close blockquote tags, now's a good time to say adieu.

As always, feel free to make blustery and self-congratulatory comments after I'm gone about how I'm really dumb and you were totally winning the argument, et alia.


Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:22 PM
As always, feel free to make blustery and self-congratulatory comments after I'm gone about how I'm really dumb and you were totally winning the argument, et alia.

You mean like you're going to do on DU, rather than admit that you're skulking off with your tail between your legs?

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 11:25 PM

"Well, you know, sometimes we like to come out and match skillz with the top minds on the Internet."

Gavin - Why aren't you there then, or singing with your gospel hair band, rather than showing your ass here. After all, on your home blog, you claim there are only mindless neocons and such here. Why waste your precious crazy ninja blogging skillz.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 14, 2007 11:29 PM

Oh, here's the Gerson link that you couldn't find on your own, despite Gerson being a very influential figure.

Thanks for digging up nothing of your own, providing no evidence of anything, and being rude. That's why I come here -- for the ambiance.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:31 PM

Wow, that Gerson book is another one off the Amazon hit parade! It's 934,639th in sales! That would even knock the Bible off the all-time best-seller list!

What next, something by Pat Robertson?

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 11:36 PM

I would like to thank you, SNCS, for helping to prove that neocons are not nearly the powerful force the anti-Semites on the left would like us to believe they are.

Whether you yourself are an anti-Semite or just a mindless follower, I leave to the readers to determine for themselves.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 11:41 PM

Damn C-C-G, that Gerson ranking you just posted just knocked Glenn Greenwald's newest book down another notch. That guy can't catch a break, even with all his family, friends and commenters buying copies.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 14, 2007 11:43 PM

Yeah, Daley, those neocons really can sell books, can't they?

Posted by: C-C-G at August 14, 2007 11:44 PM
Wow, that Gerson book is another one off the Amazon hit parade! It's 934,639th in sales!

It's also blue. Only non-blue books count.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:48 PM
Yeah, Daley, those neocons really can sell books, can't they?

Irvin Kristol, author of Neoconservatism, can't sell a book. He is a big nobody.

Tan books don't count. Anybody knows that.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:55 PM

Do you even know who any of these people are?

You have no idea of your own intellectual history, do you? You just read blogs.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 14, 2007 11:58 PM

From Irwin Setzler's introduction to the all time bestseller, The Neocon Reader, :

The war in Iraq is the culmination of a neoconservative takeover of America, if much of the European and some of the American media are to be believed. Thanks to a small cabal of intellectuals 'conservative ideologues... scornful of... idealistic multilateralism' according to the Economist - America has abandoned its traditional foreign policy and become an unilateralist, imperialist hegemon, or hyperpower, given to preemptive strikes against any nation that it decides threatens its security.

...

It is the goal of this collection of essays to replace heat with light, and separate the truths underlying some of the fears of neoconservatisom and neocons from the fantasies."

Man, if I didn't know better, I'd think Setzler was Paul freaking Wolfowitz! This is some of that award winning satire, right SNCS?

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:01 AM

SNCS, I have never claimed to be a neocon. I am a Reaganite Conservative.

And I know all about the history of the Reagan Revolution, because I lived through it.

In short, you just made a fool of yourself again. It's getting to be a habit for you, isn't it?

Posted by: C-C-G at August 15, 2007 12:07 AM

I can't believe you goofballs. Irwin Setzler was an AEI scholar, and this is a foundational anthology with all your favorite stuff in it. And you don't even have any idea what it is.

Oh, and right: The Beatles were a flop, man. Not a single one of their albums is on the current Billboard charts.

I swear to God, this bugs me more than anything else I've seen today. Have you read Fukuyama's 'End of History?' If not, can you possibly understand the impact of 9/11 on conservatism? Have you heard of Francis Fukuyama?

I'm frickin' staring at you with my mouth hanging open. No joke.


Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:10 AM
Please show your work, link appropriately, etc.

Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Cutting edge Gerson, sadly out of print. I was so hoping to find the part here he refers to himself as a Neocon.

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:11 AM
Irwin Setzler was an AEI scholar...

And Larry Johnson was a CIA agent, but let's get back to talking about TNR swirling the drain.

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:14 AM

SNCS, this may shock you, but there are lots of conservative think-tanks and associations. AEI is but one of many, and hardly the largest or most powerful.

You may want to look beyond your boogey-men of AEI and check out places like The Heritage Foundation, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and The Club for Growth, just to name three.

Why all the rancor against AEI, by the way?

Posted by: C-C-G at August 15, 2007 12:17 AM

The neocon issue aside, and the "significance" issue regarding the Beauchamp affair aside, it seems clear to me that a major political journal publishing articles that are blatantly false is behavior that ought to be roundly condemned by all, regardless of ideology. Really, the only ones who would have anything to lose from such a statement would be those who want to believe that the war is a tarnished, morally compromised effort. So which is it? Is Beauchamp a liar and a weasel or are our troops barbaric thugs? Time for the Left to put its money where its collective mouth is...

Posted by: Nathan Tabor at August 15, 2007 12:17 AM
And I know all about the history of the Reagan Revolution, because I lived through it.

So you must know about the Goldwater movement then. Maybe you'd like to explain how Norman Podhoretz emulated the Goldwater movement in Commentary's conversion to interventionist anti-Communism, founding what we now call 'neoconservatism' while exerting great influence on Reagan's foreign policy.

Except no, maybe you wouldn't, because you only 'lived through the Reagan era,' e.g., you don't actually know anything about it.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:20 AM

Oh good grief, now it's Nathan Tabor.

This is like a weird dream.

So Nathan, did you ever disclose the Hunter job? The Giuliani folks were pissed.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:22 AM

A magazine changed its editorial stance, SNCS?!?

You don't say!

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:22 AM
A magazine changed its editorial stance, SNCS?!?

You don't say!

Oh wonderful, you've never heard of Commentary. Norman Podhoretz? John Podhortz's dad? Is it ringing any bells?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:24 AM

Peter Beinart? Franklin Foer? Anything?

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:25 AM

If you knew half of what you think you know, SNCS, you'd know that the Goldwater wing and the Reagan wing of the GOP have been bitter rivals since the days of those two men.

This was most recently demonstrated when the modern version of the Goldwater wing, led by President Bush, tried to push through immigration "reform," which was loaded with things for big business owners who like hiring illegals because they work cheap. The modern Reaganites pushed back, tho, and won the battle.

Surely you remember the scathing words from the President for the opponents (of which I am a minor member... see my blog for proof) of the bill.

In short, you're trying to make a portion of the party emblematic of the whole, and you've chosen the portion that is waning, as evidenced by the abysmal sales of the books you mentioned earlier.

And that, neighbor, is why you keep losing these arguments and have to shift the argument to a different point so often. Because your fundamental premise is flawed, yet you refuse to even attempt to comprehend that.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 15, 2007 12:26 AM

One would think that an Award Winning Satire Blogger would recognize sarcasm pretty quickly.

One would think....

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:27 AM
SNCS, this may shock you, but there are lots of conservative think-tanks and associations. AEI is but one of many, and hardly the largest or most powerful.

I can't believe you think you're informing me.

Why don't you give me a brief precis of the history of conservative foundations? Or here's a simpler question: Why did Heritage spin off Townhall.com? That's a one-sentence answer right there.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:31 AM

SNCS is still here? I thought it said it was leaving.

For an unimportant, boring story that is a non-issue, it's like a magnet for that dude. You would think a super important intellectual giant of a lefty blogger would have more important things to do with his time than to hang out here. His dozen or so loyal commenters are waiting with such fawning praise back on his home blog it's almost like group fellatio. He's declared victory hasn't he?

I guess I'm supposed to feel already snarked into oblivion or whatever lameass shit he was trying to do. He also wants to tell me what my favorite conservative ideas are. Right. I've felt worse after reading a New York Times editorial and they write and reason better. My teenagers are better.

What's that 1970s expression, you know, from before those guys were born?

Don't go away mad, just go away.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 15, 2007 12:37 AM
This was most recently demonstrated when the modern version of the Goldwater wing, led by President Bush...

Well there's one I've never heard before.

So how is it that the Bush administration is constituted around an admixture of former Nixon and Reagan people? Was Nixon part of the Goldwater wing, or is there a continuity between Nixon and Reagan? Wouldn't you agree that McCain is the inheritor of the Goldwater populist tradition?

You keep saying you're winning all these arguments, but your points are wrong.

But of course you can say you're winning. I'll even let you win if you want.


Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:40 AM

Just call him a Neocon and let some spittle fly, SNCS. That always works.

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:42 AM
One would think that an Award Winning Satire Blogger would recognize sarcasm pretty quickly.

Honestly, my meter got stuck after you said Setzler was a parodist. That's the Setzler book you're talking about! It's full of all those famous essays that everyone always quotes, but that aren't on the Internet.

Woo, not selling so hot. It must be a big flop.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 12:46 AM
Honestly, my meter got stuck after you said Setzler was a parodist.

Thing is, I didn't say Setzler was a parodist. You see, in response to this comment:

SNCS, I am sure you can provide quotes of prominent commentators and political figures (not minor bloggers like my humble self) calling themselves neocons within the last couple of years.

...you offered the Setzler book, and I offered a quote from his introduction to the book that shows that not only doesn't he consider himself a neocon, he doesn't seem to care much for them.

No parody, just rebuttal directly from the source you linked. Get it? Heh.

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 12:56 AM

Halp us SNCS!

Tell us what to think!!1!!111!!!1!!

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 15, 2007 01:00 AM

Well, it's 'Stelzer' in any case. You need to finish the intro to see where he's going. It's a 'some say x, but here's y' construction.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 01:01 AM
Us stoopid rethuglitards don't unnerstand those big words you is using.

Dude, if you're going to be a conservative, it's not shameful to pick up the freaking major works in the field to see what you're actually talking about.

It's a matter of some irony that a lefty comedy-blogger is here telling you this.

I forgive you everything. It's all been surreal to me since Tabor showed up.

God, I need to go to bed. Welp, later.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 01:07 AM
Us stoopid rethuglitards don't unnerstand those big words you is using.

Dude, if you're going to be a conservative, it's not shameful to pick up the freaking major works in the field to see what you're actually talking about.

It's a matter of some irony that a lefty comedy-blogger is here telling you this.

I forgive you everything. It's all been surreal to me since Tabor showed up.

God, I need to go to bed. Welp, later.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Customer Services at August 15, 2007 01:09 AM
You need to finish the intro to see where he's going.

Oh please. Tell us where he wends his way into approval of what he sees as:

...a small cabal of intellectuals 'conservative ideologues... scornful of... idealistic multilateralism' according to the Economist - America has abandoned its traditional foreign policy and become an unilateralist, imperialist hegemon, or hyperpower, given to preemptive strikes against any nation that it decides threatens its security.

Quote him, please.

Posted by: Pablo at August 15, 2007 01:31 AM

Thank you SNCS!

I knew you'd tell what to do.

I'll get right on it.

Do you know anything about birthin' babies by any chance?

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 15, 2007 01:58 AM

Hey, who's up for a little fauxtography this morning? BlackFive's got a nice round up.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 15, 2007 08:14 AM

I see SNCS is still at history revision.

Just one point, then I must dash off to work (you know what work is, righ, SNCS?)

Anyone who thinks that the Reagan White House was made up only of Reaganites is delusional, and has no real grasp of politics. Reagan let George H. W. Bush work in the White House, and he once called Reaganomics "voodoo economics."

Now, tell me that the elder Bush was a committed Reaganite conservative, and your descent into idiocy will be complete.

Or, you can come up with another non sequitur and try yet again to spin neocons into a great evil conspiracy... which in itself shows where you stand politically.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 15, 2007 09:16 AM

Shorter SNCS: I can name books!

I demand that you read them.

The power of SNCS compels you.

The power of SNCS compels you.

The power of SNCS compels you.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 15, 2007 09:50 AM

Hmmmm.

Just what is Beauchamp's job in Iraq anyways?

Is he a grunt? A Bradley driver? Stryker crewman? Or is he a fobbit?

Posted by: memomachine at August 15, 2007 11:24 AM

Hmmm
Hmmm
Hmmm
Hmmm

Posted by: Worn-Out Catchphrase at August 15, 2007 11:28 AM