From the Weekly Standard:
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp — author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns — signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods — fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
[…]
According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”
The magazine’s editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety — meant to illustrate the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war” — took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been “melted” by an IED.
Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic’s editors complained that the military investigation was “short-circuiting” TNR’s own fact-checking efforts. “Beauchamp,” they said, “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.”
Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?
The likely spin will be that Beauchamp is just saying what the army needs to hear, and that his stories are more “true” than the army will ever let on — a fact that (understandably, but unnecessarily, I think) continues to keep Allah up at night; I suspect Beauchamp would be far more worried about lying to an Army investigator than he would about lying to an editor who has already proved himself to be resolutely gullible.
Such spin, when it comes, will be offered only half-heartedly, and those who offer it will do so merely to mitigate their own embarrassment (or, conversely, to prevent going too far out on a limb in advance of independent corroboration) and try to muddy the extent of their previous defense.
John Cole will go back to noting how the story never mattered — and that the “nutters” only seized upon the story to begin with because it enables them to ignore the Iraq quagmire. And to give improbable credence to a guy who did gay porn. With his gay porn cock. Of lies.
But as I wrote earlier in response to Cole’s hysterics, it does matter (sorry, Uncle Jimbo) — and those who were instrumental in preventing Beauchamp’s fictions from becoming established “truths” should feel proud that they pestered and needled and investigated and fact-checked until the bogus tales were revealed for the opportunistic fictions that they are.
****
(h/t CJ Burch; see also, Ace and Baldilocks, who stresses that Beauchamp recanted before TNR put out his statement (though they likely had it earlier); Michelle Malkin weighs in.)
****
update: Is Beauchamp both a fabulist AND a plagiarist?
****
update: Predictably, “reasonable conservative” John Cole trots out an entire battalion of straw men:
There is nothing official, yet, but I think I speak for everyone when I state that I think this definitively proves that our troops are, to a man and woman, angels, there never have been any jerks in the military, and we can all expect a decrease in violence in theatre now that the Jihadi’s who were worked up into an America hating-frenzy after reading Beauchamp’s pieces in the TNR read that the Weekly Standard has debunked them. Hallelujah.
[…]
I still maintain one of the first things I wrote about this absurd story:
The funniest thing in all of this is that there is no way to prove one way or another Beauchamp is lying, but now, even if Beauchamp is lying, he comes out looking better than the asshole armchair commandos attacking him.
Sure. Why wouldn’t a guy who published lies in a prominent national policy magazine come out looking better than those who called him on those lies — and turned out to be correct?
After all, Beauchamp is only guilty of lying. Whereas those who “attacked” him? They’re guilty of being, well, terrible meanies.
****
update: Patterico joins in.
Wadda ya bet J. Cole just chooses to ignore the thing and hope it goes away.
I mean, why seek the truth when you can just follows the memes?
Uncle Andy’s Old-Fashioned Crow Sandwich
2 slices of bread, toasted
1 cooperative Corvus brachyrhynchos
1 dash of paprika
Lightly dust crow with paprika, place between bread slices, and enjoy.
For extra irony, serve only to soldiers in the winter.
Will TNR return from their “vacation” to address this?
I would be surprised if Private Beauchamp receives anything beyond a dishonorable discharge.
You win; the skull piece fits perfectly on your head, matted hair notwithstanding.
You win, too, cynn. You just don’t yet realize it.
BWAHAHAHA! It’s that what you wingers are going to hang your hat on? It’s obvious to anyone Beauchamp is a liar! Oh, wait.
JD,
I believe that he’ll receive a regular discharge upon completion of his enlistment. He has acknowledged his lies and accepted discipline – he goes straight to cipher status and as much extra duty as a caring First Sergeant can discover.
If TNR moves with similiar dispatch in getting Foer out of his office and the building then we can almost pretend this didn’t happen. Other than regarding anything published in TNR as a probable total fabrication, of course.
Fake but accurate, all over again. That will be the meme of the night, and tomorrow.
They should have known better than to listen to Beauchamp anyway. Geez.
Didn’t John Kerry “truth to the power” that one enough for everyone to get. He’s stuck in Iraq because he has no education or money.
Duh
There’s a lot of toilets in that boy’s future. Too bad Franklin Foer won’t be there to help him scrub.
Next we’ll be hearing complaints that Beauchamp was sent to Guantanamo and forced wear women’s underwear on his head or, worse, Matt Sanchez’s.
Nevermind the facts; bravely they’ll be trolled…oh, hi, Timmy. How’s your blood pressure, today?
Oh….
Never mind.
Emily Litella
My niece, a very smart and liberal young lady, has been questioning her beliefs more and more lately. She no longer has the same respect for the press as her college professors taught her. They hurt thier cause everytime they lie or exaggerate to get thier point across. If thier views are so obvious, there would be no need for these tactics.
General Discharge under Less than Honorable conditions. Article 15 hearings are sufficient to administer this, and they do not want to get in a situation where this clown gets more attention than he has already gotten. This will happen forthwith, so they can wash their hands of this asshat, as he was likely in trouble prior to this, and for his safety, but more importantly, for the safety of his platoon.
I’m shocked, shocked!
So he told the lie before he told the truth before he told the lie. Another Kerry in the making.
[…] protein wisdom, Power Line, The Corner, Hot Air, The Jawa Report, Wizbang, Confederate Yankee, Flopping Aces, JunkYardBlog, Gateway Pundit and A Blog For AllLast 10 posts by BitheadAbout that pump priceBlogger polling: The Most and Least desired Republican nominee for ‘08Global Warming as a cause for the Kos meltdown?FISA law updated.. finally Congress gets one right. But guess who complains about it? Fayed to Israel: “Don’t end the occupation, yet.”Hosting Matters, or not, maybe.A closed mind….What if a Right-Wing site did this?Terrorism in CarolinaA questionable set of accomplishments. Extend the reach of this postRelated links […]
geoffb – If he would drive a car off of a bridge and leave a girl to drown, he would be a shoe-in for the Senate upon Sen. Gin & Tonic’s retirement (or when his liver finally explodes).
I think JD is right in that they have to anticipate that he might attempt to leverage the credibility his lies have earned him on the left. It’s a futile gesture, but wouldn’t a clean discharge be an endorsement?
He will not, under any circumstances, get a clean discharge, if by that you mean the standard Honorable Discharge.
Right. And I bet Elspeth keeps all the wedding gifts.
Oh. She’s an Elsbeth. With a b. Means “My God is bountiful“, by the way.
happyfeet,
Why create a possible martyr? Transfer him to the Aleutians and put him on a guard detail ’til his time runs out. I certainly don’t care if the Army busts him out but I don’t see a fantastic upside to wasting any more time on Pvt. Sadsack. Foer is a different matter. Foer carting his personal effects home in a bankers box would definitely be worth some effort.
Beauchamp was just the tool – go for the folks who used him.
If he gets a less than Honorable Discharge then he can have the next Dem president change it to Honorable and once again it will be a “Kerryism”. This guy has now got to find a rich wife to be her trophy husband. He’s a real catch and has hooked many suckers so far.
Rick – he will be a distraction to his unit wherever he goes. I suspect that they will want to wash their hands of him as quickly as possible.
What I think will be interesting is how TNR squares their repeated assertions that they had confirmed or fact checked it, along with their re-reporting, while on the same day, Beauchamp was coming clean with the military.
I definitely agree that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is largely irrelevant and that he was always just a convenient piece that fit into Frankie’s mosaic.
Allah is making the interesting (but I think wrong) argument that by recanting, Beauchamp gives the army what it wants — to clear its name. Further, in recanting, Beauchamp figures such is the best hope for leniency.
Either way he lied to someone. Allah thinks we can’t be sure to whom. But the independent verification of certain incidents by TNR simply don’t strike me as credible.
What is important her is that Beauchamp recanted under oath and signed his name to it. If later he claims that he was forced to do so, he is still a sellout.
Unless, of course, you believe the army executed Pat Tillman, in which case you’ll nod knowingly at Beauchamp’s predicament and continue to think him a hero.
Essentially, he was lying to TNR and/or lying to the military in the course of their investigation. Either way, he is a dirtbag liar of epic proportions.
TIMMAH – What say you now ?
Beauchamp Admits to Falsehoods (UPDATED)…
From Michael Goldfarb: THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous…
I don’t know anything about how things work in the military. I would guess though that the final disposition of Scott will be with an eye to the sort of precedent it sets.
You do realize of course, that you are the tip-top entry on all of the internets for the “gay porn cock of lies.”
There are worse legacies.
To a certain extent, the may want to make an example of him. At the same time, they will want to avoid punishment so severe that might engender sympathy. That is why I doubt he will get any time, and will be discharged ASAP.
BECAUSE OF THE GAY PORN COCK OF LIES
Like to be #1 for rectal probing. That would be worse.
Pardon the Language…
Pardon my language, but Scott Thomas Beauchamp fucked The New Republic. Although it would be easy to argue that TNR put themselves in this situation by failing to properly vet stories that were going to attract a whole lot of skepticism. It's a go…
Amazing.
Anyway, I think for me the name “Balloon Juice” just took on meaning. Finally.
tw: battleship their. I was actually thinking SMOLDERING RADIOACTIVE CRATER THERE, but close enough.
PS. Is this still Earth? And are we certain?
That’s just wrong R Song. They don’t just vet the stories, they commission them. It’s like ordering curtains, just propagandier.
There’s another bonus in all this. We don’t have to bother telling John Cole and Juan Cole apart any more.
…and unreasonable conservatives, to boot!
I’M GOBSMACKED!!!
Dishonorably discharging him *might* compel the Associated Press to actually write a story on this.
Wait.. did I miss something?
Truth be told Beauchamp’s stories didn’t hold my attention and I just skimmed them figuring I could find the important parts paraphrased here.. he’s no Michael Herr..
So did he write about some actual CRIME being committed? I mean, I got the part about mocking the melted lady in Kuwait.. I read about wearing the old dry skull plate like a yamulke thing.. I even read about running over the dogs.. (I’m sure he made some dog-lover enemies with that) but I didn’t read about anything really serious like flushing a Quran or massacring a village..
If dogs and bones and callous dark insensitive behaviour is all there is then I see him getting maybe an Article 15 for passing the stories without permission and a big bite of the shit sandwich for bringing heat down on everyone up his chain of command.. I agree.. Top will keep him busy, but ultimately a honorable discharge if he keeps his nose clean going forward..
tw: Presumed Dresden…. but all we got was flat dogs..
I don’t know that the AP will touch this. Foer used their playbook (shift the question from whether the matter is true to whether the anonymous source exists. Then claim victory even when the story is proved BS becuase the source exists…more or less) and failed. Of course the AP should have failed as well, but that’s water under the bridge now.
I think they can get you out if they want you out. You don’t have to commit a crime. I’ve seen this happen on tv.
My take on the AP is that Beauchamp is a “journalist.” Kicking him out would be a press freedom issue. If they ignore it, then… um, that would be *sigh*
As usual the only people who ever cared about this were the wingnuts who are on the wrong side of history anyhow. as if his story was proof the entire media hates the troops and the left hates america and other assorted tired slogans. really, did anyone from the left champion scott beachamp or anything? lots of front page diaries about him at the dailykos or anything? no.
and so now if it comes out he made it all up, or got threatened with life in the brig unless he recanted, i guess that also means victory in Iraq is right around the corner, and we’ll find those missing WMD’s too.
Yeaa. Home by Christmas!
What Ace and Throbert and Sanchez (et al) did was good, and varying degrees of brave, but it doesn’t matter at all.
TNR’s recently lost reputation and brand-identification is rehabilitated among those they seek to please and influence (and, at worst, unaffected among their journalistic peers of whatever political stripe), Foer and Beauchamp and his wife and their defenders’ predispositions and politico-social positions are strengthened no matter what sanctions momentarily befall them, and the narrative of the deadhearted killbot lives on, with or without any deadhearted killbot.
But what’s happened between Jeff and Cole during this — the move from charged noninteraction to outright animosity — is exemplary, and all that was intended.
By whom? Doesn’t matter. Nobody. Politics isn’t literature.
There’s a case study in the ill- and perlocutionary effects of propaganda to be written about this. It won’t be.
(I started this comment before the Cole update. Told y’all.)
Gobsmacked and filled with heartache, Karl.
I there a single-word term for the bitter inverse of schandenfreude?
Pointing out that Beauchamp is a lying crapweasel is now “attacking” him.
It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. Apparently, only the “wingnuts” are concerned as to whether what they read is factual. Which is why the Lefty canard that the “wingnuts” cannot abide to hear bad news from Iraq is so offensive. There clearly are some who are so desperate to hear more bad news, so desperate to hear tales of military misconduct, that they don’t care whether someone makes it up… “fake, but accurate.”
I do believe I smell something.
A perlocutionary act (or perlocutionary effect) is a speech act, as viewed at the level of its psychological consequences, such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something. This is contrasted with locutionary and illocutionary acts (which are other levels of description, rather than different types of speech acts).
Hey ya
Pretty good stab at a Left cultbot parody of straw-sandwich chewing
it is parody, right?
I’d like to thank the commenters at both #46 and #47 for so perfectly framing the thread. You couldn’t have asked for a better perspective on your lunacy, #46, than that #47 kindly presented you three minutes later.
Without lifting a finger in your direction. Nice. “The wrong side of history” from a tool running as fast as he can from accountability.
tw: welter Burke. Right about now I’d say more of a super heavyweight.
If it is it’s still right in line with the “reasonable” John Cole and the equally “reasonable” Jim Henley, who I won’t link, but will accurately quote:
And you know, I am in total agreement. We learned nothing about Iraq — or our troops generally — from the tales of Scott Beauchamp. Unfortunately, with the exception of Shakespeare’s Sister, I don’t think we learned anything about the antiwar crowd we didn’t already know, either.
What did happen, apparently, is that a smear against the troops currently serving in Iraq has been corrected. And given the additional risk to them created by cases of actual military misconduct, they should not have to endure the risk created by smears from an arrogant poseur and his enablers in the Beltway media. Iraq is already dangerous enough without spurious antiwar propaganda from the antiwar crowd helping inflame pre-existing tensions.
“…the sort of precedent it sets…”
Actually, it’s the sort of precendent the Beauchamp case un-sets. The precedent was first established thirty years ago when that craven douchebag, John Kerry, got away with lying about his fellow soldiers–that set the precedent. Ever since, any petulant Leftist weenie–hi, Ric!–thinks he can lie with impunity to further the Left’s agenda. Not this one, babe. Not with a free internet. Not any more. The party’s over.
You all don’t get it. Now that a sucky magazine none of you read anyhow published a story that could turn out to be bullshit and i sure as hell aint taking a gay porn actor’s word until there is an official army memo, you can crow all you want.
but it changes jack shit about iraq and everything else wrong with it. not one thing.
this was just a nice sideshow for the rightwing nuthouse to act all upset with. a few months back it was nancy pelosi and her aero plane. a few years ago it was terri schiavo’s florida memo something or other.
how about those missing 180000 AK47? How about the Sunni’s left the joke of a government today? oh, but one soldier wrote some bullshit story, when gee whiz, the other day some jarhead got convicted of raping and killing a iraqi girl. that;s for real.
Oh, that’s not what’s really important to the crowd here who use big words like illocutionary. I am so impressed with big big words. did you have m-w.com open in another tab? How sweet.
But watch Iraq get worse and worse. and act like this will even register as a blip when it’s all said and done.
Witheld? Dude, is that you?
He had me going until “terri schiavo’s florida memo something or other.”
But watch Iraq get worse and worse
he said with gleeful anticipation.
“but it changes jack shit about iraq”
Let’s be honest, for sock puppets like you nothing ever will.
My god that post by John Cole was hopelessly lame. Why is it when people end up with egg on their face they can’t just admit it and move on. Instead they try and re-frame their earlier position(s), or minimize the extent to which they made fools of themselves. It’s pretty pathetic because the only effect of John Cole’s post is that, instead of just making one mistake, he now looks like he’s a career idiot. Sad.
It will never occur to the “Hey Yas” of the world that some Sunni parties are threatening to bolt the gov’t as leverage against the Shia precisely because the Sunni insurgency is being defeated and is now switching sides to fight AQI. Nor will it occur to them that such can lead to: (a) more realistic negotiations on the pressing issues of reconciliation, oil revenues, etc; or (b) possible replacement of unrealistic Sunnis in the gov’t with more realistic ones, such as the tribal chiefs Maliki has been wooing as of late.
It won’t occur to them because they are busy expressing their glee over the real misconduct of some other soldier. Because they support the troops, y’know.
BTW, I think we wingnuts should pat ourselves on the back for knowing to debunk stories in a magazine none of us read anyhow.
Why does the left keep bring up gay porn in connection with this story? Was Larry Flynt and his crowd involved? They’re big into Democtay politics these days. Was Barney Frank making videos again with his old apartment mate?
I am assuming that Y’ALL slammed this piece of shit -Hey Ya! on 8/6 @ 11:22 pm
but it changes jack shit about iraq and everything else wrong with it. not one thing.
Sour. Grapes. Fed. On. A. Silver. Platter. Cunt. -Hey Ya! – really Dougj?, John Cole’s official representative of his special education enterprise, perchance?
And, again, the critical lesson of this episode is that the left has abandoned all pretense of caring for the truth. “It doesn’t matter; it changes nothing” is now their rallying cry.
I know I’m a nutter, but I’ll take “illocutionary” to “sucky” any day.
And John Edwards could turn out to be a man…
“# Comment by Tully on 8/6 @ 10:26 pm #
I there a single-word term for the bitter inverse of schandenfreude?”
Freudenschade
BECAUSE OF THE LAYERS OF FACT CHECKING!!!!!!!
Hey You:
If the peaceatanyprice Left hadn’t been screaming lies at the top of its lungs 24/7 for the last 4 years, our efforts in Iraq might have borne substantially better fruit.
So, yeah, you sucky little prick, busting TNR’s scam is important. If we’d have been able to stanch the flow of lies spewing from the media four years ago, the world would now be more secure. In fact, the last 30 years of American ‘history’ would be different and you’d probably be able to read and write with better skill. Truth has no become fashinable again and it has to do so now.
He was believed because the left wanted to believe him – our troops are monsters, animals, killing machines, environmentally unfriendly. They should ALL be dishonorably discharged and John Edwards’s hair should be sent overseas to negotiate the Middle East truce.
*but it changes jack shit about iraq and everything else wrong with it. not one thing.*
Ironically, you and your anti-US buddies were trying to change the war in Iraq. And you didn’t change jack shit and everything else wrong with the leftist media in this country. Not one thing.
TNR believed Beauchamp because they wanted to believe Beauchamp.
The factual record on the war in Iraq, distressing as it is, just isn’t enough for some people. They crave more validation for their beliefs about the U.S. and its soldiers. Beauchamp saw an opportunity to become an icon of the antiwar left, and positioned himself to deliver the product they demanded, but the facts he could come up with just didn’t do the job. No matter; the capacity of suckers to rationalize away the fact that they’ve been made fools of is simply unlimited.
[…] Protein Wisdom has his take on this too today. [John Cole] The funniest thing in all of this is that there is no […]
Well, now that Beauchamp failed as a writer he will be heading for Hollywood to make sure his ‘stories’ are told in the manner so becoming to Liberal Artistry. WHich icon celebrity will play him I wonder, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Al Gore? Perhaps Babs or better yet Rosie.
[…] hurt to fall off his bike even while he’s rubbing his skinned knee and sniffling back tears. Jeff Goldstein has the best word for folks like that: John Cole will go back to noting how the story never mattered  and that the “nutters†only […]
[…] posting on this topic: Bill’s Bites / Protein Wisdom / The Fighting GOP / The Fighting GOP / Cao’s Blog / Getting Paid to Watch / Don […]
THESE EXTRA CAPITAL LETTERS ARE FOR HEY YA’s #57 comment.
You’re welcome.
You all are putting too much thought into this. These are T3H INT4RN3TZ. The proper response is: “PWN3D.” Or, if you simply MUST say more: “lol u got PWN3D N00B!!!1”
TW: pretext surge
Well, it’s a surge or something, but I think you’re being a bit generous with that description.
Of course Beauchamp recanted. Back in the day you always recanted before they sent you off to the reeducation camp. It was part of the standard narrative in the People’s Republics. Nobody believed it then and no one in Beauchamp’s audience will believe it now.
I’m betting the Army keeps Pvt. Beauchamp for the time being. What they don’t want is to discharge him so he can come back to write his memoirs and be feted as the latest martyr to the cause. He can labor in obscurity on his hands and knees in the latrine and serve as a valuable object lesson. With that big “Buddy Fucker” sign around his neck he’s not likely to be too disruptive, he’ll more likely be shunned. I’m also betting it will be a looong time before we hear from Pvt. Beauchamp again.
I must say that for me the interest in this story has been less about STB’s truth/fabulist label or TNR’s role and more about reading the comments and seeing where people of various views slot themselves.
While Jeff and others were either examining the text for literary clues or questioning the veracity of the incidents, others were attempting, to various degrees, to dismiss the the entire need for the questioning (when they weren’t proclaiming TNR’s lame “re-reporting” as the definitive answer)and challenging the questioners and their motives. Heck, SEK proclaimed that he was way more concerned about the effects of attacking someone like STB when the narrative was so “plausable” based upon his previous experience with other soldiers from other wars. John Cole’s “distraction from Iraq” is both ludicrous and insulting, as if us poor ‘thuglicans can’t conmsider two issues at the same time, sort of like a epileptic juggler. We are pleased to put aside the !QUAGMIRE! so that we can consider something so blase, so insignificant that our minds are soothed by this act of willful blindness.
For the rest, it’s about “horror in Iraw, worst in history, utter failure” and anything that “distracts” us from that narrative only demonstartes a dishonesty at best or a clinical delusion at worst. The Narrative™ is fixed in granite and must not be diluted by any side issues like truth in writing.
Sorry but the “wingnuts” were the reasonable ones here. This time.
Swen — if they go that route, I wonder if anybody has been stop-lossed for his thirty before…?
No Dr. Steve, it’s just journalism. And we’re going to see it more and more…not because there’s more or less of it, but becuase now we can look.
And, needless to say, journalists of all stripes are going to fight us every single step of the way.
John Cole was once an intelligent guy who also had a sense of humor. For example, see this. Unfortunately, after being taken over by the pod people in his comments and his own self-righteousness, he’s simply unreadable. A grade-A douche-bag screaming for attention.
corvan, while there’s some truth to what you’re saying and a well documented basis for your fears, there’s also another motivation that they must consider. They don’t want to come out at the end of this looking like complete assholes. This is why we’re starting to see even the likes of the NYT dialing back the rhetoric and reporting hopeful news. And here’s another hopeful bit from USA Today.
That said, it isn’t because they want to, it’s because they have to. Just like the Democrat Congress that can seem to bring itself to do any of the things it swore must be done. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but in the end you’ve got to face them and answer for your actions.
What is interesting to me is the reaction of vets like Cole and Uncle Jimbo — this whole “it doesn’t matter, we can police ourselves, you keyboard commandos are just making things worse” response. If real shabby behavior is reported as a result of this, so be it. Then I’d go along with SEK and argue that such behavior is often to be expected. But that doesn’t forgive making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact.
I don’t know Uncle Jimbo’s academic pedigree, but Cole, at least, teaches at a University. Communications, for Chrissake!
Has he never taken any grad level courses in English that focus on New Historicism? This is where books about government atrocities against natives by people like Ward Churchill thrive. And they “work” because they find obscure pieces like otherwise unnoticed articles by people like Beauchamp and, years later, cite them as fact, complete with footnotes.
By this point, it’s difficult to dispute the “facts,” even if the stories smell funny.
So yes, it is important to catch and correct these things. Because they are the raw materials being left behind for the next leftist historian to come along and find, so that s/he can create a particular (and plausible) historical narrative that serves a specific ideological agenda.
It seems Cole’s now cut right to diminishing Beauchamp’s piece itself. Because, you know, those ferreted-out intentions matter … regardless of TNR’s evidently missing them entirely, at least by Cole’s implication. Those idiots, tools, etc.
Must hurt a lot over there on the 7th of August, 2007, with your spine bent into a pretzel, on the Universe’s first ninety-hour day.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8516#comment-355890
Jeff, that reminds me of something Coase once wrote about the German Historical School: “Without a theory they had nothing to pass on except a mass of descriptive material waiting for a theory — or a fire.”
As Hey Ya! and John Cole both demonstrate, it’s not about finding truth, it’s all about winning one for their side.
I have no idea who or what Hey Ya! is, but I am fairly depressed about John. I used to really like him and his site.
I have to wonder JeffG, are you trying, perhaps, to shame John into accepting reality? I can admire the sentiment as it means you think hes’ savable, but I have to think it’s wasted effort. He’s obviously made a conscious decision to ignore anything except pandering to the lunatics, nitwits and outright morons in his comments section.
And that puzzles me to no end and, as I said, depresses me. It’s not anywhere near as bad as watching my best friend sink into heroine addiction and OD, but it’s in the same ballpark.
Funny how “Hey Ya!” comes all the way here from the bowels of whatever hoofed animal he calls home, just to tell us he never cared about what Beauchamp wrote. Apparently some people’s definition of “apathy” is non-standard.
At least for me, this has always been less about Beauchamp and more about TNR running his work with a straight face. That there are shitbirds in the military ahould come as no surprise. That TNR would make one their war correspondent should be a surprise, emphasis on should.
JHoward,
Must hurt a lot over there on the 7th of August, 2007, with your spine bent into a pretzel, on the Universe’s first ninety-hour day.
Oh, that’s rich. TNR will be glad to hear that they “rigorously fact checked” their non-journalism.
Man, ya suck one dick…
TW: intimated Quantity…didn’t I just say it was one??
Gogol and Ozzy Ozbourne evidently weren’t writing a novel or an album, respectively. Just diaries.
The titles, they tell us so.
QED
I was unaware that diaries written by adults were supposed to include fiction. After all, they sounded just like so many memoirs…
Can we expect the military to public announce this finding? I’d feel more confident if we had more that the Weekly Standard’s anonymous source to go by.
TW= involved Egypt This thing is starting to give me the creeps…
I guess that little Frank bimbo was lying, too, huh?
This incident reminds me so much of the Vietnam era, with John Kerry’s slander of troops and MSM collusion with the meme that TET was a defeat (it was not), that this Wall Street Opinion Online piece today struck me as powerfully appropos. Written by Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet-block intelligence officer who ever defected to the U.S., its description of MoveOn, KOS, and most of the Democrat Party bigwigs makes it seem as if they are all agents of some foreign power bent on the destruction of the U.S. It seems that Beauchamp was a little slug in the agitprop and repeated lies of KOS/MoveOn/Democrat talking points, but his role would certainly have become huge if he hadn’t been nabbed by blogs. Thank God for the blogosphere!
Yikes! Cole has quite the teh loony brand of commentators.
In case anybody was wondering when the victimization would start: My favorite line from the comments was something to the effect that STB is “another casualty of this stupid war.”
BWAAAA HAHAHA
Man, all he needs is a drug addiction and to knife someone and he’ll be lionized in literary circles.
tw: Peepholes Marta Marta is dialing overseas…
If TNRs circulation or revenues go up after this then Franklin Foer will be laughing all the way to the bank. Controversy is good media business even if it’s artificial. Maybe the NY Times will hire him away from TNR hoping to stem their decline.
I hope the Army gives Beauchamp another chance. His mistakes seem minor to me and he did tell the truth under oath. I’ve lied before and I’d probably do it again to get a piece in a national magazine, if I were an aspiring writer. Who knows, maybe being in the Army will eventually help make Scott Beauchamp into a real writer.
Also I remember how far my head was up my ass when I was that young. People do change, you know.
The best result to me has been the demonstration once again how most left wing trolls are arrogant fools. Thanks SEK, heet, timmyb, and the rest!
That’s what they meant when they said “Iraq will be another Vietnam” — that they’ll do their damnedest to bring us defeat.
Unsurprisingly, a quick search of tnr.com returns no results for “Shock Troops” or “Scott Thomas Beauchamp”.
The milbloggers have pointed out that his rank and college education don’t square with his time in service. In other words, it’s possible he was demoted at some point, or simply never promoted.
That was BEFORE all this.
[…] Beauchamp Recants [Updated] […]
Ah now, klrfz1, what Beau did was not a stepping stone to greater journalism. The journalism for him was a side issue. He has checkmated himself into a corner permanently. It’s a character issue and if he’s young and aware, he may become a better man, but it ain’t gonna be in writing again because he’s cooked. One lie, maybe two but you’re looking at something more of a monster than that in his reports.
The real culprit in this is TNR. Sloppy, messy, permanently sticking credibility problem that they got caught at in their denials. More so, a got-cha that has been applied some in the past and should be applied to major newsies in the future. Because it’s so, you know, faith-based.
timmah – What say you, and are you willing to admit how incredibly wrong you were?
[…] any case, I’ll close with a quote from this post by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, who sums up the affair thus: But as I wrote earlier in response to Cole’s hysterics, it does […]
“it doesn’t matter, we can police ourselves, you keyboard commandos are just making things worseâ€Â
No, No, NO! Anyone who espouses that view is dead wrong. This isn’t about “policing ourselves” – this is much more. Jeff (and others) have laid out very clearly that this is more than some E-2 misfit getting caught telling tales. This matters to journalism, to politics and it serves as a heck of a floodlight – showing people in their true light. Do you feel better about Cole’s honesty or Shakespeare’s Sister’s? Do you trust TNR more or less?
This matters, as Jeff’s last comment mentions, because it would have been cited as evidence or proof in how many works?
The Truth matters. If you think it is less than that here, take a bit of time to look at your motiviations for such a position. Don’t want anyone on the “other side” to score points? Don’t want to face the unpleasantness that someone “on your side” was doing wrong?
In our Republic, we cannot make well reasoned decisions when the information available to the citizenry is false. I want the debate to be over interpretation of why things happened, theories of how to do things better/differently/more efficiently. You cannot do that unless everyone starts from the same solid, factual ground.
I am more discouraged by the reaction to this, than the lies themselves.
[…] a claim from an unverified anonymous source as a victory. Just to name a few, Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein, Dan Riehl, Jim Treacher and Hotair are even more giddy than normal that they’ve crushed me, […]
LIBERALS LIE. wHAT ELSE AIN’T NEW?
I am more discouraged by the reaction to this, than the lies themselves.
I find the reaction discouraging as well. I just don’t understand what it is about some folk that prevents them from the simple admission of error. It seems to me that as a people, we have managed to turn everything into a test of political will. But why has this happened?
With all due respect to Uncle Jimbo, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the only platform he’s currently got to do any policing from is, well, a blog.
Beauchamp could have a photographic memory or he could have a photographic imagination. Either way, his stories are old hat for wartime. They are a lot less shocking than things American (and other) troops have done in the past. The real question is why the right wing has made this into such a cause celebre. I figure it’s out of frustration. If you can’t win a war against X thousands of insurgents, then by god you can crush a lowly Army private into the dust, that’s for sure.
Then there are the dueling magazines. The Weekly Standard’s breathless reporting, anonynmously sourced. Sorry, but I fell over laughing at that one. Let’s hope their “source” wasn’t the same Matt Sanchez, an “Excellent Top” with at least four years of experience telling clients exactly what they wanted to hear.
Ah, August. The silly season.
Admittedly, because it fits our preconceptions — a liberal press unwilling to venture outside its own bubble and too willing to believe the worst of the classes they dislike. Foer’s “fact checking” consisted of knowing the author was married to a co-worker, and that the story “smelled right”. Blatant errors and nonsense wasn’t even visible to him, nor to anyone he consulted.
That Foer’s responded by resorting to yet more anonymous sources and partially reporting what on-the-record sources are saying just reinforces the story, much like watching Dan Rather insist the TAG memos were genuine.
And curiously, no one’s said there are no creeps or criminals in the military, nor said that disproving STB’s stories means Iraq’s a paradise — the only people making those statements are those attacking the concern over the story. Hell, the milbloggers have made it clear their concern was as much about ensuring that, if the claims were true, something was done about a unit that was clearly in need of help.
And, as Jeff pointed out, these types of claims have a way of surfacing years later. I’ve heard my father — as far from a left-wing academic as you could imagine — citing the claims that the US Army distributed smallpox-infected blankets and that the English introduced scalping to the New World.
By the way, The Weekly Standard’s intrepid reporter, Mr. Sanchez, has spent the last several months running away from earlier admissions that he was a male prostitute. Click on my name in this post. It’s a link to Matt’s old “Excellent Top” escort site. He blocked public access to the Internet Archive of the site, but I was able to defeat the block and host his site and its contents on my website about him.
Make sure to click on “Hear My Voice” link. Have a listen, and then go to the LiveLeak site and listen to one of Matt’s “reports” from the field. ‘Nuff said? Republicans, you really need to find a better class of reporters!
Oh, and linking a smear site as your personal site is charming.
Why does Sanchez infuriate the left so much?
So, basically, Charlie, you’re a stalker?
I’m sorry to hear that. I hope you get the help you need.
Rob, it’s not a “smear” site. It’s a fact site with a snarky discussion board. What, you thought the right wing has a patent on that format? Think again! Seriously, though, if you find any statements of fact on my site that are inaccurate I want to know. I’ve even challenged Sanchez to do it, and so far I’ve heard nothing from him. There’s a reason for that, and it ain’t because he’s rising above it.
Charles, do you have anything germane to actually, like add to the discussion? Because the Matt Sanchez stuff does not make me all tingly … you know, down there … as it does you.
“Pay no attention to the lies and the lying liar who wrote them, and the lying magazine that printed them. Look over there at that other guy who used to do porn!”
Oops. Sorry. Thought you wanted the truth.
Oh, and just so you know, my point is this: The Weekly Standard’s “scoop” was knocked down by the Army. Their unidentified source has all the earmarks of Matt Sanchez, who is not only a former porn actor — 39 videos to date — but was a male prostitute for at least four years and probably a good deal longer.
The, ahem, moral of the story is that the Republican Party needs to be a little more discerning in its choice of sources. And no, Robin, it doesn’t get me all tingly. It does get me jiggly. I jiggle when I am laughing at you.
No, it wasn’t. That’s a base mis-statement, if not a deliberate lie.
That theory makes no sense. Why would someone who has been openly writing on the issue feel the need to be an anonymous source?
And, yes, your site is a smear site. It’s intention is to question someone’s credibility based on issues that do not bear on his credibility. If the left really believes it’s an issue to be involved with an escort service, why the hell is Barney Frank still in office?
Rob, don’t to the wingnut thing and offer nothing but ad hominem attacks. You have called my site a “smear site.” I asked you what factual assertions there are incorrect. You have yet to offer a single example. Sadly, this is what your kind specializes in doing: Launching attacks without substance. That tactic is wearing thin, Rob.
Charles, from YOUR site:
See how you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing him of doing? That’s smearing.
You are mentally ill, Charles. Seriously. You need to seek professional help. There’s something very unhealthy underlying your Matt Sanchez obsession.
Pablo, accusing me of being mentally ill won’t change the facts. Sanchez appears in 39 porn videos, about 15 of which are originals and the rest compilations taken from his and other original productions. All of this is explained on the website. If one section says 38 rather than 39, that’s because the 39th video appeared recently and I neglected to update the total in one mention. Thanks for pointing out the error, and I’ll correct it.
Major John #110
This matters, as Jeff’s last comment mentions, because it would have been cited as evidence or proof in how many works?
Charles Wilson #115
They are a lot less shocking than things American (and other) troops have done in the past.
They don’t get it, and likely never will.
Oh, I get it B Moe. The far right wing is frustrated. The see the U.S. unable to win in Iraq, and vent their rage at a lowly private first class, complete with thinly-veiled death threats from the Blackfive “milblog” and vile insults from the wingnut blogosphere. I suppose it’s better than beating up your children, but it’s a hell of a way to “support the troops.”
You guys should check out Charles’ forums: he seems to think Baldilocks is a Sanchez sock puppet.
Uh-oh, he’s onto us.
Nor will obsessing over Sanchez In fact, it confirms them. And, for the record, was Sanchez’ reportage from FOB Falcon completely accurate and vindicated as such or not?
It simply galls you that he would reject gaydom, doesn’t it, Charles? HOW DARE HE!!?
Anyone else think that keeping an exact count of the number of compilations is a bit obsessive?
Anyone else think that has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of his reporting from FOB Falcon?
Anyone else getting sick of this line of attack on Sanchez?
Charles Wilson – Since you know so much about the original works and compilations, could you please provide us with a narrative summary of the plots of each? Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated cooperation.
Now, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?!
…he seems to think Baldilocks is a Sanchez sock puppet…
Which, I just realized, would make her a
GAY PORN SOCK OF LIES!!!
I am sorry, Juliette, I just couldn’t help myself.
It’s a vast conspiracy to BURY THE TROOF! about the most important person and the most important story on the face of the Earth: Matt Sanchez.
This guy is a real winner. Watch him at work here and you’ll see why Juliette is a cowardly Christian co-conspirator of the Not Gay Enough Anti-Xst.
So Charles, you don’t have anything to add to this discussion.
Wow!
Unhealthy Matt Sanchez obsessive compulsive careens into the thread and spreads teh crazee around like a skunky version of Febreze. All for the sake of making Sanchez the real story rather than the fact checking of a potential fabulist because, hey, other troops have done that or worse and Iraq still sucks!!! We now have have a left consensus on a new journalistic concept:
Fake But Historically Reflective of Past Accuracy.
I no longer wonder why Jeff weeps for this country…
tw: sovereigns fade But teh crazee is forever…
Chucky’s quite the mystery man. In the thread over at baldilocks, he claims to have been a credentialed reporter in the White House press corps — the context of that claim is trying to tie Sanchez to Gannon. Just knew the Gannon crap would come up, didn’t you?
INTERCONNECTED INTERWEAVING GAY PORN COCKS OF LIES!!!
Sanchez, Gannon, and the GAY PORN COCK SOCK OF LIES !!!!!!!! A sinister conspiracy if there ever was one.
Charles may have been a credentialed reporter for Iamobsessedwithgaypornstars.com, just sayin’
Now, which side of the aisle is homophobic ?
GAY PORN SOCK OF LIES!
This may be the funniest line of the summer. All kudos to BMoe!
That was an insta-classic.
[…] Karl noted in a recent comment, those “hints of future political progress,” alas, are likely to be misread as signs of […]
You guys should check out Charles’ forums: he seems to think Baldilocks is a Sanchez sock puppet.
One of the others who comments there suggested that, and I disagreed.
Chucky’s quite the mystery man. In the thread over at baldilocks, he claims to have been a credentialed reporter in the White House press corps  the context of that claim is trying to tie Sanchez to Gannon.
I was in fact a credentialed White House correspondent during the Reagan years. That’s how I was able to tell that the official explanation for “Jeff Gannon” (actually, James D. Guckert) was a joke. I used my prior experience as a reason why I have AVOIDED a conspriacy explanation for Sanchez’s embedding among U.S. forces in the Middle East.
I’m simply not familiar enough with how the military’s rules work to go along with suggestions from others that Sanchez has gained access through the efforts of “friends in high places.” This had to have happened for “Jeff Gannon,” given the mechanics of the White House credentialing system, but Sanchez’s access is a different story.
I do find it odd that Sanchez has gained such a degree of access, given his personal history. Early on, before he posted videos that make it pretty hard to imagine he’s not there, I suspected he was doing his “coverage” from his apartment in Manhattan. He has a track record of falsification, so it wasn’t out of the realm of possibility that his Middle East “reporting” was as fake, as, say, an “interview” he posted with a writer.
Now I accept that he’s where he’s been saying he is. I do wonder how and why the military approved his access, and who paid for his trip and why. Mr. Sanchez has had no visible means of support, other than prostitution and odd jobs (gym attendant, etc.), for quite a while. Someone forked over the cash to put him in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Charles – We do not care about any of that. Really.
What we would like to know is which one of Matt’s movies impressed you the most, and the narrative plot synopses of the movies you have personally jacked off to, I mean, reviewed.
What is the problem with Matt being gay?
JD, I have one of the movies that Matt appeared in. It’s called “Jawbreaker.” Contrary to the suggestions of those who claim I’m a vindictive spurned unrequited lover, long before I had any idea who that Blatino cowboy was, I routinely hit the fast-forward button when he appeared on screen. Not my type. But I’m glad he’s yours!
No problem with Matt being gay. Not even a problem with him being a porn actor or a professional prostitute. JD, your Republican wannabe marine and prostitute is, like so many in his milieu, also a congenital liar. As a former reporter (once a reporter, always a reporter), it’s the lying that did it.
And yes, you people DO care about that. Not the lying, but the rest of it. The wingnuts love to use homosexuality as a wedge issue. And now you’re shocked, just shocked, when someone calls you on it? Don’t make me laugh. You people made your bed. Enjoy the night.
But you said just that to Baldilocks at her place:
I have 3 questions:
1. If I put up a “Charles vs. Charles” page, for which I have a growing amount of material, what would you like the background color to be?
2. (I’m making this #2 because this will be the second time it’s been asked of you on this thread. Get it?) Was Sanchez’ reportage in the Beauchamp debacle completely accurate, or was it not?
3. Which of his films has the best money shots?
Who does what? Who are you calling on what? You have no idea who you’re talking to, do you Charles? Too busy with your love/hate for the Blatino cowboy who ground your heart into the dust. Too distraught to note that most folks around here couldn’t give a damn where you want to put your dick, as long as it isn’t in their dog.
You are mentally ill, Charles. You’re not a little batty, you are off the fucking rails.
Charles – You are the one using teh gay as a perjorative. Doesn’t it tell you something that nobody around here really gives a shit? Now, you, on the other hand, seem to be bordering on obsessed with where Matt places his Johnson. That reflects on you, not me.
What did he lie about. As far as I can tell, he was spot on in regards to Beauchamp. Your fluency in lying likely comes from your experience in the media. Hard habit to break, huh?
Did you miss out on the fluffer part for one of his movies, and are now projecting your unrequited and unfulfilled love onto everyone else?
Dammit, I just cain’t quit you, Matt!
A “sockpuppet,” in Internet-ese, is an alter ego. In other words, if baldilocks were a Sanchez “sock puppet,” then baldilocks would be Sanchez himself. I don’t know if that’s the case, but I doubt it and I have said so. On the other hand, I think this baldilocks character is a friend of Mr. Sanchez’s, and that she has lied about that and other things.
Now, Pablo, rather than repeating the insults (or in addition to it, I don’t care) you really ought to find some factual assertion on my website that you think is wrong. I keep asking for that, and thus far all I’ve heard is the chirping of crickets in the silence.
And yes, you DO care.
Charles – How much clearer can Pablo and I make it? All we care about is whether or not his reporting about l’affair de Beauchamp was accurate.
You, on the other hand, border on the obsessed. Were you supposed to be the fluffer for movie compilation #40? Or, are you just pissed that Matt made it in gay porn and you could not? Or, did you fail to land the role of love juice picker upper for his last movie, and have never since had a chance to be up close and personal with that blatino man meat?
Charles – Keep at it. You are remarkably entertaining.
Doesn’t it tell you something that nobody around here really gives a shit?
Oh, JD, I’d say you give a shit. Wingnuts loooooooooove the gay sex. Everyone knows that.
What did he lie about.
Check the “Matt’s Lies” page. It’s all there.
No, Charles, I will not click on your link to that ridiculous site. You are disturbed.
If you have a point to make about Matt lying about L’affair de Beauchamp, please do so. If not, sod off.
The most hysterical part about you Charles, and there are many, is that you have convinced yourself that we simply hate teh gay, and will disregard anything by anyone that is of teh gay, simply because they are of teh gay.
Now, remove that butt plug, and resume your stalking.
I’ve been there, Charles. And as I told you, it’s very thin gruel. So don’t waste anyone else’s time. Tell us what he lied about and how you know it.
And tell us this. We know he’s got an 11″ monster cock, but how thick do you suppose it is? Can you handle something like that?
JD, have you noticed how Charles continues to avoid the central question? Doesn’t it seem like he’s desperately trying to warn us off of believing anything Sanchez says, while studiously avoiding any critique of his actual reporting?
Pablo – It is because he has got nothing. That is also why he failed at gay porn, and even being a fluffer.
Gannon all over again.
One more time, fellas, if there are any errors of fact on the cplsanchez website, please highlight them. You have yet to do this, and it speaks volumes about you and about your crowd.
The burden of proof is yours here, Charles. Show us the lies. Your site really dos a pathetic job of it, and I’m not inclined to engage in the level of proctological examination that seems to have become a primary focus of your life. And speaking of proctology, I’m really more interested in how the ol’ rectum holds up to something like that.
Dish, girlfriend!
Pablo, my site has a page dedicated specifically to your friend Mateo’s lies. Other than your various insults of me and my work, do you have any specific points of dispute with the assertions of fact there? Didn’t think so. Wingnuts rarely do. Your crowd is all about the smear.
“…or don’t. But please at least go to the site. Click it. Please! I NEED TEH TRAFFIC!!!11!!!”
But please at least go to the site. Click it. Please! I NEED TEH TRAFFIC!!!11!!!
My site is completely non-commercial. Unlike, say, your friend Matt Sanchez, I’m neither hosting advertising nor am I soliciting donations. I have enough money. As for site hits, cplsanchez.info is #3 on Google. In newspaper terms, that puts it “above the fold.” That’s enough for me.
Oops, it’s #4 on Google, meaning that when you enter matt sanchez as a search term it’s #4 on the list of results. That’s good enough for me.
Bring them here, Charles. Tell us about them.
I’ve been. I’m unimpressed. Make your case.
Which speaks to his relative unimportance, and not the inverse for you.
Now, tell us about teh butt seks!
Oh, and tell us about his FOB Falcon reportage.
Make your case, Charles. Thus far, you’ve done nothing but smear and make unfounded assumptions. Again, not impressive.
I WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT! I KNOW WHAT YOU WING ‘THUGS CARE ABOUT. YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT I SAY YOU CARE ABOUT!!!!!
Hey, JD? The homeguard just called. The border has officially been erased.
Pablo, I’ve made the case, and you’ve done nothing but puke out a bunch of insults. You haven’t offered a single example of any factual assertion on my website that’s incorrect. You and your crowd operate on the assumption that, if you say it often enough, people will believe it. That tactic is wearing thin.
BJTexs, you care about what you comment about. Pablo and JD clearly care a great deal about their wingnut friend, Matt Sanchez.
You’d better make it again, because I don’t see it here. All I see is you, well, puking out insults and making asinine assumptions.
Now, detail the lies and tell us about teh butt seks!
tw: Vera’s lacking
A Wang, obviously.
Oh, and I’ve got a website I want you to refute. Have at it.
BJ – As you well know, I tend to err on the side of hyperbole, so in the interest of discourse, I used the word bordering, when this asshat is clearly a demented online psycho stalker that craves Matt Sanchez’s schlong and dreams of the Matt Sanchez Dirty Sanchez. Right about now, he has his pinky wrapped around his weenie, slathering it in guacamole, and dreaming of Matt’s next pron movie, where he prays to become the fluffer to the stars. Bordering, no. He is obsessed, and his projection is just special.
Charles – If the standard is you care about what you comment about, you are truly fucking obsessed to the point of making it uncomfortable to be near you. I shudder to think that this type of dementia might have once graced the hallowed halls of journalism. Step away from your computer, tell Pierre to remove his ball sack from your nose, and start taking that Seroquel and the litany of other RX’s your psychiatrist demanded that you take. Good day, sir.
Once again, Pablo, JD, et. al., you are showing that you are VERY interested in your friend, Matt Sanchez, yet unable to offer even a single example of any factual assertions on my website that are erroneous. It must be frustrating for you. Here you are, wingnuts hitched to a losing war, promoted by an aspiring media whore, and all you can do is sputter in wingnut rage.
Life just ain’t fair ‘n balanced, is it? Ha! You amuse me to no end!
Let’s recap. Charley swoops in here unprovoked, claims Sanchez is a far more distasteful guy than Beauchamp, and asks us to go to his website, read his assertions, and refute them if we can.
But we’re the ones who care a great deal about Sanchez.
Guys, stop teasing Charley and let him go home.
Charles, was his reportage from FOB Falcon accurate?
That’s all I care about here and you refuse to address it. Well, that and the butt seks.
I just looked through the “Matt’s Lies” section of your site, Charles, and I am willing to assume everything there is fact, as you assert. So what we have is someone being less than forthright about a part of his past that could hamper his current career. I personally have done the same, as have damn near everyone I know. To my knowledge, our government is full of such people, both parties. So my question is, who the hell do you believe? If being evasive and dishonest about past picadilloes totally destroys ones credibility, then how can you believe anyone in the government or the media? Is that level of paranoia was has driven you batshit fuggin’ crazy?
TW:many side-shows never ending, near as I can tell
So what we have is someone being less than forthright about a part of his past that could hamper his current career. I personally have done the same
You were a male prostitute for four years running, and almost certainly for the better part of another year? Do tell!
If being evasive and dishonest about past picadilloes totally destroys ones credibility, then how can you believe anyone in the government or the media?
I don’t think the U.S. government is full of Matt Sanchezes. But, if it is, then we ought to know about them, one by one if need be.
“You were a male prostitute for four years running, and almost certainly for the better part of another year? Do tell!”
That isn’t what I said, Charles, read it again. See, you said the gayness and prostitution weren’t the issue, you said you were put off by his dishonesty about it. Are you changing your story now? You are starting to lose credibility, here.
See, you said the gayness and prostitution weren’t the issue
His gayness certainly isn’t an issue, except insofar as it bears on his hypocrisy and dishonesty. Sanchez’s prostitution is something of an issue in and of itself. I think your average hustler is a pretty questionable character. That your wingnut friend Sanchez has so blatantly lied about the circumstances of his life establishes him as emblematic of that breed.
Still no comment about Sanchez’ FOB Falcon reportage, Charles?
Very telling, that. Given that it is really the only relevant issue here, I think you’re looney tunes. And not in a funny way.
The gays? That’s you too, isn’t it, Charles?
#148 “Comment by Charles Wilson on 8/8 @ 11:31 am #
JD, I have one of the movies that Matt appeared in. It’s called “Jawbreaker.†Contrary to the suggestions of those who claim I’m a vindictive spurned unrequited lover, long before I had any idea who that Blatino cowboy was, I routinely hit the fast-forward button when he appeared on screen. Not my type. But I’m glad he’s yours!
No problem with Matt being gay. Not even a problem with him being a porn actor or a professional prostitute. JD, your Republican wannabe marine and prostitute is, like so many in his milieu, also a congenital liar. As a former reporter (once a reporter, always a reporter), it’s the lying that did it.”
Now his prostitution is an issue? But it wasn’t at 11:30? Were you lying then Charlie? Are you a liar, too? I don’t think I can trust anything you say, Charlie. It is the lying that did it, you see.
What I see is a bitter old fag, lashing out at a pretty boy who has left the plantation and is gaining publicity that you could only dream of. Must hurt bad, watching that ass you have lusted for in the movies climbing right past you on the journalism ladder. You will never be able to afford him, now, and that is what really fucking pisses you off, ain’t it Charlie?
My attitude toward prostitution isn’t as simple as my attitude about hypocritical wingnut liars.
Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. It serves a useful purpose. However, the prostitutes themselves are frequently unsavory characters. They’re more likely to be criminals, and if not, to be dishonest in other ways. It’s not always the case, but I think the longer someone is in that line of work the more likely it is that they’re at the very least an unreliable individual.
As long as a prostitute remains a prostitute and operates at the fringes of society, I’m tolerant. I wouldn’t have one as my life partner, and I doubt as a friend either. Once they become a public figure whose word and character need to be relied upon, then I take a closer look.
In Sanchez’s case, it’s clear that you can take the Sanchez out of the hustling, but you can’t the hustler out of the Sanchez. It’s one of life’s little ironies to watch the Christian wingnuts flock to him, but what the hell, it’s entertainment!
BECAUSE OF TEH HYPOCRISY!!!
C’mon, Charley. How many years has it been since you failed to stampede the Right over Jeff Gannon’s GAY PORN COCK OF LIES? And you;re still at it?
McGhee, hypocrisy is always a story. Remember how crazy the wingnuts went over Bill Clinton being both a masher and a supporter of women’s rights? Or more recently, over John Edwards being an advocate for the poor who lives in a mansion? And who can forget Al Gore’s electric bill?
Now, if somehow we were to learn that Keith Olbermann turned man-tricks for four or five years, do you mean to tell me that your crew would keep quiet about it? Oh puh-leeze!
But you know, maybe this is all a sign of progress. Here we have the wingnuts lining up to kiss the ass of a male prostitute and condemn gay-baiting. Do we call this “personal growth?” What’s next, Republicans For Gay Marriage?
“My attitude toward prostitution isn’t as simple as my attitude about hypocritical wingnut liars.”
ROFL! You are a complicated man, huh Charlie?
ROFL! You are a complicated man, huh Charlie?
Not half as complicated as the Christian wingnuts who heap scorn upon homosexuals and then idolize a male prostitute and porn actor who has done nothing about lie about himself and his life.
“Now, if somehow we were to learn that Keith Olbermann turned man-tricks for four or five years, do you mean to tell me that your crew would keep quiet about it?”
We would have some fun with it, sure. But it ultimately wouldn’t matter because he is already a disengenous, raving moron. Where he keeps his dick in his spare time would have very little effect on that. You are using Sanchez prior sex habits to try impeach his otherwise honest war reporting. That is why Pablo thinks you are nuts, but I think you are just bitter and mean.
Going to dinner now, whack jobs. See ya later!
We would have some fun with it, sure. But it ultimately wouldn’t matter because he is already a disengenous, raving moron
You shouldn’t be saying such nasty thing about your buddy Mateo. I’m supposed to do that. Ha!
When you get back, Charles, would you discuss Sanchez’ FOB Falcon repotrage? You moonbat cocksucker.
Ooooh! Fun with namecalling!
Waitaminnit. No one’s “calling” anyone on homosexuality as a “wedge issue”. People are trying to assault a person’s reporting on the basis — in large part — of his presumed sexuality.
The people talking about what Sanchez may or may not have done in his past are your side. The rest of us want to know if you have reason to believe his reporting is inaccurate. All you’ve done is intimated that he’s dishonest, while not presenting any evidence that he is.
Your claims always seem to be backed by proof that, oddly, you have no access to. Weird.
I do find it odd that Sanchez has gained such a degree of access, given his personal history.
The let Clinton in the White House for visits. Even let him near the president. He’s a proven perjurer.
Hell, they’re gonna let Sandy Burglar work in the next Democrat administration.
Says a guy who runs a site on which the accusations are based largely on documents he admits he has no access to.
Wow.
I mean, really, this is the second time tonight the only response I could come up with is “wow”. I don’t think it’s because I’m particularly dense tonight; I think it has more to do with the freak flags flying openly.
I mean, what we have here is someone who clearly considers himself a lefty, one of the supposed tolerant and open-minded people. He prides himself on his superiority over the “wingnuts” and his cartoon vision of Christians (go read the baldilocks comments for the full force of that), yet as far as he’s concerned, once a whore, always a whore.
I’m well and truly boggled.
And damn the whores to Hell for all of eternity!
Which side is that coming from again?
This seems like some sick cyberstalking thing more than anything else. Maybe there’s an 800 number we’re supposed to call?
When was he a supporter of women’s rights? He was a supporter of a political agenda packaged as women’s rights, but when actual women sought to have the judicial system actually protect their actual rights, he kinda sorta broke the law to try to keep that from happening.
Now, it’s true that breaking the law can also by hypocrisy — but I don’t think “hypocrisy” is what most people were concerned about, except as a rhetorical device to rub the feminists’ nose in their hypocrisy.
Because the thing about hanging your argument on hypocrisy is, it really does inevitably degenerate to a “I know you are but what am I?” level. Or for the more rarefied among us, tu quoque. And nothing you have presented here has ever risen above that horizon in the first place.
Which only highlights another danger inherent in the tu quoque attack: when one’s target’s background is put into play, so is that of the attacker.
I have no doubt that if you find out such a thing about him, you’ll be the first to let us know.
Charlie – Since this is about Beauchamp, and not Sanchez (at least until you managed to make this about Sanchez), can you point out to us where, exactly, Matt’s information was wrong in regards to Beauchamp? I did not even know who he was until you ran around screaming and yelling about some gay porn escort and how the wingnuts were kissing his ass. The heavy lifting on this topic was carried by The Weekly Standard.
As for the rest of your tripe, you apparently are not getting enough man juice and good lovin’ from your life partner. I wonder if he knows of your obsession with the Dirty Sanchez. Do you call out Matt’s name while you make tender love with your partner?
If you tell me that Olberman is taking pole from Soros, it would not surprise me in the least. And that would not change my opinion of him one iota. He would be a dirtbag no matter who he laid his heads down next to each night.
This is what happens when one of their own leaves the fold. Apostate.
Charles, take your medication. Let your partner know what you are spending all of your time doing. Get some help.
The only people using Matt’s sexuality as a wedge issue are the folks like Charlie on the Left. The fact that the Right is not fitting into their stereotype is driving them nuts, as evidenced by the meltdown by Charlie here today. Where Matt parks his schlong has no relation to his reporting. Was he right or wrong in his reporting, Charlie. Anything else is just static, that you introduced.
If the blogosphere existed back in the 70’s we could’ve put a smackdown on John Kerry’s ( the man for whom the word ‘douchebag’ was invented) carnival of lies. Thus forestalling the advent of a hack politician and a whole shitload of mendacious Vietnam movies.
So yes, this dust-up matters. Who knows what future bullshit has been prevented!
UUUUUUUUUUUmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Yummy !
Wow, I leave for 15 hours and someone lets the Adaams Family out of the attic and onto the front lawn. I’ll respond to a couple of things, anyway.
First off, it’s quite obvious that you care about Matt Sanchez, otherwise this thread wouldn’t be so long. It’s also obvious that you have a double standard, because you still spout vitriol about Clinton while defending Sanchez. (By the way, I eagerly await the wingnut jihad against Hillary. It will be worth another 5 points in her landslide.)
Kids, hypocrisy is always a story, whether it’s left-wing or right-wing or no-wing. Americans love to see hypocrites brought low. It’s something everyone who ever enters public life should be aware of.
Beyond that, I have to say that you’ve given me something to laugh about with the comments about “the buttseks” and my being a “cocksucker.” I’m mortified! I think I’ll go cry now! Ha!
Finally, Rob, I wouldn’t necessarily say “Once a whore, always a whore.” I’d say that this is usually true. With your wingnut Republican man-whore Mateo, it’s absolutely true. You guys are, uh, riding a winning horse with that one! Enjoy!
It’s all about length with you.
Proof?
Charles – You have yet to show us where Matt Sanchez was wrong in his reporting.
As far as the length of this thread goes, we were discussing Beauchamp until comment #115, when you came along, attempting to, and successfully diverting the topic. Sanchez’ name was not even mentioned, and then only in passing, until comment #47, and not again until you brought it up.
Your therapist could probably help you out with this, if only you would seek help.
Now, Charles, remove that hairy nutsack from across your eyes, and set about showing us where Sanchez lied in his reporting about Beauchamp. Absent your ability to do that, we will be forced to come to the conclusion that you are a spurned lover or a failed gay pron star yourself.
BECAUSE OF TEH GAYPOCRACY and the GAY PRON COCK SOCK OF LIES !!!
But you, who don’t hang out here like the rest of us, yet have kept coming back, you don’t give a hoot about it. You’re just responding to our fascination with this guy you can’t stop reminding us used to do gay porn and who was never even mentioned in the original post.
In fact, if serr8d had never mentioned Sanchez’s underwear, thus putting this thread on your Google search r5ounds, you never would have found your way here.
Because you don’t care about Sanchez and his gay porn. You only care about teh hypocrisy.
Keep telling yourself that, Charley.
we will be forced to come to the conclusion that you are a spurned lover or a failed gay pron star yourself
JD, do you like being forced? Talk to Matt. From the looks of his site, he might be able to help you out. For $250 an hour/out or $200 an hour/in, natch. Have some good ol’ dirty wingnut fun!
Ladies and Germs:
May I suggest that it’s time to stop engaging Sir Charles as we are all just enabling what is clearly an unhealthy obsession with everything Sanchez. His willful refusal to answer Pablo’s question is proof enough.
Charles, you’ll know that your obsession with Sanchez will have reached a critical mass when a flight of Magenta Unicorns with the head of Andrew Sullivan and a weener the size of an average brat start circling your house.Tthat would be the time to call 911 and request butterfly nets and a fistfull of Lithium.
Good luck with that…
tw: spatial drunken Charles’ concept of time…
Glad to see you back, BJTexs. You care about Matt, too. Ha! The wingnuts just can’t resist their man’s magnetic charm. Or was that his monster “11 inches?” You people just crack me up. The more you’re challenged on this guy, the tighter you stick with him. What suckers you are!
Just to recap: none of you have a problem with Sanchez or Charles being gay, despite JD’s reference to a “nutsack” and Pablo constant references to “butt seks” and calling Charles a “cocksucker.”
Just saying, those sound a little pejorative to me.
In other news, is there a person here who is alleging Sanchez was wrong in his Falcon reporting? How could he have been? The incident he was investigating took place in another country! Not finding something in that circumstance says less about his credibility than your embrace of any partisan twit says about your credulity, JD, McGehee, Pablo, and the rest of you brave folks.
I addressed all the reporting issues long ago. JD, et. al. choose to ignore what I wrote. As for me, Sanchez’s sexual orientation is, by itself, beside the point. What matters is that he’s a lying hypocrite. It’s falling-down funny that wingnut Christian Republicans are such easy marks for these people.
Well, Ed, it’s not like this is a serious debate or that Charles is interested in the truth of this story. So, you know, mocking.
Would you like some, numbnuts?
I addressed all the reporting issues long ago. JD, et. al. choose to ignore what I wrote.
Yes, when I first brought them to your attention at Balidlocks’, you told me that Sanchez’ reporting had not been vindicated. Which makes you, well, a liar. And you haven’t addressed it here, while it is the only relation sanchez has to the topic. So, saying that “JD, et. al. choose to ignore what I wrote.” makes you, well, more of a liar.
Now, you repeatedly refuse to address the message while you attack the messenger. So, having noting but bile to add, you’re a pinata. A sick, bitter pinata.
Marks for what? I, unlike you, have no investment in anything Sanchez. The only payoff I’m expecting is the enjoyment I’m getting as I watch TNR’s credibility disintegrate, and Sanchez is but a minor part of that story. As for you, I’m fascinated by lunatics.
I, unlike you, have no investment in anything Sanchez.
You can stop pretending not to care about your friend now, Pablo. It’s okay. Honest. I’m not saying that you’re having a hot love affair with him, or even casually jamming each other tongues in places where straight guys don’t go with each other. (If you two are doin’ the horizontal mambo, though, be safe. You know, he left the USMCR on a medical deferment. This was after at least five years as a prostitute, so you just can’t be too careful.)
Actually, I’m totally attracted to you, Charles. Teh crazee makes me hot! And I can’t wait to get a look at your…um…movie collection.
Sorry Pablo, I’m taken. Besides, you said mental illness is your turnon. Ain’t Matt just the craziest, though?!
Oh, don’t be coy, Charles! You know that boyfriend is all in your mind! Send me some pix, sweetie…maybe something with a duckling, a shower cap and a bottle of blue cheese dressing. Meanwhile, I’ll grease up a can of Pringles.
Be creative! I know you can, I just know it!
edavis – Just to recap, I have no problem whatsoever with Sanchez or Charles being gay. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
As it turns out, Beauchamps diaries continue to be fisked and proven to be more and more false as time wears on, if that is possible.
edavis and Charles have yet to show that anything Sanchez reported on was inaccurate. As such, they are attempting to divert from the story of Beauchamp and TNR being reprehensible liars, by screaming that Sanchez is a gay porn escort. This is done under the assumption that the American right hates or is scared of teh gay, and will discount anything from teh gay.
To repeat. I do not care if Charles fucks men, women, or goats. It matters no a bit to me. I personally prefer to not have a couple of hairy balls hanging in front of my nose, but that is simply my personal preference. What Charles has failed to do, and will continue to fail to do, is to show how teh gay in any way effects what Sanchez reported.
Charles Wilson – As I demonstrated earlier, this thread had nothing to do with Sanchez until your arrival. Since that point, people have responded to your bigoted rants against Sanchez. They border on homophobic, and were anybody on the right to make the same type of argument to go after the credibility of Andrew Sullivan, they would be called a bigot and a homophobe quicker than you could blink. Sanchez is but a bit player in this incident, as The Weekly Standard did the vast majority of the debunking of the lies written by Beauchamp, and published by TNR.
For whatever reason, you continue to wish this topic was about Sanchez. Clearly, you are not obsessed. Nope. No way. No how. It is normal to go out and create a website to trash an individual who many had never heard of prior to this week, though it is obvious that you had more than a passing acquaintance with him, either via movie, date, or via reeection. That is on you. You have taken it upon yourself to air your personal problems very publicly, which is kind of sad. Now, go practice the Dirty Sanchez with your imaginary lover. Sent those pix to Pablo, but stay away from the Pringles, they are a bit abrasive. I would suggest pumice lotion for you – it’ll really get that blood circulating.
Finally, exactly what was this quote supposed to mean?
“JD, do you like being forced?”
Guys, you’re hurtin’ me! I’m laughing so hard I’m going to need medical attention pretty soon. Oh yeah, you don’t care about Matt. Nope, not at all. Keep telling yourself that, okay? I’m not sure what’s my favorite, JD calling me “homophobic” or Pablo’s love words about a greased-up can of Pringles. Wingnuts and their junk food. What’s next, Pablo, gettin’ it on in the back seat of your monster truck?
And JD, it’s okay if you like to be forced. Mateo’s in it to please. I’m sure he can be as strong as you want him to be. Just ask. Oh, and put the money on the table. Ha!
As for this Beauchamp thing, look, wingnuts, a few things are obvious to anyone with two brains to rub together — which obviously includes none of you.
The first is that the stuff he described happened. The second is that he applied some amount of dramatic license to spice it up. You know, like people have been doing forever with war stories. The third is that the Army’s statements are completely non-credible, and not just because the Army has been in a race with Baghdad Bob to see which them can tell a cheesier bunch of lies.
None of the people serving with Beauchamp are going to confirm his story, because if they did so then they’d be liable to being charged with something. Either the activity itself or failure to report it. Fourth, the magazine’s confirmations ring true, if somewhat carefully phrased. Fifth, no one will ever really know what actually happened.
But what really comes through is that the wingnuts are in an uglier and uglier mood these days. You’re losing your glorious little war, and you’re doing it in an environment that should have favored the United States. It’s now dawning on you that you won’t turn it around, and that the American public is going to take it out on you in the political arena.
In short, it’s come-to-Jesus time for your side, sort of like it was in the 1990s when the Republicans threw the Democrats out of first the House and then the Senate. The worm’s turning, and it’s turning because for the second time in 40 years, the U.S. is being defeated in a Third World war.
It’s a pisser, children, but does that really mean you need to take it out on some fuckin’ private first class who’s biggest error was to fail to rubber stamp your wingnut propaganda? That’s the ugliness from you people. Matthew A. Sanchez, the evangelical never-gay gay porn actor and man-whore, the Republican marine wannabe, is comic relief. Wise up, dumbshits. Have a fuckin’ laugh. Seems like you need it worse than anyone.
But if you still don’t want to laugh, then rest assured that I’m looking at you and laughing my ass off. Keep posting, and I’ll keep laughing at you. Force yourself, JD. Ha!
How strong can you be, Chuckie? I just want the truth!
Ooooh, and how about that Drudge? Isn’t he just dreamy?
tw: bride Blaine
Is your name really Blaine, Charles? This thing never lies.
I love Jesus.
Pablo, I’m shocked! Now you’re want to be the meat in a Matt sandwich? You kinky ‘ol wingnut, you!
Uh, no. He’s recanted, the corroboration isn’t, and TNR’s “experts” are well…I’ll let you figure it out.
Franklin Foer won’t be coming back from vacation. And just for you, so you can explain why we ought not believe it, meet SSGT Toby Hanson.
No, Charles. Matt scares me. I’m looking for a bitter old queen, and I’ve got my eye on you!
Yup, they hold a PFC incommunicado. They ask the people in his unit if they’ve done or seen these things, when those people know that if they answer “Yes,” they’ll be in deep shit. And you’re going to take that as a recantation. You people are truly, truly desperate.
Pablo, I’m not the one who keeps you comin’ back for more. It’s Mateo, the apple of your eye. You care. You care deeply. So deeply. Ooh.
Bye for now, kids. I’m off to dinner. You’ll have to eat each other while I’m gone. Yum.
He does sound like he’s from another era… “doin’ the horizontal mambo”? That’s so Jack Tripper.
Charles, honey, I’m a regular here. I’d be here regardless. And I’m inspired.
BECAUSE OF THE HATE!!!
Nope. The investigation is over, Beauchamp was never held, and he’s free to discuss the matter.
For what? What would another PFC witnessing these things get charged with? And what punishment would they be exposed to the trumps the penalty for lying to investigators? You’re reaching, sweetie.
tw: wife root
Oh, that’s just nasty!
Charlie – Your desire to believe the story does not make it true. in fact, all of the available evidence shows that none of it was true. Now, we all know that you are overjoyed that we are losing in Iraq (can you point out one battle we have lost?), and that you are willing to believe outright lies about our military, but I still fail to see what Matt Sanchez has to do with any of this.
Now, wipe that hershey’s donut off from around your nose, go study up a little bit on whether or not Beauchamp was honest about anything, and after you get done with your liquid protein dinner, come back here and apologize for being so mind-numbingly wrong. Hell, even timmah admitted he was wrong, but apparently you are a dead ended.
Did Matt give you gonorrhea? Syphillis? That would explain the unhealthy fixation and the dementia displayed.
in fact, all of the available evidence shows that none of it was true
The Army says it’s not true. But the Army has been lying about all kinds of things throughout the Iraq War. The Army has just as bad a track record with the truth as Baghdad Bob. The Army is untrustworthy. Moreover, the soldiers quoted by the Army have every reason to lie.
I still fail to see what Matt Sanchez has to do with any of this.
I explained the connection a long while back. You have ignored it, out of a wish to show loyalty to Matt Sanchez, your friend and … ?
Did Matt give you gonorrhea? Syphillis? That would explain the unhealthy fixation and the dementia displayed.
Back to the tried ‘n true wingnut insults! Ha!
No, Charlie, they do not have every reason to lie. In the military, making a false official statement is a far greater crime than any potential action that could be taken against them for either participating in the events in question, or not reporting the events in question. So, in fact, you are dead wrong in your assertion. They have every reason to tell the truth.
With a position of comparing our military to Baghdad Bob, there is no reason to even discuss veracity with you. None. If you think they are in any way equivalent, then you are objectively in the group that does not support them, and now it is understandable why you are going to such great lengths in your attempts to smear them.
If you explained the Sanchez connection, and how his reporting was factually wrong, it should be easy for you to point me to the comment. Please do.
And everyone with reason to know, who is in the Army says it’s not true.
In fact, the only evidence that you’re offering that it is true is your psychic ability to see into the hearts and minds of others and determine their motivations in an instant. And your accuracy in such matters is beyond suspect. You suck at it.
Clearly, I can see your nuts.
Sorry, JD, but the U.S. Army lied about Pat Tillman, and continues to lie about that case. It lied about Jessica Lynch. It lied about torture, and block Taguba from pursuing a complete investigation. The Marine Corps lied about Haditha, and purposely delayed the investigation long enough to spoil the evidence. I think a comparison to “Baghdad Bob” is an apt one. U.S. military investigations need to be second-, third-, and fourth-guessed.
Beauchamp’s squad-mates have every reason to say that they never saw a thing. When the New Republic says it talked with five members of his squad and confirmed his story, I believe the magazine and disbelieve the Army. The Army has a track record of lying. See Aesop, The Boy Who Cried Wolf. It’s the oldest form of logic: inductive reasoning. Emphasis on “reasoning,” which is something the wingnutosphere just hates.
Pablo, you can see my nuts? Well, get on up here then, so I can get a look at your face. Ha!
p.s.: Pablo, you walked right into that one. Or should I say dove right into those ones? Looks like your Freudian slip was showing. Ha!
You must be one fat
motherfatherfucker, Charles. And that line is the punch line to an old joke you should familiarize yourself with, as you could really, really use the services of one of the players.Now, please quote someone, anyone from the US Army lying about Lynch. And keep in ming that the Washington post is not a part of the US Army. Tell us where it lied about torture. Tell us where the Maries, who are not the Army, lied about Haditha.
And then tell us about Stephen Glass and Scott Beauchamp. And sqaure backed rounds for the Iraqi Police exclusive Glocks.
Pablo, you seems to be melting down in perfect harmony with your buddy Mateo. Hmm.
No answer to the challenge, Charles? Just more self loathing snark?
How…typical.
BTW, you still haven’t addressed the central question here: Was Sanchez correct in what he reported from FOB Falcon?
Why do you refuse to address that, Charles?
Self-loathing, Pablo? Not me. I’ve already addressed the reporting issues. How about you take your eyes, etc., off of my nuts and go read what I wrote?
Why don’t you point to it, Charles? Instead of pointing to a moonbat, gay-hating site that discounts Sanchez’ accurate reporting because they don’t want it to be accurate, that is.
BTW, your “nuts” is like a big, blazing neon sign. If you don’t want people looking at it, you’d better turn it off.
See, JD can’t find it either. Personally, I’d say you’re lying, again. Prove me wrong.
You and JD should lay off the methamphetamine, then. It’s the scourge of the wingnuts. Try again tomorrow, boys. Ha!
The meth, it is teh scourge>/a> of teh ghey!!!11!!
For reals.
Hey children, go back to that link I highlighted. Here, I’ll do it again for you. Now click the “track” feature next to any of Sanchez’s comments. See what other sign-ons he’s been using there, and what he’s been saying. That’s your wingnut hero. Yup, your guy. Enjoy!
You have a black heart, Charlie Wilson
Charlie has a soft mind, too. Teh crazee makes it all mushy.
Still waiting for you to point to your take on the veracity of Sanchez’ reporting from FOB Falcon, Chuck. That ain’t it.
You know what’s really frightening? Charlie claims to have been a journalist.
Can you imagine getting your news from this joker?
tw: habitual because of teh crazee.
Wingnuts Make Strange Bedfellows, Pablo!
March 8, 2007
Alan Colmes Show
COLMES: Did you work as a male prostitute?
SANCHEZ: That as well, yeah.
COLMES: You were a male prostitute?
SANCHEZ: Yes. This more… was one of the worst periods of my life
Was Sanchez right about melty-face lady, Charles? I don’t much care about your obsessions with who he’s fucked or why.
Answer the question or just fuck right off, psycho.
Pablo, I answered the questions about his reporting a long time ago. Quit it with your meth and go read what I wrote.
Charles “I tremble in awe while I kneel at the feet of Matt Sanchez” Wilson – So far, despite repeated requests, you have yet to show or produce any evidence that Sanchez was incorrect in his reporting. I wasted much time reading your drivel all over again, just to make sure I missed something, and unless you count calling Sanchez a gay prostitute a rebuttal of his reporting, you have failed to show where he was incorrect.
I see after a week, you still have not tired of speaking of TEH GAY that is Matt Sanchez. Still sticking with that meme of this being anybody other than your obsession?
Charles – We know it is difficult for you to type with one hand, while whacking off to videos of Matt Sanchez and that 11′ cock. Now, tell your boyfriend to leave me alone, quit your obviously unhealthy obsession with the Dirty Sanchez, and get a life.
Charlie Wilson “I can’t quit you!”
Matt Sanchez got mentioned and linked on Power Line today. That one positive link is exponentially more impactful than a month of Charlie’s derogations, which should make Charlie feel rather small and futile, like one of those little grapes that falls out at the supermarket checkout and gets squooshed by some fat guy’s case of Barq’s Root Beer.
Did that sound tendentious?
Did TNR issue their mea culpa yet, or did this just pass by like it never even happened?
You see, even the spammers know that this story was all about the GAY PORN COCK OF LIES !
Fuckers, even though TNR did not get away with this, they are really not being held to account by anyone outside of blog-world. After their convenient vacation, this just kind of faded away. Pity.
Were I Rudy or Fred, I would bring TNR’s perfidy up at every stump speech.