[Dean Barnett’s post] consists of basically an excuse to link to this intrepid report by Matt “Yes I appeared in Gay porn but that does not mean I am gay and even if I am for some reason the Right-wing gives me a pass anyway†Sanchez (obligatory Onion link), in which his investigation has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman (PROOF BEAUCHAMP IS A LIAR!).
At any rate, since it has been only a week, I am curious why there is little conversation about Beauchamp. last week he was single-handedly destroying morale, fueling terrorist hate, and smearing the country. He was such a threat that every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set phasers on smear, and hysteria reached a fevered pitch in no time.
But now, nothing.
Well, what remains to be said, John? If the “nutters” continue to harp on the significance of reporting fiction as truth, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they move on to the next outrage, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write on the surge strategy and its successes, they are simply trying to distract us from the mess that is Iraq. If they write about Paris Hilton, or take on Barack Obama’s bluster about invading Pakistan, one wonders why they aren’t taking on the mess that is Iraq.
At any rate, Beauchamp, we have forgotten you in just a few days, but thank you. You gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica when they investigated you and your girlfriend. You gave certain others a testosterone rush they have not felt since High School football when you gave them an opportunity to opine about giving you a blanket party. And most of all, thank you for providing a week-long distraction as to how fucked up things really are in Iraq.
Did John mention that anything that the “nutters” write that isn’t about the mess that is Iraq is a distraction from the mess that is Iraq?
John has often told me he doesn’t pay much attention to the bilious twaddle coming out of his comments section. And yet, in this post he has bought into every cartoon of “the nutters” (of which he is not a member: after all, he is focused on the mess that is Iraq) that his commenters have been pitching for years: at home in the basement, playing macho keyboard warrior to escape their inveterate dorkiness and give voice to their petty hatreds — even as there’s this giant mess in Iraq.
What is so remarkable about this (self-parodying) rant — Cole’s bluster is barely contained, even as he pokes fun at the bluster of others; and Cole’s suggestion that the nutters are willing to believe a reluctant fag only when it suits their political purposes, even as it is he who brings up Matt Sanchez’s sexual past as a way to impeach his testimony (which isn’t even his testimony), shows him to be something of a hypocrite, if not a politically selective homophobe — is that Cole actually claims that “every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set phasers on smear.”
Which is, of course, a ridiculous and unsourced smear itself, one that self-abnegates given that Cole is himself a milblogger — and that his idea of a “smear” seems to extend to questioning the specifics of what Beauchamp wrote.
Or maybe he’s just projecting, given that he is the only one, it seems, who is setting out to “smear” — be it Matt Sanchez, or those people who disbelieved, for very good reasons, the stories being pushed as subjective “truths” by TNR. Like, you know, Lt Colonel Crider or Public Affairs Officer Major Luke Luedeke.
Criticism and editorial fact checking is now a “smear.” Concentrating on something other than what John Cole wishes one to concentrate on is now a “distraction.” “Investigating,” when done from a basement on a laptop (rather than by, say, Scott Beauchamp, or people who are duly credentialed and approved by the mainstream press), is akin to a high school hazing incident.
But no worries. John’s commenters will bubble up from their own private sewers to mix their raw hatred with his — justifying it, applauding its candid truthiness, celebrating John as one of the few conservatives who truly gets it — and the circle will be squared.
Which, that last wouldn’t normally count as some sort of coded homophobic reference, but with Cole doing the interpreting, you never can tell.
Bottom line is, the only way one can counter some of Beauchamp’s claims is to offer competing testimony. Why is Cole so averse to this? Why is it a waste of time to correct the record if in fact the record needs correcting? Or should we all be as blase about the corruption of reporting and the conflation of fact with subjective tales that lay claim to “significance” as Cole appears to be?
And isn’t it ironic that Cole is spending so much energy showing us just how unimportant all this really is? Because after all, what he should be doing is spending more time posting on the mess that is Iraq.
Go get ’em, Tiger! From a laptop set up on the handlebars of your recumbent bike, you shall slay the nutters with your swift and terrible rhetorical sword and make the world once again safe for “reasonable conservatives”!
Provided you don’t cut off your own nose to spite your face first, that is.
****
update: Cole responds, calling my argument “silly,” but noting that it is better than the “impentrable gibberish” that I wrote last week.
Which would be the same “impenetrable gibberish” that the semiotician to whom I was responding deferred approvingly.
Seems he got it — as did a whole host of readers.
Sadly, Cole, who teaches rhetoric, is reduced to pretending that what I wrote is “gibberish” because, I presume, he was too busy throwing darts at Photoshopped pictures of Michelle Malkin in a bikini to work through it.
Listen, John. It’s okay to come out and say you don’t understand something. It’s not a reflection on you, I assure you — so there’s no reason to call it stupid and dismiss it like some petulant child.
Call me. I’ll walk you through it. So that the next time you encounter such “gibberish” — you are, after all, part of a rhetoric department, are you not? — you won’t be so frightened by it.
The big scary words won’t hurt you once you get to know them, John. But if it helps, I can do a version that uses Big Gay Matt Sanchez and Michelle Malkin and some ping pong balls, to make the arguments more concrete.
****
update 2: via Allah, Sanchez under seige. Radio Left (home of the compassionate, who embrace Otherness and champion personal dignity) is running the following headline: “_Weekly Standard_ used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR ‘Baghdad Diarist'”
At some point in the sexual revolution — or during the latter stages of the gay rights movment, I’m not sure which — where you prefer to jam your cock became grounds for impeachment of your testimony among “progressives” (and “reasonable conservatives” like John Cole). Evidently, sticking your cock in a male for money at some point in your life means that you are forever suspect when it comes to dialing a phone, or copying down a quote accurately.
Probably because they get all, like, homo-ey in the process.
****
update 3: John Cole just IMed me, trying to be chummy. I invited him to blow me.
I assume that impeaches anything I ever write from here on out.
[…] Goldstein claims last week’s hysteria was merely “fact-checking.” This takes silly to a whole new level, but at least this piece from Jeff is better than the […]
You sure that isn’t Juan Cole you’re quoting?
Hey, who are you to judge warmonger? John takes the BUS to work! So his devotion to mother gaia earns him the right to make the occasional gay smear.
That is the standard retort to Jeff. It’s like the Goldstein variation on Godwin. As soon as they complain about sentence length or astruse language, they forfeit.
At any rate, Beauchamp, we have forgotten you in just a few days, but thank you. You gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica when they investigated you and your girlfriend.
I find this to be very lame coming from Cole. It’s been established that the Army is investigating thereby not answering media questions and that includes Beaucamp , that TNR in it’s so -called “re-report” has only made silly half-hearted attempts at “questions” and so to attack Sanchez is really low-class and unserious and to suggest that bloggers who are interested, but you know, waiting for the facts to be established — sounds like Cole is the one who was looking for an excuse to comment on this.
Jeff,
Congratulations! According to Cole, you have now taken “silly to a whole new level” but your silliness is an improvement over last week’s “impenetrable gibberish”. Who knows? By next week you two may be seeing eye-to-eye without you having changed your stance one iota.
Maybe you can learn some flexibility for your yoga/baseball training by studying the (ever-flexible) methods of Master John.
Cole is putting his anger in the wrong place, the way a woman blames a rival instead of a cheating husband. Beauchamp and his willing facilitators are to blame if they weaken their case through exaggeration. If you can’t make your case with something real and straight, you can’t make your case.
WOW, I just read StupidJuice’s entire post – he sounds like he could use a drink.
He’s always been a little sensitive. I remember him getting all pissed off at some Pajama media founder. Stupidjuice was on the right side of the argument, it was his defensive bluster execution that left looking like a total dick.
SarahW
Exactly. It’s pretty hilarious that he went looking for a nit to pick and when anyone dare criticize him he blew a gasket. He really needs to check his ego before he hits the keyboard.
The real story here is, clearly, that TNR ran reports that they neither knew were true nor did they fact check at all, and fired one of its staffers for telling the truth about it.
Personally, I thought the Beauchamp hoopla was a perfect example of conservatism taking criticism seriously. I, for one, disregarded Beauchamp’s writing more or less the second I heard military commenters dispute the Glock shells, the “Didn’t know if she was a contractor,” and the swerving halftrack stories. The ‘Gracie’ reports from Ace sealed the deal. The fact that HotAir and several other blogs actually continued doing real investigations on the details in Beauchamp’s fictions were clear signs, to me, that, rather than a pile on, these stories were treated with a serious regard despite the obvious falsehoods already found.
Darn, that thread is one big snakepit of teh crazy.
“the corruption of reporting and the conflation of fact with subjective tales”
I was trapped in a co-worker’s car today to get lunch, and NPR was on the radio. Amy Goodman had some NY Times staffer on and they were lamenting the sale of the WSJ to Murdoch. The NYTer actually came out and said (I’m paraphrasing) that with this sale, they will no longer have the ability to set the news agenda. The mask slips a little further.
Hey, Jeff G, you just made the quick pick headlines at HotAir! That’s good for about eight hours of HA exposure!
Sad to see John Cole slip off the rails and into the void. The powerful desire to hear only what one wants to hear is hard to over come. At least the Commissar will have someone to talk to out on the fringe.
Holy Shitski, Batsman! Hot Air Actually threw ya a link!
True, it was a “news scroll” link, but hey –
John Cole is pathetic, the reason its dropped off is because we have limited access and resources to keep following the story. The Army is doing the investigation which we have limited access to, and the rest of the story would require access to what is going on inside TNR.
God, he’s like Sully, the world’s only REAL conservative.
Actually, Hotair Headlines usually gets you more hits than actual links in the Blog, I’ve learned. (I’ve gotten around three in both)
It’s just that John and I don’t understand why, just because the US military cut off all forms of my communication, all the conservative webloggers are forsaking me as well.
I’m not dead, yet.
I’ve got plenty more to say.
I am, after all, an author first and a soldier second.
Frankly, I gave up on balloon juice as a cesspool long ago. Does anyone sane bother to read it anymore?
Damn you Bad Candy, why won’t you quit stalking me!!11!1!!!
What? What?
Jeff? I’m sorry, did you write something?
My apologies! It’s just this durn quagmire in Iraq is so distracting…
So … you bring pie?
tw: Triano itics tiny Italian bugs are eating my roses…
Or maybe we’re all just waiting to see what the results of both the TNR and Army investigations are.
And what with TNR on vacation (JUST LIKE THE IRAQI LEGISLATURE!!!!) there’s not a whole lot left to say on the matter(EXCEPT THAT MATT SANCHEZ WAS IN GAY PORN!!!!).
Yeah, John Cole is a conservative. Just like Andrew Sullivan (WHO IS GAY!!)
Well, pretty much. Not definitive, in and of itself, but with the number of people who are reporting the same thing, yeah.
Funny, but I just posted on that day before yesterday. Or was that how fucked up things are in Congress? Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
We really should be talking about important things like how Bush is going to suspend the Constitution and cancel the ’08 election.
scottthomas.us
I thought you were the next great American Poet? Or was that icky Aryan female stalker?
I get confused sometimes…
Oh, well! Back to obsessing about that inconvenient FUBAR in Iraq.
tw: herd Department Balloon juice commentators. MOO!
John “when I think about conservative guys, it’s all about what they do with those cocks of theirs is what I think about first oh yeah um” Cole is hard to engage in terms of his arguments cause I won’t click over to his stupid page. Maybe you could quote more?
Calling John Cole “conservative” is like calling Oliver Willis “lean and lanky”.
And did someone mention pie?
Does anyone sane bother to read it anymore?
No. I gave up when John started pandering and begging for forgiveness to his loony bin of idiots if he said anything remotely critical of any liberal blogger. Pleading and putting all kinds of qualifiers “I’m soory” because the likes of DougJ has a tantrum? What a half a man!
As I post over there I just want them to tell me what more should be written?
As far as I can see, the story was told, it was torn apart, TNR ran away, and the military is investigating.
For now the story is over.
But they want more blogging on it. And we KNOW that if there were more stories written, they’d NEVER accuse the right of “piling on”.
It’s all part of Bu$HitlerCo’s grand scheme to institute a uterus-enslaving theocracy. WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END???
TW: features blackness
Insufficient Obsession…
John Cole wonders why there is little conversation about Beauchamp. Last week he was single-handedly destroying morale, fueling terrorist hate, and smearing the country. He was such a threat that every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set …
Well, a homosexual is no more gay when he “outs” a good story than a black man is truly black if he doesn’t think like a black man must. That is to say that diversity should be celebrated as long as it’s not diverse.
It is only an attack if you question the truthiness of what is apparently a bald faced lie.
HOWDAREYOUQUESTIONMYPATRIOTISM!!!
Cole is a communications professor whose site is basically name-calling and profanity. The kids at West Virginia University are getting gypped.
“We’re vet’rans of th3 Sexual Revoloooo-shun…”
This is my weapon, this is my gun,
One is for killing, the other’s for fun.
SB: analysis versed
Oh, stop showing off.
For a self-proclaimed tolerant bunch, they sure are fucking intolerant of blacks and gays that do not agree with them.
You are apparently not the only one to have concerns about Cole. His boss, Matthew Martin, Chair of the Department of Communications, has intimated to several who have complained that Cole will likely not have his contracy renewed; I gather that Cole is not in a slot with tenure possibilities.
Brilliant…Cole’s lameass post needed someone who could truly lay down the smack, and you were the man to do it.
And yeah, I’m amused to no end when the champions of identity politics and the dignity of the outcast immediately reach for the sexual or racist slur to hang on someone they disagree with.
I guess you get a pass on it when your heart is pure enough.
A.L.
Kinda like how if you’re a Nobel peace prize winner and you’re at a peace conference in Dallas, you can remark how you’d like to kill the President.
Nonviolently, of course.
Just curious, Jeff, but you don’t think being in porn hurts one’s credibility? Being a whore for sex certainly means one will be true to one’s alleged political beliefs? Especially when those “beliefs” and their fellow travelers can’t stand your sexual orientation? You wouldn’t question the integrity of a whore, but you do of a soldier…because of “contradictions” and politics. So, in a “he-said/she said” you are more likely to believe the prostitute because he espouses politics you like.
When Matt Sanchez reports something, it’s gospel? Did you fact check it? Did you at least ask Michael Yon?
P.S. I especially liked the “John Cole is sensitive” comment. That was really rich!
Another question: aren’t these the same folks who told us what a man does in private has no bearing on … or did they forget the qualifier “as long as it’s a hetero screwfest?”
Being a whore for sex certainly means one will be true to one’s alleged political beliefs? Especially when those “beliefs†and their fellow travelers can’t stand your sexual orientation?
Timmy, I really think you should leave Andrew Sullivan out of this discussion.
huh?
Heh. Now the “assholes” at Protein Wisdom are out to get him. I spent an enormous amount of time in his comment threads over the years, and before this he was always very quick to defend the assholes over here when honest arguments were being made.
What changed? The same kind of arguments are being made now, as they were then.
So, John “Why aren’t you as homophobic as I want you to be?!” Cole speaks.
TW: critically self
(Hey, this “put quotes in between the first and last names stuff can be FUN!”
Is he still a whore for sex, timb, or has he moved on?
Funny how the most violent criminals can be “rehabilitated,” but not so a guy who did gay porn — as if the gay porn somehow affected his sight, his hearing, his ability to recall, etc. Are you suggesting he’s diseased, timb?
And please, stop projecting your own hatreds onto people like me. I could care less about anyone’s sexuality, unless, perhaps, he is fixing to bang my dog.
Funny, but it was always liberals who reminded us that just because someone’s a hooker doesn’t mean they’re a bad witness. Hell, I think Barbara Streisand even did a movie about it.
The difference, I guess, is that some of the real liberals still believe that.
Education Guy – I have a hard time reading something written by one with the moniker “Education Guy”. I’ll try reading it again in a second.
Better a whore for money than a whore for Ric Caric.
Speak for yourself, weasel fuckee.
Of course he is, and so is Cole, while simultaneously claiming to champion all things gay.
Dammit Jeff, I think I penetrated the gibberish. You’re slipping.
BTW, it’s sometimes hard to tell where the lucid prose ends, and the gibberish begins. Could you maybe put the gibberish in italics?
UPDATE: TNR is “re-reporting” the stories, but has published nothing before going on vacation, though Foer originally claimed he had corroboration. The Army is investigating, and tends not to say anything during said investigation. Sanchez is checking things out at FOB Falcon; Leftards are whining about it.
Pass that along to Cole, so he’s all caught up.
tw: before Professor. Heh.
JeffG wrote:
No, only former gay porn stars who go against the views of people like timmah and Cole.
In truth, timmah, Cole et al are expressing confusion because people they hate aren’t being the bigots oh-so-enlightened folks timmah and Cole want them to be.
Especially when those “beliefs†and their fellow travelers can’t stand your sexual orientation?
timb, that brush is a little broad, don’t you think? Or are you hiding behind the “and” in your little construction above?
TW: Chesapeake Na. I guess that’s a “Naw, hon.”
Gay Porn: “if not him then who? If not then then when?” Good Lord, man… it’s like social work, almost.
Let’s look at it another way, timmah. If every time Rep. Barney Frank spoke about something, we mocked him for being gay and patronizing gay prostitutes rather than address his position, you would consider us homophobic. If Andrew Sullivan was dismissed out of hand because he is gay rather than because he is a gobsmackingly vile writer, you would consider us homophobic. However, when the Left castigates someone based solely on their sexual orientation, that is a blow for freedom and tolerance? How do you make it through a day without exploding?
“Just curious, Jeff, but you don’t think being in porn hurts one’s credibility?”
Well, it never hurt Bill Clinton.
Especially when those “beliefs†and their fellow travelers can’t stand your sexual orientation?
You, my retarded friend, have balls of steel to write something like this when it was John who was using gayness as a smear. Tell me, does it ever bother you that you are just not smart enough to approach discussing issue without having to resort to sleight of hand, broad based group character assassination, or outright lies?
I’m guessing that your internal shame identifier is broken, or was never installed. Now, whine for us that I was mean to you.
When wandering off the plantation, or away from the downtown bus station, a liberal will be ready to whip them back into proper submission. Independent thinking is abhorrent to the left…
This man Cole teaches rhetoric, eh? Perhaps his family would have been better served had they sent him to technical school.
Cole’s argument is the logical result of a 24 hour news cycle. He expects constant coverage of an event, even if nothing new has developed. All other topics must be avoided at all costs, so Jeff can keep us updated every time someone does a Google search for Beauchamp.
Get to it Jeff. I’m thinking of something along the lines of your citizen journalist’s reports:
BREAKING!!! MUST CREDIT PROTEIN WISDOM!!!
Nothing has changed since last time. We’ll keep you updated on the progress of this nothing.
THE GAY PORN COCK OF LIES RETURNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Timmah has now reached the point where he makes less sense than Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison:
Jeff –
I do not now, nor will I ever, want you to ‘square my circle’.
You may, however, ‘rock my world’ – WITH PIE!
Commenting over at Cole’s place is a surreal experiece.
Imagine being surrounded by timmys, all yelling “I know you are but what am I?!?”
“For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen.”
-Douglas Adams
BREAKING!!! MUST CREDIT PROTEIN WISDOM!!!
so if you get, say, an advance of 20 credibility credits for merely being gay to start off with… does those get taken away from the issuing party when you are outed as an “alleged” conservative? Also, do you just return to zero, or do you have payables assessed? That is, do you go into negative credibility pointsland as a worldview-traitor? I am not asking because… well, you know… it’s not like I’m gay or anything… so, I mean, I don’t want anyone to think less of me if, let’s say, somehow I gave the impression I was or whatever… even though I can assure you I’m not or whatever… you know… not gay… and certainly haven’t done gay porn. Something about size or… ah, I forget.
The overwhelming majority of the people in this world who have done porn aren’t doing it any more and never will again. This would be because they have made a choice.
I was going to write more but the phone rang so that is fine, but pretend I wrote it where it didn;t sound so pedantic.
The overwhelming majority of the people in this world who have done porn aren’t doing it any more and never will again. This would be because they have made a choice.
Or are dead. Being dead kinda puts the kibosh on porn acting, although it probably wouldn’t damage the quality of the acting.
Please, no rigor mortis jokes.
What the hell happened to John Cole? He’s been quite anti-GOP, anti-war etc. for awhile now, which is fine with me…but this is fucking unhinged. I mean, it’s downright unreasonable, which I DON’T expect from him. There’s bile here, nastiness, intentional misunderstanding, etc. I just don’t get the motivation.
This would be because they have made a choice.
Sometimes this choice is to eat Pizzas engineered by the Japanese, but I get your point.
“He looked exactly the same when he was alive, only he was vertical.”
-The Trouble with Harry
Are timmah and heet pulling a tag-team on PW? If so, does that make ’em gay?
And if they’re gay, which one’s the “pitcher” and which the “catcher”?
SB: truths southern
CRIPPLE FIGHT!
“What the hell happened to John Cole? He’s been quite anti-GOP, anti-war etc. for awhile now, which is fine with me…but this is fucking unhinged. I mean, it’s downright unreasonable, which I DON’T expect from him. There’s bile here, nastiness, intentional misunderstanding, etc. I just don’t get the motivation.”
Maybe he’s running for office. This seems pretty typical of the vomit spewing out of liberals’ mouths.
No rigor mortis jokes? Will there be a stiff penilety?
Apparently the gibberish is already in a font type of which only Cole and his ilk can read.
Personally, I blame the TW generator. I mean, oppose arts it’s not even being subtle about it.
NECROPHILIPHOBE!
“When Matt Sanchez reports something, it’s gospel? Did you fact check it?”
Who needs facts when Sanchez has those latin good looks and an enormous schwanzstucker
Jeff B – How can you blame Cole for that ? He’s just pandering to the outright lunatics that comment on his site and trying out-moonbat his co-moron Tim F.
Balloon Juice: Insanity Is Contagious.™
(TW: with third-rate — no argument here)
Dammit, I just came up with an even better one.
Balloon Juice: Like Kryptonite to Lucid.™
[…] is unhappy with the conservative blogosphere for their reaction to the Scott Thomas controversy. Jeff Goldstein comments: Well, what remains to be said, John? If the “nutters†continue to harp on the significance of […]
Geezer,
“Being dead kinda puts the kibosh on porn acting.”
That explans it. I haven’t gotten a decent script in 20 years.
I used to comment there a lot, back when Cole was reasonable and centrist. I gave up as the commentariat ran out everyone who didn’t toe their line with a torrent of nonsensical non-sequitur abuse. It’s a cesspool now: a great place for people who enjoy flinging crap at each other, but the smell makes meaningful conversation impossible.
I kept reading for a while, though. I mostly gave up on Cole when he insisted the whole Abu Ghraib thing was deliberately orchestrated by Rumsfeld.
Now Cole’s basically a caricature, like Sullivan. These people are so unhinged by the notion of even relatively mild interrogation techniques (which the CIA has repeatedly said are our best source of intel) they can’t make rational arguments.
The final straw that made me lose all interest was actually a random thought: try to imagine Cole (or Sullivan) watching Jack Bauer on 24. No really, try it. There’s Jack, abusing a terrorist to try to prevent thousands of American deaths, and I have this hilarious mental image of Cole frothing at the mouth and screaming at the TV: “DAMN YOU JACK BAUER TORTURE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED!!”
After that, all I could do was chuckle when I saw his name.
Cole, who teaches rhetoric,
Really? That’s my thing, yet I never suspected. It really doesn’t show.
Doesn’t he know that it’s too late to make the jump from academic faiure to the Greenwald/Sullivan “true conservative” opinion market? It’s oversaturated. And there’s a certain important qualification for that job that he doesn’t have. “Cock” and “lies” just isn’t enough.
TW: unyielding butt
I disown that.
“John has often told me he doesn’t pay much attention to the bilious twaddle coming out of his comments section.”
Bullshit. He created that place, and he used to have some of the best commenters around, many of whom migrated here. But after Schiavo/gay marriage, he turned all Sully, driving away all the Righties and turned BJ into a blog for the dumbest dregs of the left (an actual ongoing argument there goes: Every Democrat is better than every Republican. Really!) by feebly reducing every post to “aren’t Republicans all idiots?” Then he virtually stopped posting on anything that reflected positively on Bush or negatively on the Left. The omissions were glaring at times, and signaled that BJ was now a straight “I Hate Bush” site. Who did he think was going to hang out there and read his lowest common denominator whining? Trust me, he LOVES the bilious twaddle — he instigated it, after all. Go back to 2003 in his archives and you wonder when he had the lobotomy done.
I hope you can flush of few of those ‘tards over here to PW to take up for BJ — then PW could show them what a That Which Must Not Be Named-slapping awaits them if they dare stray from their hivemind. Such that it is.
“He created that place, and he used to have some of the best commenters around,”
And right on cue, TallDave…
Old Dad,
Dude, it’s porn. If you’re waiting for a good script, you’re gonna be waiting tables forever. However, if you’re just waiting for one that doesn’t find you getting cornholed, that makes pretty good sense.
Oh, and let me again cite this, the most damning piece of evidence against Beauchamp:
SFC McElroy,
I’m not in the habit of answering these email’s. It would be far too many. I appreciate all the support from home and I can assure you that not a single word of this was true. We’ve been fighting this fight for quite some time. Numerous soldiers within my unit have served on several deployments and this is my third year as a First Sergeant in this unit. My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. This soldier has other underlining issues which I’m sure will come out in the course of the investigation. No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. I can’t and won’t divulge any information regarding this soldier, but I do sincerely appreciate all the support from the people back home. Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. I’m proud of my soldiers and would gladly give my life for any one of them. Please continue to keep them with you in your prayers and thank God that we have these courageous men willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, Americans, and the people of this struggling nation.
Sincerely,
1SG Hatley
Sorry for taking up so much space. I now return you to your regularly scheduled comments.
We know who Matt Sanchez is — gay porn past and all — because he’s using his real name and identity, not a pseudonym like “scott thomas” did. And he was apparently too busy doing gay porn to be writing similar fictional war stories on his personal blog before deploying to Iraq. And he’s not being so disingenuous as to suggest that he wants no part of an ideological battle, as Scott Thomas Beauchamp — former editor of the liberal magazine at the U of Missouri, Howard Dean campaign worker and husband to a TNR staffer — now claims. And Sanchez hasn’t made claims that are inaccurate on their face (e.g., the Iraqi police have the only Glocks in Iraq).
That being said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If STB can produce evidence of the mocked woman, he’ll be vindicated — on that point.
Maybe they have the only ones with square rimmed brass! Have you checked that out?!?
/balloon juiced comment
tw: subjective this
Fabulist no more, Karl. TNR’s fact-checked results return three witnesses to the mocking (but with a change of location), two witnesses to the skull cap incident and one to the Bradley. You can check out at the TNR website (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207) and explain to me later why those soldiers AND Beauchamp are liars.
Damn lying soldiers getting in the way of the war.
Oh, and let me again cite this, the most damning piece of evidence against Beauchamp:
I’ve already been told that’s a forgery, and that it would be obvious to me if I knew what I was talking about.
???
I used to comment there a lot, back when Cole was reasonable and centrist. I gave up as the commentariat ran out everyone who didn’t toe their line with a torrent of nonsensical non-sequitur abuse.
Heh. As I asked my simple question over there just now, one of the commenters referred me to a link on the Delay investigaion.
I mean, just WOW. That’s high-powered stupid over there.
Oh, and Tom from 61, I get you. try posting a dissenting comment here and being forced to argue with “ANSWER MY GOTCHA QUESTION” It’s a thrill a minute.
To an entirely different COUNTRY, in which there is no war. But yeah, it’s all true! It’s about the war!
And hey, he was only wrong about what fucking country he was in….
Or, it’s just about what a bunch of douchebags are in the Army.
In the pamphlet I got before the last election, you get -5 points for being gay, but +15 if you write on the internet. If you are a whore you get +30 for the capitalism angle, but if you just sleep around you go down 6. There’s a break for going to prostitutes of +2, +1 if they’re men because it shows you understand your limitations, but then there’s a real kicker for wacking off to dirty IMs or phone sex.
On the other hand married hetero sex is still big, you’ll get a +50 for giving your wife a dementor’s kiss in public, add another 10 if you’re on TV, just don’t leer at her for Gaia’s sake, you’ll lose 16 points. Adultery is big too, you’ll get a +30 for cheating, provided it’s straight hetero stuff, any of that queer stuff and you might as well watch NASCAR.
Ass-fucking is still big though, if my property-tax bill is any guide. But if you got any of those lezbos in your family you are outta luck and almost out of points at a big -55.
If you are a lesbian however, you get an instant and irrevocable +30 and an extra +20 if you are on TV, +6 for being shrill or “brave’.
It goes on for a while, but I lost the last two pages cleaning up at the Sundance screening of “Zoo” which gives me a +7 if I’m talking about sexual health, but a -3 because I didn’t like the flick.
TW: forces often. I do not, but I would if I was Governor. It’s a +11
So, since he was about which base he was on, but it did happen and was corroborated, you want to base your entire denunciation on “It happened in Kuwait and not Iraq”? Is that all you got, Pablo?
I’m not thinking even Jeff could use that to say “fake, but accurate.” Then again, he’s surprised me before.
0 for 50 since Rathergate, folks? But, keep at it. You’ll get those lying terrorist sympathizers someday.
I can’t hate Cole too much because he is the reason I found this blog, but, man, did his site go to crap when he let the lunatic commenters start running the asylum. Other than when Jeff or QandO link over to Balloon Juice, I haven’t read that site since probably 2003.
Although, having just been over there, I did notice that his blog roll includes these stellar “Center to Right” (his term) blogs: TPM, Sully, S@dlyN0!, Kevin Drum, “Screw them” Markos, AmericaBlog, and Gleen Ellers McPherson.
When that’s your “center to right” you need to have your scale recalibrated.
Oh, and Tom from 61, I get you. try posting a dissenting comment here and being forced to argue with “ANSWER MY GOTCHA QUESTIONâ€Â
As usual timmy you didn’t “get” me. I asked the original question. I forced noone to argue. But many did try to change the subject.
Perhaps you could answer the question?
No one has looked into Kuwait. But what entirely certain is that it didn’t happen as Beauchamp said it did. You can tell by the way TNR said “We apologize for the error.”
And as anti-war agitprop, it wasn’t in the war. Much like the Iraq fiction Beauchamp wrote in Germany. Which is also not in the war.
The story turns out to be false, BUT THE CORRECTION MUST BE TRUE!!!
Especially in TNR. Or, that’s what Stephen Glass told me anyway.
What’s that you were saying, Timmah!?
Jesus, the same thing? Here? Hell, I answered it there. Many people answered it there. You were so busy playing the sixth grade debate team’s “gotcha question” that you apparently did read the replies.
Made it to TNR yet? You got something to write about now!
Hell of a correspondent that doesn’t know what freaking country he’s in, ain’t it?
If not for those meddling soldiers, I’d have gotten away with it!”
From the TNR:
The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error.
So Beauchamp is a fabulist. And for timmy this somehow vindcates his hero.
So, that’s your storyline, Pablo. He was right, but he had the wrong base? Seriously, that’s what you’re going with? It happened, but it happened on the way to Iraq and not the FOB. So it was “true, but inaccurate.”
I just need to know you’re going to put your plump ass on that tree branch….Seems to me, silence, changing the subject or saying “Dude’s still an asshole” are your only remedies, but, if you want to go with that, then I can’t stop you from making a giant ass of yourself.
Better yet, why don’t you talk in detail about the skull cap your folks said couldn’t happen or the dog running over.
Damn, I enjoy watching you dance so much. Dance, Pablo, Dance. Spin and spin and spin. In the end, you challenged an American combat veteran because you didn’t like his politics. Par for the course, but nice work.
that you apparently did read the replies.
You are correct, and I replied to many. I eventually gave up when it was apparent nobody was going to answer my question.
But that kind of screws up his narrative that war had turned him in to a dick. “Am I a monster?” Hah. Evidently he was always just a dick.
So, that’s your storyline, Pablo. He was right, but he had the wrong base? Seriously, that’s what you’re going with? It happened, but it happened on the way to Iraq and not the FOB. So it was “true, but inaccurate.â€Â
No, the storyline is HE LIED.
Period.
And there’s still that nagging problem of him witnessing these trangressions and, instead of reporting it, he wrote about it.
There’s also that little problem of not clearing his writing with his higher-ups, as is required.
Uh, timmah, if the story said “IN IRAQ”, and the “corroboration” says “IN KUWAIT”, then sumbuddy’s fibbing. It’s particularly odd that you’re attacking Sanchez, when he was attempting to verify the story at the location it reportedly occurred.
That’s like somebody saying “this guy got beat up real bad in St. Louis, MO”, then when no one can find anyone who was beaten in St. Louis, responding with “well, it was really Raleigh, NC”. The original statement was false; you’ve admitted the original statement was false; you can’t claim to have been telling the truth by pointing to people who contradict you in an essential element.
And, AFAICT, if Beauchamp pulled that stunt in Kuwait, that would have been before he was ever in Iraq. Which means that was before he ever saw combat of any sort. Which means it wasn’t the war that made him a heartless bastard; he was like that before.
TW: “brothel commerce,”. Oddly appropriate.
Tom B scores!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See, Tom, you ignorant goon, you accused him of lying and he didn’t. Fabulists make up things that didn’t happen or embellish those that did. He did neither.
If you’re hanging your hat on that, it still makes you wrong. Sorry, Tom. I’ll let the folks at balloon juice know. Oh, hold it, they already said that would be your brave attempt.
Nice work all. Really nice work. Remind me to go back to the Scooter Libby posts so I can find if Libby was a liar. Oh, no, he was a brave American patriot who couldn’t remember a conversation. His conviction for lying was immaterial. Here, you accuse someone of lying and then say you’re still right when he mistook the location of a ubiquitous mess hall.
“Consistency, the hobgoblin of a small mind” Right?
HAHAHAHHAHA
Has that been verified by anyone but TNR? Are their “corroborating sources” anonymous, or have they gone on record?
Me, I’m waiting for the military’s findings.
If TNR has done their due diligence, then that’s the only thing that can be held against Beauchamp at this point. I’m going to wait for the Army’s report before I consider the matter closed.
“And, AFAICT, if Beauchamp pulled that stunt in Kuwait, that would have been before he was ever in Iraq. Which means that was before he ever saw combat of any sort. Which means it wasn’t the war that made him a heartless bastard; he was like that before.”
As were the assclowns with him. Somehow I don’t think that Foer hs much experience with the “you lie, and I’ll swear to it” barracks game. Let’s see what the Army investigators report concerning corroboration.
Yes, he did. One of the points of his fantasy was how dehumanizing war is. He hadn’t been in the war at the time he acted like an insensitive asshole.
You cannot claim that event X caused event Y when event Y occurred before event X. It’s like blaming the Bali bombing on Australia’s involvement in Iraq.
Which means it wasn’t the war that made him a heartless bastard; he was like that before.
“Heartless bastard” is a badge that timmah-boy and his leftward travelers wear with pride.
Actually, Beauchamp reminds me of a lot of guys I’ve worked with over the years; if you’ve got a story to tell, they’ve got an even better one. And I’d be willing to bet the “corroborating” soldiers are in on the joke, providing him with cover.
So he was relieved that basic training had not entirely snuffed that small flame of humanity that he had been able to preserve in his soul, however dimly and precariously it yet smoldered. The humanity.
Riiiight. Because that is how media works: Fact-checking AFTER being called on their lies.
I imagine that these post-hoc justifications will be discredited in due time. If not, Beauchamp is still guilty of changing facts to create a narrative, and TNR of a lack of journalistic integrity.
“In the end, you challenged an American combat veteran because you didn’t like his politics. Par for the course, but nice work.”
Hold on there one damn minute, skippy. The veracity of the stories was first questioned based soley on the details as they were reported, not because of who wrote them. Remember, timb, no one except TNR knew who the author was when those doubts were first aired. Therefore, no one really knew his politics did they?
Nice try, though.
Sure, the military would never lie about anything. they always tell the truth.
In other news, Don Rumsfeld was called in front of a House committee to testify re: the cover-up around Pat Tillman’s death…oops.
Just hold on, guy, you can hunker down and this will all blow over next week when you figure out who the new traitor is.
Good luck
I imagine that these post-hoc justifications will be discredited in due time. If not, Beauchamp is still guilty of changing facts to create a narrative, and TNR of a lack of journalistic integrity.
Right, meaning timmah and his side still lose.
TW: deutschen mulligan. I’ll bet TNR wishes they had one.
See, Tom, you ignorant goon, you accused him of lying and he didn’t. Fabulists make up things that didn’t happen or embellish those that did. He did neither.
Here is the DIRECT QUOTE:
saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq. She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn’t really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor. The thing that stood out about her, though, wasn’t her strange uniform but the fact that nearly half her face was severely scarred. Or, rather, it had more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head…..”
That, timmy, is a complete lie.
The point of the article was how war changes you. A couple of paragraphs later:
That is how war works: It degrades every part of you, and your sense of humor is no exception.
How did “war work” when he hadn’t even been in theater yet?!
And I would point out, we STILL don’t know the ID of this woman. So we knuckle-draggers are actually giving the fabulist the benefit of the doubt.
Which means that was before he ever saw combat of any sort. Which means it wasn’t the war that made him a heartless bastard; he was like that before.
Dammit, Rob, that’s the argument I was about to make. Semicolon and all.
A guy’s really gotta stay on his toes ’round here.
So, basically, we’re back to timmah arguing from his prejudices and the rest of us waiting for the facts to come out?
She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn’t really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor.
According to folks in the military, not being able to tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian contractor would make Beauchamp a blithering idiot.
You still lose, timmah.
In other news, Don Rumsfeld was called in front of a House committee to testify re: the cover-up around Pat Tillman’s death…oops.
And timmy waves the white flag by trying to change the subject.
When the “corroboration” eviscerates the premise of his article, it’s hard to say he or TNR have been vindicated.
But I’m sure timmah and his fellow-travelers will say it anyway.
Rob:
Pretty much. Though it is amusing seeing him reach yet again for the “they do it tooooo” argument.
TW: wails species;
Timmah,
First, let’s dispense with the strawman — I have been consistently agnostic as to whether Beachamp’s stories were true, though there were some aspects of them that so defied common sense that they warranted an investigation. (See, e.g., here and here at my regular site). Indeed, I note at the second link that Beauchamp is in trouble (perhaps more trouble) if the stories are true. I’ve never called him a fabulist.
As for the new TNR statement (glad they got that posted before they ran out on vacation):
More anonymous soldiers. Wow. Ooh. Let’s see if STB’s “buddies” turn up in the Army investigation. Maybe they will, to throw STB under the bus — or Bradley Fighting Vehicle, figuratively speaking.
Thomas wrote about what “was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.” TNR now claims — as vindication — that it really appears to be the sort of unmarked grave site described by the Weekly Standard’s blog, not a Saddam-era mass grave. STB wrote that “Even on a mission, he put his helmet over the skull.” Did TNR verify that little detail? If so, it’s not in their statement.
TNR does have some experts on the ability of BFVs to hit dogs; I would give that some weight, though it may turn into what lawyers call a “battle of the experts.” (Interestingly, TNR apparently extends its cloak of anonymity to the manufacturer’s spokesman and the instructors it consulted. Wouldn’t want any third-parties checking the TNR again, I guess.)
STB also wrote about the driver taking out “curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market…” Did TNR verify that? There’s no mention of it.
Moreover, TNR apparently has limited its “re-reporting” to the anecdotes in “Shock Troops.” Claiming that a victim must have been murdered by Iraqi police because of a 9mm casing (misdescribed by STB and ignorant of at least 10,000 Glocks on the market in Baghdad)? Not checked. Changing a run-flat tire in the midst of raw sewage? Not checked. And so on.
Color me less than impressed.
I’d also note that timmah has already decided the military’s conclusion about Beauchamp will be a lie. Or, to be more precise, if it goes against what he wants, it’ll be a lie. If they find the events really happened, then timmah will be screaming “suck it” while ignoring the point that the criticism of the article (and STB) was as much over no one doing anything as over the possibility it was fantasy.
“According to folks in the military, not being able to tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian contractor would make Beauchamp a blithering idiot.”
Yep, and he saw her nearly every time he went to dinner in the “chow hall”. Including the episode in question, when she sat down next to him.
Hey, I rated two updates all by myself! I’m not sure I should be proud. Is it a point of pride when the class idiot flicks boogers at you?
[…] Jeff Goldstein gets up in Cole’s grill. So does Ace. Goldstein is his usual erudite and scathing self. Ace just slices like a […]
SecDef, no matter who holds the office, is a civilian, timb.
[…] but not least, Ace and Jeff Goldstein rip on Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s new best friend […]
The TNR update is exactly what I predicted: they will find whatever tiny nuggets of truth they can pan out of this creek full of crap, polish them up for public viewing, and then they and the lefties will pronounce themselves totally vindicated.
Next, Scott will write a book about how he was persecuted for “telling the truth.” Watch, the word “truth” will even be in the title. Leftists will show him the same enthusiasm they had for John Kerry’s soldier-bashing in the 1970s.
Heck, if Ted runs his car into the river again, Beauchamp might be a Senator soon.
So already TNR has undermined the key facts of the story about the abuse of a maimed woman since all of the details of the location, environment, the confusion as whether a civilian contractor in Iraq and the repetitive nature of his observations are false.
Timb, once again you’ve discredited yourself.
If intellectual hypocrisy were an Olympic event in 2008, our man Timmah would be GOLD. And he wouldn’t even have to train for it.
Everyone raise your electronic hand who thought the Army did a bang-up job in the Tillman case. Yeah…for those of us who read the site and don’t need the injections of whatever the hell it is Timmahs uses to protect himself from the irony scorches (i.e., mentioning an imagined traitor fixation on our part without any acknowledgement that his preferred party’s senior elected leader has pronounced the war is “lost”). I know the injections provide a balm, but how do you keep you head from exploding when you write this:
“Remind me to go back to the Scooter Libby posts so I can find if Libby was a liar.”
Two words: Joe. Wilson.
Timmah, the next time you want to accuse anyone here of being inconsistent, may I offer the following suggestion from the immortal Junior Soprano as brilliantly played by Dominic Chianese: “Go shit in your hat.”
Beauchamp is a putz, and that’s been apparent for some time. The real tragedy today is that yet another thread has become about Timmah!
It is very interesting that this post about “anonymous” sources providing “possible” corroboration is posted while the TNR is on vacation. So that the TNR staff can hide themselves from those who might wish to ask them questions. Because as we all know reporters hate questions, nearly as much as they hate reporting. Now one must wait and watch to see who this statement actually fools, and how many of those fooled wish desperately to be to be fooled.
It occurs to me that this is exactly how the AP acted during Jamil Hussein case. For them it succeeded. Mostly becuase right leaning journalists were more than happy (relieved?) to let it work. Will you infidels allow that to happen once more?
Karl:
Yes, in fact, they did:
Wait, I’m sorry, they only verified 1) that bones were found, 2) that a soldier wore one on his head like a yarmulke, but because they didn’t travel back in time and use their X-ray vision to see whether the soldier was lying about wearing it under his helmet, you find their account suspect.
As to the experts who said that no Bradley could be driven the way Beauchamp described, well, the people who make them think they can; the people who train people to drive Bradleys think they can; and the people who were with Beauchamp said they did. To my mind, that’s fairly conclusive evidence … esp. when you consider that this information was collected with the assistance of the Army Public Affairs people.
Ban Ki Moon will be so happy! We’re finally talking about gay people! Hooray for us! Now he can smile and nod at the protesters because we finally have the courage to discuss the issues!
Thank you SBK, I love you passionately
Congratulations infidels. Haditha revisisted. Except this time you have allowed every soldier in the United States Armed services to be condemned. Watch now as calls for closer supervision of American soldiers and investigations into American Soldiers conduct are issued. Some by those in the right leaning press. Of course your journlists could have confronted these issues in the beginning, and thus short cicuited the TNR’s game plan, instead of waiting for TNR to go on the offensive, and into hiding. But you did not, and you will not…ever.
SEK – They confirmed the possibility of some of the things happening, they did not confirm that any of them actually happened. Have you read any of the milbloggers and their specific problems with the stories he alleged to have witnessed? Verifying that some of the minor details could be possible does not confirm that Beauchamp’s accounting were accurate.
As to the substance of his story, the war is hell meme, it is ironic that the one incident, that IF it occurred was before he was ever in country, stands the whole war is hell meme on its ear, since he had not yet been to war.
I am fairly certain that even if every single thing he reported to have happned did happen, then he is still a dick, and will still face the wrath of the military, as he witnessed and/or participated in events that required him to report them to his chain of command, and instead, he wrote an article for TNR. Ironic that he had dreamed these scnearios prior to ever getting into the war.
Some of us are willing to let the Army sort things out.
Great time for a vacation, huh TNR ?
You’re really invested in Beauchamp, aren’t you, Scott?
So, SEK, you consider TNR vindicated? What happens if the military disagrees?
Christ, either you demand “teh truth!” or you condemn the truth for helping our enemies. Which is it? My bet is whichever is easier to bludgeon the amorphous left (ie everyone who is unlike you)
Of course, where SBK is in error is this. Army Public Affairs people were not contacted (at least according to the Sanchez infidel) and all of the other corroboration is completely anonymous. But that will not matter, it will be sold as the gospel by SBK and those like him. And other journalists will be happy to play along, as they did on the Jamil Hussein affair, because they do not wish to harm the market share of their profession.
Meanwhile the truth will come out months from now at the close of the Army invesitgation, and it will be conveniently ignored. Because you will have allowed a new narrative to be laid in place and set in motion. At its close perhaps, if I am lucky, we will be able to relive the wonderful days at the close of Vietnam when American soldiers were treated like criminals in their own country upon returning home from war.
Continue to pretend that journalism is an honorable profession designed to discover the truth. Continue to refuse to investigate the claims of those like SBK and the people at the TNR. Continue to listen to Podheretz when he tells you there is no story in the revelations regarding Beachump’s marriage. Continue to listen to Lowry when he tells you the mmedia is right. Continue to refuse to look at how journalism actually works. Continue to make me stronger.
Listen to Heet, infdels. You will be hearing alot of that tomorrow. Perhaps even from some of your own journalists.
Hmmm. Which TNR story to believe? It’s obvious that our friend tim would rather have a dull needle drivin into his eyeball than believe anything anyone from the military has to say about anything. Unless that military person is dinigrating the military. So in that respect Mr. Beauchamp has exceeded all of tims’ expectations. It has gotten passed the phase where I’d believe anything the TNR has to offer, unless they start naming names(real ones) of witnesses who have photographs. Sorry, tim. It still doesn’t scan. But your still free to believe everyone in the military is a loser.
tw; accepting Naumann. Only if he brought the cannabis dip.
“In the end, you challenged an American combat veteran because you didn’t like his politics.”
Speaking as a person currently in the military, as well as someone who, unlike you, actually deployed to the Middle East, I’ll challenge Scott “Worthless Piece of Shit” Beauchump all I fucking wish. Never mind the fact that this douchenozzle has admitted that the only reason he joined the military was to gain unimpeachable moral authority for his antiwar views. it had nothing to do with actually serving his country or growing as a human being through the experience of sacrifice for something larger than himself. No, he decided to play the John Kerry 12-Step guide to politics. And let’s not forget that either way, Shithead 1) witnessed atrocities that violated the Geneva Convention and never reported them to his chain of command, making him complicit in these nefarious activities to sell a story, or 2) he made up a whole bunch of shit and therefore lied, doing harm to the reputation of himself and those he fought with, and further soiling relations with the very people we are trying to help.
For you to defend this chump is hardly surprising, but spare us the “combat veteran” bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, this asshole is a fucking traitor to his unit and to the armed forces, but of course, this is why you defend him, isn’t it?
Timmah and heet remind me of the Black Knight.
Well, maybe not so much; at least the Black Knight was willing to concede a draw.
“Christ, either you demand “teh truth!†or you condemn the truth for helping our enemies. Which is it? My bet is whichever is easier to bludgeon the amorphous left (ie everyone who is unlike you)”
Go throw sulphuric acid in your face. At least then Beaudickless will have someone with an actual melted face to write a story about.
Pablo:
I’m interested, which is no surprise, given that I taught literary journalism for five years and wrestled with these very issues.
Rob:
Vindicated? No. But it seems likelier now that there was no confabulation, only mistakes — the first based on something STB didn’t know, the second due to forgetfulness. For those who have never done it, the thing about fact-checking is that you have to know the right questions to ask.
For example: their pre-publication fact-checking could’ve consisted of them asking someone else in STB’s squad “Do you remember the time X made fun of that woman who’d been injured by the IED?” They verified that the story was true, but didn’t bother to ask whether it had happened at FOB Falcon because they had no cause to. They had their corroboration of the story. It may sound sloppy, but you can easily see how slippery this slope is: do you also ask him what color the walls were, or what they’d had to eat, &c.
As for the fact that it happened in Kuwait, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to be insensitive before they deal with IEDs and their aftermaths themselves?
JD:
In order to speak to the soldiers in STB’s unit, they would’ve had to have gone through official channels, and that they sought assistance from the APA suggests that they did. Those other soldiers verified his stories. Now, they could all by lying, but in that case, you’d have to discount the words of the solider about the IED victim. You can’t choose to believe TNR contacted the soldiers in his unit and that they spoke truthfully about what happened in Kuwait one minute, then refuse to believe TNR contacted soldiers in his unit who corroborated his accounts the next. (I suppose you can, but there’s no need to cherry-pick.)
As for this Ghost and what’s he saying, well, I’m sure that if TNR claims to have sought the aid of the APA and actually didn’t, the APA will say as much. They are a publicity office, after all. Plus, Sanchez is at FOB Falcon, and he says TNR contacted people there; however, if the woman was in Kuwait, there’s a reason the FOB Falcon’s phone lines aren’t lighting up.
So now we’re doing “accurate,” just in a completely different context, before Beauchamp ever saw any combat, according to a couple unnamed corrobators, and potentially, according to the people who make equipment they probably don’t want to say can’t do certain things — or at least, are not used in such a way by the people who routinely drive them.
As others have noted — and as I noted before — Beauchamp wrote about things happening in war that didn’t happen in war. He wrote about how war dehumanizes, when in fact the dehumanization was grafted onto war by those so expecting to see it that they evidently acted it out in advance of seeing combat.
And this is being held up as vindication? Of what, exactly? That bad people can behave badly — but then, when you transfer that behavior to combat zones, it has more poignance, can have larger significances, and is the kind of thing one can easily sell to those who share your same selection biases?
Meanwhile, if Dave Sirota is lurking around here, allow me to point him to Timmy. Who, I think, is the “proof” you’re looking for when it comes to finding these supposedly mythical creatures who, when they are able to seize on things that could make the military look bad, act as if they’ve just scored a touchdown or slammed a basketball.
Time to stop pretending you care about anything other than your own political positions, timmy.
And yes, I’ll echo others who aren’t particular sold yet on any of these “corroborations” — particular as they are anonymous, and TNR has beat a hasty retreat having posted the update.
Now, as for the charges of fabulism: as Scott knows, the context in which these things supposedly (and were reported to have) taken place are an essential part of the narrative thrust of Beauchamp’s pieces. It was, in fact, the ONLY thing that gave them “significance,” or made them “resonate.” A story about some liberal asshole who’d joined the military so he could write poignant pieces about his own dehunamization (which he evidently anticipated, to the point where it’s fair to say he may even have been straining to get there) and sell them to anti-war mags under the cloak of absolute moral authority, is another piece entirely, and, I think, one that speaks to a completely different “significance” than the one Beauchamp was trying to sell us on here.
He plucked facts that have yet to be completely corrobarated out of a number of contexts that didn’t speak to his thesis and shoehorned them into his thesis to create the illusion of significance.
I dunno. I think Pvt Sadsack should have at least gone for an ear necklace. Desecrating graves is OK and and all but the kids part is kind of yucky – not really up to Full Metal Jacket Killbot status. It ties OK to the dog squisher but really lacks the panache of panties on the head as torture. It would be a lot more convincing if Pvt Sadsack hadn’t pre-announced his intent. He seems just a tad anxious – making himself an asshat protagonist, changed by war, before he ever got to war.
Maybe he should have shot for a “Lord of the Flies” theme? “Heart of Darkness” is waaay beyond his sophmoric skill set but he might have had a shot at a halfway convincing “Lord of the Flies – Vacation in Iraq” with a few “Animal House” overtones.
We have all learned a lot from Scott Thomas Beauchamp.
And that’s the nut of this whole issue. SEK blows off the whole “way wrong place, way wrong time” error of Beauchamp’s FOB Falcon piece as a minor error but it’s a huge error.
See, if Beauchamp’s original story is correct, then you can use the story to buttress any number of anti-war stories: troops as victims of dehumanizing combat, troops as heartless monsters, troops as sexist troglodytes, troops as lunchroom bullies, you name it.
But now that TNR has confirmed that Beauchamp wasn’t in combat at the time and that the yukking it up was confined apparently to just Beauchamp and his “buddy”, all that delicious narrative-building just goes away. Unless, of course, you can claim with a straight face that it’s of no real consequence. Then, formulate your narratives all you want.
“Comment by timb on 8/2 @ 2:29 pm #
Tom B scores!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See, Tom, you ignorant goon, you accused him of lying and he didn’t. Fabulists make up things that didn’t happen or embellish those that did. He did neither. ”
Timmah, you are one ignorant fuck.
I can accept the re-reporting. I’ll just keep in mind the next time TNR writes about Iraq that they may not have the right country until the re-report comes out.
But it seems likelier now that there was no confabulation, only mistakes
So…any advice on how to market my “Tooth Fairy Diaries”?
Hey, Jeff, didn’t you interview John Cole on your intertubes radio show (co-hosted with Ace) a couple of years back? Seems Cole was on the road to Damascus, so to speak, at that time with his barely concealed contempt of all things Republican, conservative, and Bush. I actually called in to ask this “conservative Republican”, Cole, to explain all the hostility towards his “own” political inclinations. You guys let him off the hook.
Oh, and, entre nous, I don’t believe my calling in saved a single life!
As for the fact that it happened in Kuwait, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to be insensitive before they deal with IEDs and their aftermaths themselves?
What kind of sorry sack of shit makes fun of a severely disfigured woman to her face in ANY instance?
As was pointed out many, many times when the story first broke, Beauchamp is an ass if the stories are true or not. If the stories are true, he broke regs, saw other people break regs and didn’t report it and was a general fuckup. If the stories aren’t true, he’s a Democrat.
Mindreading?
Check.
Attributing worst possible intentions?
Check.
Misdirection and obfuscation?
Check.
Projection?
Check.
Blaming the all-powerful “narrative” on the failure of the war supporter’s message?
Check.
Just another day at PW.
For example, the yarmulkes, they take their design from the skulls of dead children. And the Bradleys, they were designed for the squishing of the small furry mammals. But what is sad to me is that Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. How have we come to this moment?
You taught literary journalism for five years and are willing to make that argument? Have you read his prior material? Knowing now that the Kuwait mess hall incident (‘verified’ in the singular) somehow morphed into multiple (false) incidences in Iraq doesn’t betray a certain narrative, already evinced in his prior writings?
The guy went to Iraq with a template, anything that remotely matched that template, no matter where or when it occured, become fodder for his gristmill. Fabulism may be literary but it isn’t journalism.
[…] the comments to this morning’s post, SEK and timmy are (predicably) satisfied with TNR’s post hoc “fact checking.” In […]
Mindreading?
some liberal asshole who’d joined the military so he could write poignant pieces about his own dehunamization (which he evidently anticipated, to the point where it’s fair to say he may even have been straining to get there) and sell them to anti-war mags under the cloak of absolute moral authority
Heet, you’re a bigger jackass than timmy. Beauchamp wrote exactly that in his blog as a reason for joining.
It isn’t mindreading, it’s just reading.
Attributing worst possible intentions?
He plucked facts that have yet to be completely corrobarated out of a number of contexts that didn’t speak to his thesis and shoehorned them into his thesis to create the illusion of significance.
What other possible reason could he have had to make things up as he did?
Heet winging it?
Check.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda,
So you are just speculating. But, conveniently, TNR has declined to provide any such specifics in the factual.
For the resident lifties let me rephrase that in terms they will understand.
You’re just makin’ shit up.
Jeff:
Context matters, certainly. I’m not defending STB as a writer — he’s not that good, but then again, he’s awful young. If he’s at Camp Buehring preparing to go to Iraq (which is only about 15 miles north), that’s plenty close enough. It’s not a better story if he’s in Iraq — it’s a different one. I can’t say whether his placing it in Iraq was purposive or accidental; the latter’s understandable, the former, unnecessary. What I mean is, what’s the difference between “preparing to kill someone for the first time ever is dehumanizing” and “killing someone for the first time ever is dehumanizing”? They’re both true, and a better writer would’ve 1) kept notes to avoid mistakes like this or 2) not lied about where it took place, nor needed to.
In short, the piece would’ve resonated even if he’d only been changed by months of preparation to go to war. It might’ve been better, inasmuch as his lack of sympathy for the victims of war before he’d seen combat would be more complex once he had, &c.
Again, though, I don’t think this speaks poorly of our soldiers. As I said in the other thread, our troops toe the line between being a soldier and a human being better than any in recorded history. That’s why they suffer as they do when they return home. (As opposed to those who embrace uncritically what war requires of them, like, say, Nazis.)
And timmy waves the white flag by trying to change the subject.
Well, people were just talking about the B-J comment section. Timbo was just providing an example of how they do things, right?
War is like a big tentacle monster.
Jimmie:
I didn’t blow it off: an aspiring writer made a stupid mistake (or deliberately lied) in a major print publication and has been publicly corrected for it. That’s damaging, esp. if it turns out he did it deliberately. To be honest, were I his teacher, I’d be asking for his books by now: I’d want to see his notes on everything, and go over them myself. A piece as rife with mistakes as this one is — Kuwait’s not Iraq, a graveyard’s not a dumping ground — leads me to believe if I did, he’d tell me he “misplaced it,” i.e. that he’d never kept one.
Thomas:
As is everyone else here. Or do you know the dark (or sunny) truth (or falsity) behind the STB affair? If so, man, speak up. Interested parties abound.
“In short, the piece would’ve resonated even if he’d only been changed by months of preparation to go to war.”
Or two weeks at Scout camp. Or his first day at middle school. Or the time his fifth grade teacher made him stay after. Or when he turned 17 and realized that his parents were lying badly about how smart he was.
C’mon – Pvt Sadsack went to war on deadline and when no “really bad shit” happened he turned to stretchers and dog squishing. The only “change” that occured was the days slipping by with nothing to write about except maintenance chores.
I bet salesmen have marked the curb in front of your house.
. What I mean is, what’s the difference between “preparing to kill someone for the first time ever is dehumanizing†and “killing someone for the first time ever is dehumanizing�
He was quite clear when he wrote:
That is how war works: It degrades every part of you, and your sense of humor is no exception.
That he was actually in the war, not “preparing” for it.
Also IIRC, wasn’t Pvt. Beauchamp a mechanic?
Actually, heet, let’s check your “checks.”
1) Mindreading? — Beauchamp wrote about his intentions. Explicitly. No mind reading was necessary. The fact that he was writing these stories before entering Iraq suggests intent. You can argue with my reading, but it’s not “mindreading,” except in the sense that I cannot, of course, speak to what was in his head with any degree of absolute certainty
2). Attributing worst possible intentions?
What I noted he did he did, in fact, do. Either he forgot what country he was in, and confused nine months time, or else he did not. Weigh the likelihood of each. And ask yourself why his eye for detail seems to exclude time, place, and context. If you’d like, you can make the argument that large failures in memory created for him a narrative in his mind wherein he was able to justify his own poor behavior by pinning it on the horrors of war. In that case, he will simply be guilty of a misremembering, then using those errors in memory to “explain” what he’d “become.”
I find that unlikely, based on what I’ve read of Beauchamp and from what I’ve read in his pieces. But this is a difference in interpretation, and I’ll stack mine against yours anyday.
3) Misdirection and obfuscation?
Howso? Again, I am addressing the nature of the “corroborations”. Pointing out what they are and who gave them is hardly misdirection or obfuscation — especially in light of my interpretation.
4) Projection?
Interestingly, I didn’t even post on any of this until I took on Dr Barnes’ semiotic analysis. My conclusion? That it was, textually speaking, just as possible that the whole thing was a false flag operation.
Since then, I’ve posted on the reaction to Dr Barnes, and to the reaction by John Cole.
I fail to see how this is grafting my political wishes on what Beauchamp did. Which, for the record — and once again — is used certain facts that have only be tentatively and anonymously corroborated (others have not been) that took place in contexts not like those he described and used them to write a story with a significance that lays claim to a context complete antithetical to the one he described as formative and causal.
Or, in short, he either lied or misremembered. If he misremembered, he came to the conclusion he came to based on bad information, and should be quick to rethink his thesis.
If he instead tried — as was his stated intent — to craft the kind of story he crafted with the hope that it would raise his own profile, or undermine the war, then he either allowed his preconceived end dictate his memory of the facts, or else he pulled the facts from context to fit his narrative.
Sorry if you can’t wrap your head around this, heet, but there you have it.
And yes, you’re correct. Just another day around here: arguments turned into what they aren’t by people like you who do nothing but hang around trying to find bad faith while all the time engaging in it.
Thankfully, I’m a patient man, and your transparency is so obvious that it barely requires any work to see through it.
Rick and Tom, you act as if I’m defending the quality of STB as a writer or his story as a story. I’m not. That he either forgot where he was or deliberately lied in order to tell a more conventional war narrative speaks ill of him as a writer. All I meant to say was: he could have talked about the preparation for war hardened him such that the niceties of civilian life no longer obtained, and that’d have been believable. The truth has a way of being that.
speaks ill of him as a writer.
Speaking to a woman who is disfigured speaks ill of him as a human.
Lying about speaking to a woman who is disfigured speaks ill of him as a human and a writer.
Yes. One that is not the one he told and lays claim to, and whose significance he sought to bring home.
All so fraught.
You may believe the actual story could have been better — maybe so, and it would have benefited from not having to rely on either a preconceived endpoint that colored his memory, or else relied on the purposeful conflation of contexts for its rhetorical power.
But that is your literary and editorial opinion, and it really has no bearing on what he wrote and why he wrote it.
Pivotal moments — these Joycean epiphanies — can occur anywhere, and for all we know, he may have been thinking of a way to rewrite Araby here.
But it wasn’t published as fiction. It was published in a news and policy magazine with an identifiable editorial position with respect to the subject matter. And, from a conventional perspective, that of course matters.
Beauchamp may think he’s playing Andy Kaufman in camo, but there are consequences for such actions — and you, as a person who has studied the memoir, should not let your knowledge that liberties are taken excuse the kinds of liberties that were taken here given the context of their disclosure.
He studied ALL teh memoirs!!!!!
Heet
Your a freakin fucktard. Have you even read what that tool wrote. I’m not going to go through his whole “diary,” but maybe you should.
Jeff:
I’ve admitted as much. You’ll remember my horse in this race isn’t STB’s talent or integrity, but that the right went after him so mercilessly in the first place, before they knew some of his facts checked out, some didn’t. And contrary to what Tom says, I don’t think he’s a shit for being insensitive — I think he’s a 24-year-old about to see his first combat. Whatever his reasons for being there, he’s still that, and even that is something that changes a person. My point is simply that the demonization of soldiers whose behavior doesn’t match civilian decorum fails to account for how becoming a soldier — being authorized by your country to violate the First Commandment — will, necessarily, coarsen a person’s character. It has to happen for them to be effective soldiers. I’m not speaking ill of the military here; in fact, I’m speaking ill of those who would criticize military personnel according to civilian standards. It’s an unfair and pernicious attitude, esp. when those soldiers try to reintegrate themselves into civilian life. Some slack must be cut, not because soldiers are terrible people, but because they’re not — they’re good people who’ve had to learn how to do terrible things.
Cute. Isn’t that what you guys call a non-sequitur, calling you on your bullshit means I must therefore produce gospel on the matter? Well, it is a fallacy at the least.
No, everyone has not engaged in speculation. Many have stuck to the known facts, pointed out instances where verified facts are lacking, questioned apparent improbabilities (square based shell cases) and in the absence of any verification or plausibility, requested a better accounting from those who should have already verified the truth of the matter.
You, on the other hand, are attempting to fill factual gaps with your own baseless hypotheticals. Not very useful if the goal is to find out what really happened. Rather more useful if your goal is to take some of the heat off of TNR.
But now I’m just speculating.
SEK,
The part about wearing the skull for days — even on missions — is a significant detail. That is, unless you assume that even a callous prankster is going to have a bone digging into his skull under the pressure of a 4-5 lb. weight in a potentially life-threatening situation. It remains one of the many things in STB’s diaries that seems nonsensical on its face; that it’s not expressly confirmed — even by the anonymous soldiers who will probably decline to confirm said stories under oath — is telling.
As for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, I wrote that I did give some weight to the manufacturer spokesman and the instructors saying that it could be done. But if we’re going to credit anonymous soldiers at FOB Falcon, here’s another one:
The PAO honestly stated he could not definitvely debunk the story based on current info, but added this:
Stuart Koehl, an expert on military hardware at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, wrote:
That’s significant, because it’s quoting what STB actually wrote:
Compare that to what the new story is:
Note that what the new TNR sources say you could do is not at all what STB described happening.
SEK,
My apologies for under-reading your use of the subjunctive. I do agree that if Pvt Sadsack were a better writer his “stories” might be more believeable. It might also be helpful for him to have been a better soldier.
In the end he gets a failing grade in both endeavors (the Army had already graded him prior to publication).
Timmah, you are one ignorant fuck.
I bid two.
A helpful tip for soldiers who need support reintegrating into civilian life: don’t alienate the entire U.S. fucking military.
Sorry; forgot to take off the sock-puppet!
Thomas:
I defy you to show my bullshit. You quoted me discussing a hypothetical — as the “for example” prefacing it indicated — then said I was speculating, nay! “making shit up.” Well, I was speculating, as the “for example” prefacing my statement indicated. Had I not prefaced it with a “for example,” you might have had some grounds to say I was bullshitting. But since I did preface my statement with “for example,” I think most people here are intelligent enough to realize what it meant; namely, that based on my own personal experience with fact-checking, I know things which later turn out to be important slip by because they don’t seem important at the time. Like, in this case — NOTE: I’m talking about this case now — in this case the fact-checker might — NOTE: Now I’m speculating — might not have thought the name of the base important after another soldier corroborated the story. Sometimes both parties assume that some fact is in evidence when it isn’t.
For example — NOTE! — if he says they were in desert fatigues, but it turns out they weren’t at that time, it’s a detail that both the fact-checker and the witness might miss: the fact-checker because it doesn’t seem important, the witness because it doesn’t seem important. If something comes up later challenging the veracity of the piece, and it’s revealed that they weren’t in desert fatigues and that helps date that event, it would seem as if the fact-checker hadn’t done his or her job.
Is this bullshit? I don’t think so. Your mileage may vary.
That bolded part there? Speculation. I’m not sure why you don’t want to admit that people have been speculating.
Ellers McEllerson:
It may be nonsensical on its face, but it’s also damn difficult to prove or disprove. As I wrote on the other thread:
Nice try but you attribute quite a few thoughts to him besides a desire to go to war in order to write a book. Which he hasn’t done, I might add.
I see. Except you give it away in the end – “interpretations”. How pat. It’s almost as if you are arguing only you and your deep intellect and truly see these awful intentions. Bullshit. You start from preconceived intentions and work your way backwards with the help of some wordy justification. Typical.
Quit playing dumb. You are dismissing all of STB’s reporting and TNR’s corroboration by hyperparsing and focusing on unimportant details.
Yes, projection. Justifying all manner of nonsense in the service of your ideology is your normal MOO, whether you see it or not.
As for the rest, your stature, importance, and abilities do not nearly reach the level where I should cower before your awesome powers of awesomeness.
It doesn’t make much sense to me to parse Beaucamps writing, it sucks dog balls.
As Rick Ballard said with much more class
You mean like Major John, RTO, Blackfive, etc? Those bastards! Holding a military man to the same standards they hold themselves!
Nice narrative you’re living in there, SEK.
Ah! The “narrative”! It slice, it dices, it is a floorwax, dessert topping, and mindless counter-argument all in one!
Sod off, heet. SEK was proclaiming his beef was with a certain group, a group which — conveniently — excludes some of the biggest critics of the STB tales.
But, hey, we know the score. You folks are all for uncritically accepting the statements of soldiers and vets. Unless that vet supports the mission.
Scott Thomas and TNR Update…
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.This mangled story TNR reported on from Scott Thomas, just got messier.Lets try to do a quick recap, quick is hard because the story gets s ……
being authorized by your country to violate the First Commandment
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me?”
You’re thinking of the 6th: “Thou shalt not murder.” (That’s how the Hebrew term is properly translated.) Don’t forget that in the very same tome where murder is prohibited, capital punishment and animal sacrifice are explicitly prescribed, and later we have God telling the Israelites to wage total war on their enemies.
heet–
Let’s not go over the same frequently covered ground. You believe I argue in bad faith, and you like to stick it to me about what you believe I believe is my giant intellect — generally with some childish remark about not fearing my awesome awesomeness or some such nonsense.
I’m not interested in doing this dance with you.
You’re right, he hasn’t written a book. And authors don’t generally turn a series of essays into books once they have the time to bring them together. Salinger didn’t sell chapters of Catcher in the Rye, written in the third person, to the New Yorker before publishing his novel later.
And you’re right, I rely on interpretation. Given that I’ve noted a million times that that’s all we have, I’ll grant that it’s “pat.” Of course, my interpretations take into account a whole host of factors, and I show my work. Yours, on the other hand, depend upon turning Occam’s Razor into a fighter plane and buzzing off hair by way of flybys.
Hyperparsing? Unimportant details? Well, if you say so. But I don’t find the fact that Beauchamp got both the country and the fact that he had yet to be in combat wrong “insignificant” in a story specifically about how combat dehumanizes a soldier.
As for the last bit, you seem to be hung up on claims to intellect I don’t make. Something about protesting too much comes to mind.
But don’t worry. I don’t rip to shreds those who have nothing at stake. Your name isn’t appended to your opinions, so it would be like taking on a phantom. Were you sufficiently humiliated (which I doubt, at this point, you have the capacity for; but still…), you could simply rename yourself and return under a different name.
But I will say this. By consistently raising the subject of intellect, you are showing yourself to be quite needy. You seem bitter, in fact. You don’t like it here? Don’t read.
I keep making the offer, yet you keep returning — only to complain that you don’t like what you’re reading.
Scott —
And that, of course, is a dubious point — unless you are defining “coarsen” by the very acts soldiers are tasked with. In which case, yeah. Just as being a baker will necessarily “coarsen” one’s attitude toward yeast.
I don’t think there anything necessary about “coarsening.” Killing an enemy to defend freedom and country, knowing that he wishes more than anything else to kill you, in fact, might even make some people sleep the contented sleep of the hero.
Rob, you’re not really making sense here. The consensus here seems to be that STB wasn’t lying about the mockery, he altered where it happened for dramatic effect. Earlier, some of the commenters you name say that wouldn’t have happened — by which they meant, not without severe punishment. If it turns out it did happen, and there was no beat-down, what then? As I said in the other thread, I respect the military and its representatives here, but there’s a difference between military ideals and what happens in the field. They want every soldier to conduct themselves according to that ideal — so much so they might be harsher on those who don’t. My point is that the ideal is lofty, can’t always be lived up to, and that’s forgivable. Humans under intense pressure more often bend than break, and in my book, such bends should be forgiven. These men and women are far from home, in constant danger, under unimaginable stress, so sometimes they behave in ways civilians don’t understand. You’ve twisted my participation in this discussion into something unrecognizable — a condemnation of the war? I only disagree of people who approve of it? I think most people can recognize that I fit into the “oppose the war, support the troops” camp. How’d you miss that?
Jeff,
I don’t think the mixup of Kuwait vs Iraq is unimportant either but SEK has tackled that one. I was referring to the focus on Bradly fighting vehicle capabilities (or assumptions thereof), and arguments along the lines of “how long one can wear a piece of skull as a hat”.
You have repeatedly claimed that those who disagree with you simply don’t understand your arguments, especially when they dismiss your posts as unnecessarily wordy. You also regularly mock the teaching credentials and college appointments of the many professors you have targeted.
As for myself, I’m quite happy with my intellect but don’t give much credence to those who must go out of their way to tell everyone how deep they are. It’s almost as if they are compensating for something…
That bolded part there? Speculation.
Jeff:
I haven’t met any of those soldiers. All those I know are bothered — some more than others — by what they’ve done, despite the fact that they volunteered to do, do well and do proudly.
I don’t think that comparison really holds up now, do you? The acts soldiers are tasked with do “coarsen” their character — and I chose “coarsen” because it’s not a freighted word. I don’t think less of them for this; in point of fact, I respect them all the more for it. I couldn’t do half the things the guys I’ve known more than half my life are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me?â€Â
Shh, dicentra. He’s splainin’ his deep, deep love of Killbots coarsened by their involvement in the dark horror of war.
PS – I think that’s ‘Marx’ at the end rather than ‘me’, isn’t it? ‘Sides – lots of people don’t know the Great Commandment from the First Commandment – after all, it’s just Godbotherer talk.
Rick, I initially wrote “First Amendment.” Be thankful for what you got.
Actually, I have repeatedly claimed that people have misrepresented my arguments when they have, in fact, misrepresented my arguments. When they cease doing so, I’ll cease having to point it out.
Where’s the proof of that? Who have I “targeted”? If you are talking about a certain guy who teaches out of an annex, he’s of the school that calls me “pasty” and notes, on a regular basis, that I’m a “failed academic.” He also approached my “crazed” and simultaneously “mundane” arguments with affected academic bemusement. Unprovoked. Hardly a case of me targeting him. That it turned out that he was assuming my academic credentials weren’t up to the standards necessary to take him on, while all the time he was teaching out of an annex at some community college, struck me as funny. Still does.
But how is this “routine” or “many”?
…he said, going out of his way to explain how is better than those who don’t affect his same faux humility.
Fact is, I don’t go out of my way to tell everyone how deep I am. If I’ve done so, show me. If not, you’ve built a straw man and are now busy bragging that you’re more comfortable in your own straw skin than your straw man is.
Is this some sort of major accomplish in your world?
The consensus here seems to be that STB wasn’t lying about the mockery, he altered where it happened for dramatic effect. Earlier, some of the commenters you name say that wouldn’t have happened  by which they meant, not without severe punishment.
Everything I read that questioned the incident stemmed from the fact that the DFAC at FOB Falcon was very small, and any abuse like that would have been easily overheard. Now that we have relocated all the way to Kuwait, it changes the entire situation.
“Coarsen” is not a freighted word? You have empirical evidence for this? Some metaphysical proof I’m not privy to?
I think it is rather freighted, Scott — though I’ll grant you might not have intended it to be. In which case, I think you chose the word poorly. And I don’t think that your anecdotal evidence is enough to prove anything so grand as “necessarily”.
As for the baker analogy, I was using that for effect. And I do think it works: you are defining “coarsening” as necessary to the task. I disagree with this. I’m sure there are empathetic farmers who feel coarsened by having to mow down entire fields of corn, but there is nothing necessary about that. And whether or not you respect that kind of empathy is immaterial to the topic at hand, which, frankly, I’ve forgotten.
Something about me “targeting” defenseless professors with my self-styled prodigious intellect and then browbeating them with bad faith arguments based on things so dubious as “narrative” and “interpretation”?
Or was is something else.
I’m having a hard time carrying on all these debates simultaneously.
But don’t tell heet I said that. I don’t want to ruin his “narrative” about my being constantly on the lookout to show how “deep” I am.
I wonder, though, what heet thinks should be posted on blogs if not people’s arguments and opinions. Cat pictures? Porn?
Sorry if defending my opinions by arguing them comes across as too aggressive for some of you, but that’s just what I do here.
Because I don’t have a cat. And hell, if I have to pay for the porn, I ain’t giving it to you all for free…
Jeff,
You are mindreading again. Zing! Meh.
“he altered where it happened for dramatic effect…
Odd, but in the college I attended, we called that “fiction”.
Robin … can I borrow your gun again?
Glad to see that neither SEK nor heet wants to address the two or three different non-matching stories about the dog-killing.
And glad to see that SEK talks about the skull story being “damn difficult to disprove,” and later imputes acceptance to anyone who doesn’t try to disprove the mockery story. (BTW, the “corroboration” there doesn’t really match, either.)
An for someone who claims that he’s not defending STB, but complaining about the way the Right immediately after STB, I would point out: (a) SEK has now twice admitted that aspects of the skull story seemed fishy (but no one should raise questions about it); and (b) “Shock Troops” was not the first thing STB wrote for TNR (I guess the wingnuts were asleep at the switch).
I don’t believe any of it. I remember Jessie Macbeth. The burden of proof is on TNR and they have proved nothing. Read that editorial again and pick out who, what, where and when. If you can. Slim Pickens.
“A forensic anthropologist confirmed to us that it is possible for tufts of hair to be attached to a long-buried fragment of a human skull, as described in the piece.”
Why would a forensic anthropologist ask to remain anonymous?
“TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.”
Why did the spokesman, instructors and veteran war correspondent all ask to remain anonymous?
“If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.”
Translation: let us never speak of this again. The Editors wouldn’t even put their own names on it much less anyone who will answer questions.
I am glad to be a chickenhawk now that Barack Obama has admitted to being one too.
Oh, there’s this from TNR:
But Matt Sanchez is at FOB Falcon and e-mailed Malkin:
Not that TNR wanted to leave anyone with the impression that they communictaed with the PAO at the base in question…
As I remarked in the later thread, by the standards heet and SEK are putting forward, David Drake’s Hammer’s Slammers stories could be considered “one soldier’s view” of Vietnam; Drake served there, and he’s stated out-right that the stories are informed by his war-time experiences.
So if we just file off the “fiction” tag, then it becomes a legitimate exercise in journalism?
No. Because he set them in a different place, at a different time. Neither the US nor the French fielded fusion-powered hover tanks in Vietnam, and the Vietcong couldn’t actually teleport from place to place; the Slammers stories are fiction.
Had STB come back and written clearly labeled fiction about his experience in the military, people may have taken exception to the way he portrayed his fellow soldiers, but differences between the events he wrote about and actual events would have been ignored; it’s clearly fiction. But he didn’t claim to be writing fiction; he claimed to be reporting about his actual experiences.
He mis-stated those experiences, apparently in order to bolster his thesis. Changing the time and place of events for dramatic impact is not (at least, is not supposed to be) a hallmark of either reporting or history. It’s a hallmark of fiction. When someone pushes fiction as fact, it’s called lying.
He also appears to have made up events — such as changing a flat on a vehicle with no spare and a full set of run-flat tires. Again, making shit up is a sign of fiction, and pushing it as fact is lying.
TNR has not settled the matter, particularly by relying on yet another set of anonymous sources. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash anymore; just as we have the right to confront our accusers in court, we should have the right to know the source of the supposed news. There’s no other way to determine the reliability of the source, or whether they’d have actually been in a position to know.
Let’s see what the military investigation uncovers.
JG:
And it’s not even out of your way to show everyone how deep you are. Apparently, some of your critics have trouble distinguishing “show” from “tell.”
It seems to me that the consensus is exactly the opposite.
And altering something “for dramatic effect” is lying. When fiction writers do it, we forgive them because we have an implicit agreement with them that the lies are acceptable. That implicit contract is, as you know, critical. If it’s not in place, as it wasn’t with the STB stories in TNR, it’s just regular old lying.
Sure, Diana, what you want to go hunting for?
The acts soldiers are tasked with do “coarsen†their character
I’ve known a few soldiers that came back the opposite of coarse. Some that came back practically fragile.
I’m sure that the made-up ones, though; the ones who get coarsened by combat as some sort of literary device…those guys unquestionably come back with coarsened characters.
In other words, I think this is a very thin notion you’re floating here, Scott. I don’t read you a lot, but of all the fine, considerable arguments you’ve made, this is not one of them.
Thanks, Robin. It’s them pesky squirrely-men. You know … rats with fluffy tails. ‘Course, we could just drown ’em.
The pretense, that heeeeeeeeeeeeeet and SEK purport to be “a really, really, really good story” is enough to make the mind reel. Get a grip, fellas.
Let’s not equate heet, timmyb and SEK. Scott’s pretty reasonable, even if he’s wrong most of the time. Heet and timmy are just variously outraged strawman-battlers.
I know … but the thought of smacking them upside-the-head was beyond my control.
Yeah, SEK is clearly in a class above timmah, and heet occupies the basement all alone.
Scott, I’ve asked you ad nauseum for an example of that, and all you’ve come up with is ACE! MALKIN! and this.
Is that the entire basis your “The right went after him mercilessly!” complaint or is there something else in which that actually happened? Perhaps it was the right in another country?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pablo – Attacking someone mercilessly is a code word for asking questions about lies that were told.
Ah, like smearing someone by quoting them verbatim. Gotcha.
Well this “coarsened” combat veteran isn’t really all that impressed with that word choice. Do I now beat my children? Have I stopped being a semi-decent Methodist? Do I swear in every other sentence now? Do I hawk and spit at the table? Did I forget how to tie a Windsor knot?
I would try to come up with a different term.
SEK, admires the “corsened” individual.
Meh. I admire the individual who choses each morning to not be trash that day.
If it’s okay to alter details for dramatic effect, then one detail possibly changed is the intimacy of the setting, in fact that’s all but a given considering the scale differences between FOB Falcon and camp Doha or Afrijan. Which makes it more likely that such an incident could take place without an NCO or officer knowing about it.
I know I’m still engaged in the unforgivable; speculation tending toward doubt, rather than the laudable; speculation tending toward creedence. I guess I’ve just been corsened that way.
TW: Testament also
you don’t!? I always give RTO a hard time for his colorful language after he’s been doing anything military for more than the weekend. it’s quite amusing. ;D
How do you keep him from killing the kitties, maggie?
Could you kill this cuteness? I think not. and their naps are contagious.
[…] beaten up by Jeff Goldstein, […]
Our Scott Eric is a romantic. It’s kind of… I don’t know exactly. But it’s like a futile thing to challenge. You wouldn’t argue with Lloyd Dobler would you? You might but then he would look at you, and the vulnerability and the earnestness, it would wash over you, and next thing, you’re baking him cookies you are. If Cameron Crowe directed the war, it would have a whole lot more wry humor and a way better soundtrack.
Yes, romantic is exactly it. One of the many dualities, history can be viewed as the tensions between romantic and rational. It is overly simple, but it is useful for determining basic trends.
We need a rational revolution; a new birth of reason and relegation of emotion to the same dank place John Brown’s body lies.
Probably you’re reverting, now, to the totally barbarian banker’s knot.
It’s one of those signals warning of the impending collapse of society, you know.
Well, I’ve been deprogrammed for years now. But back when I was a young killbot, I would have bitten their little heads off just to satisfy my federally mandated bloodlust.
“I said ‘Sarge, I wanna kill.'”
— Alice’s Resturaunt
Diana, the squirrel-apult not getting the job done?
[…] of the arguments I’ve heard repeatedly from many on the left (and John Cole) is that this story is a tempest in a teapot, that Beauchamp is, when all is said and done, a […]
I’m pretty sure this is on record, but I would just like to say JeffG, I like the cut of your gibberish.
Yes, I stole that line, but it was worth it.
TW “Infatuated”.
Skynet is already self-aware and knows that I love JeffG’s prose.
LOL Pablo, I’m reminded of this picture. I’m sure that soldier is just trying to decide where to begin on his snack.
tw: Oxford start
okay, fine, tw, yes he’s british but you think the war hasn’t “coarsened” them as well?
On the left’s claim that Matt Sanchez not having credibility because he’s a Republican:
If you’re gay, you must accept the weak national defense and confiscatory tax rates of the left in order to “like yourself” because they give the gift of “tolerance”.
[…] as I wrote earlier in response to Cole’s hysterics, it does matter — and those who were instrumental in preventing Beauchamp’s fictions […]
[…] / TNR dustup was that “the nutters” were using a non-story to avoid having to face the mess that is Iraq — an argument that posited that being conservative or “pro-war” some how […]
The sunglasses have become an essential part of our dress as well as fashion as a whole. It is tough to see a celebrity who poses without sunglasses. Therefore the fashion and stylish feel that a person has is unequivocally expressed by the sunglasses he wears. The branded sunglasses are becoming a vital entity of a being that demonstrates of the grandeur and sense of someone’ s style as well as fashion. The newest styles, however, bring a fresh and different look to sunglasses. Latest styles that have been…