Whannity and Bozell PWNED!

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290710,00.html

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue on “Hannity & Colmes,” Washington political magazine The New Republic is under fire after running three articles attributed to an anonymous American soldier in Baghdad.

The so-called Baghdad diarist has been critical of the war effort, describing alleged atrocities happening inside of Iraq. But now, rival Washington publication, the Weekly Standard, is challenging the veracity of the Baghdad diarist, questioning the anonymous soldier's very existence.

Joining us right now is the president of the Media Research Center. Brent Bozell is back with us.

There seem to be a lot of questions here, Brent. More particularly, whether or not this entire thing was made up.

New Republic's 'Baghdad Diarist' Under FireDick Morris Gives Us His Take on the YouTube DebateYouTube Debate! Frank Luntz Gets Inside Scoop on Reaction to CandidatesTargeting Talk RadioBarack Obama Wants Pre-Schoolers to Be Taught About the Birds and the Bees?Full-page Interview Archive

BRENT BOZELL, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Well, the New Republic is in trouble again. Here, you've got a report that they say they know who he is with near certainty. Sean, that's like saying that you're almost pregnant. You either are or you're not certain who your reporter is.

If they aren't certain who he is or that he's even a soldier, how in the world can they confirm his stories? They're now saying they're going to check into the story, into his stories, to do some fact checking.

Ought they not to have done that before they put him on there? You know, how many times do I have to go through this, Sean? How many times do I have to do your show where one time after the other, after another, we find the media getting caught with their pants down in Iraq?
Whether it was the New York Times with doctored pictures, whether it was the National Guard story, whether it was Haditha, whether it was last year with the wars in Palestine and Israel? Whether it was doctored pictures on CNN? How many times are we going to catch them doing this?

HANNITY: It seems to me that for them the ends justify the means and that, you know, as long as the message gets out, as long as they continue the propaganda that the war is wrong, atrocities are happening, Americans are doing terrible things there, they seem to feel — I'm assuming here — justified in their own mind in just writing whatever they want, because the cause is greater.

BOZELL: Alan is going to jump all over me on this, because he's going to suggest I'm attributing this to him.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Thanks for doing my show.

BOZELL: There is an element — I couldn't agree with you more, Sean, on this. There is an element on the left that I think is dangerous. I think ends do justify the means.

There's no journalism going on here. This is propaganda. This is the kind of stuff the Soviet Union was proud of. You put it out there. Whether it's true or not, it's irrelevant.

HANNITY: Yes.

BOZELL: They want to make one simple statement, which is America is wrong.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Especially in light of the debate we've been having in this country about Democrats wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Attack against talk radio.

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh did this. Imagine if Sean Hannity did this, if FOX News did this, or anybody else. Wouldn't the reaction be a lot different?

BOZELL: Well, you would be on "The Today Show." Your story would have been on "The Today Show." I mean, when they go after Rush, they doctor stories about Rush. That's how they go after him.

If Russia were to do this for real, his job would be in tatters. His career would be over. They were on Imus in a second. When it comes to the left, they do it with immunity.

COLMES: You're about to make this left-right thing. Bad journalism is bad journalism. You want to attribute to the New Republic the worst possible motives.

Look, if they did something wrong, they didn't vet the story properly, they can't have a source that's accurate, they're wrong. And the person who did this should not work there anymore. I agree.

But you want to attribute to them the worst possible motives and suggest it's some kind of left-wing — large or small — conspiracy to put forth a bad image of America. You don't know that that was the motive.

BOZELL: No, what I'm saying is they're absolutely blinded in their hatred of America. That is the New Republic. So they won't do the most simple thing, which is find out who the author of these pieces is.

COLMES: Well, again you're saying they've got the worst possible motives. Look, is it possible...

BOZELL: Look at it conversely, Alan. Conversely...

COLMES: You're calling them America haters because they may have a different editorial policy than you would like them to have about a war that's very unpopular among the American public. If you did wrong, you did wrong. But you're attributing to them things you can't prove.

BOZELL: No, I'm attributing it to a bias. Let's just reverse the process here. Let's say somebody came to the New Republic out of the blue, and they don't know who he is. And he says, "I've got these incredible stories to tell about American valor and American courage and bravery and goodness in Iraq."

Do you think the New Republic would be running them?

COLMES: I agree with you that they should not vet — they should have to properly vet a story and not run something they cannot prove to be true. But you only go after left-wing bias. You think it's left-wing bias. You think it's politically motivated. And you think it's based on the hatred of America. It could be just a bad journalism without what you view as — which is the worst possible motive on the part of this publication.

BOZELL: Give me an example, one example right now of a right-wing journalist doing that, doing this kind of thing. I just gave you four. Give me one.

COLMES: First of all, you're making it a left-right thing. I'm not. You're the one who wants to make this a left-right issue. You're — it only happens on the left. Nobody on the right — I've heard right-wing publications continue to blame Al Qaeda and — and Iraq, Saddam Hussein and 9/11. You see it all over the place.

HANNITY: Hillary did that.

COLMES: And it — you know it's not true.

HANNITY: All right.

COLMES: And the president himself continues to say the people killing us in Iraq are the people who went after us on 9/11. And this was reported in the American media.

HANNITY: We've got to run.

BOZELL: The New Republic got caught once. They just got caught again.

HANNITY: They got caught again.

COLMES: We don't know the answer to that, yet.

HANNITY: It's interesting to see the coverage in the other left-wing media.

Brent, good to see you. Thanks for being with us.




My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discrete view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp


Those dumb bunnies!! Whannity and Bozell owned like 2 dumb b*tches...Anyone think those Fox/GOP mouthpieces will apologize?

[Yonivore]

Those dumb bunnies!! Whannity and Bozell owned like 2 dumb b*tches...Anyone think those Fox/GOP mouthpieces will apologize?
During his tour in Iraq, Beauchamp has written three essays for TNR (under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas"), providing what he calls as "my discreet view of the war." Private Beauchamp apparently decided to come clean after his latest dispatch, entitled "Shock Troops" stunned and angered readers with its account of American soldiers behaving badly. In one vignette, Beauchamp described soldiers making fun of a female contractor whose face had been disfigured in an IED blast. The incident reportedly took place in the dining hall at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon, in southern Baghdad.

Beauchamp's essay also detailed other examples of unprofessional conduct. He described the driver of a Bradley fighting vehicle driving over concrete barriers and deliberately running down Iraqi dogs. The Private also reported that a member of his unit unearthed a skull from a mass grave, and wore it under his helmet.

Those items have been widely challenged by Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#2054), members of the conservative blogosphere, and Army spokesmen. Simply stated, the claims of Beauchamp/Thomas just don't add up. As others have noted, the driver of a Bradley sits on the left side of the vehicle; even with his head outside the hatch, his view of movement on the right side of the "track"--say a dog in the road--is severely constrained. Several milbloggers have noted the near impossibility of a Bradley driver being able to spot--and swerve--the armored vehicle to run down a dog. Additionally, deliberately driving a Bradley over a concrete barrier typically damages the vehicle, which means paperwork, investigations and (likely) punishment for the offending driver.

Similar doubts exist about that woman in the mess hall at FOB Falcon. Army personnel who have served at that post over the last six months cannot remember seeing a woman with gruesome facial wounds in the dining facilities. In fact, the number of female contractors in Iraq remains rather small, and no one can remember seeing the woman described by Beauchamp at any U.S. base in the Baghdad area.

Finally, the "mass grave" that provided the "skull cap" worn by one of Beauchamp's buddies was actually a former children's cemetery. A contractor who worked at Falcon told Goldfarb about the cemetery, and reports that all remains unearthed during a construction project were handled responsibly (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3412782&page=1). Beyond that, there's the issue of how the soldier actually got the skull under his Army-issue helmet.

Making matters worse (at least, for Private Beauchamp), Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee has been fact-checking the author's earlier essays (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/234736.php), and finds equally dubious claims in those submissions. In one piece, the writer expresses concerns about having to change a tire in streets flowing with raw sewage. Never mind that the Army's primary wheeled vehicles in Iraq, the HUMVEE and Stryker assault vehicles, are equipped with "run flat" tires, allowing the crews to drive for miles--to the nearest FOB--before dismounting and replacing the tire. Owens also discovered a major error in Beauchamp's description of the guns and ammunition used by Iraqi police and insurgents.

So far, neither Private Beauchamp--nor the editors at TNR--are offering additional details to corroborate his claims. And, as Scott Johnson at Powerline (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018343.php) observes, the latest editorial note from the magazine does not include their earlier statement about communicating with soldiers who have done much to corroborate the events recounted by Beauchamp." Indeed, the magazine's interim conclusion on the veracity of his claims--"Thus far we've found nothing to disprove the facts in the article"--sounds suspiciously like Mary Mapes' defense of that bogus 60 Minutes II piece on President Bush's Air National Guard service. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

As for Thomas/Beauchamp, he's attacking his detractors:


It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq.
That's a canard, and Beauchamp knows it. The most stinging criticism of his work has come from Iraq veterans, or from bloggers with extensive military experience. Collectively, they've put Private Beauchamp in the difficult position of having to explain scandalous events that (so far) don't hold up to serious scrutiny.

Michelle Malkin & Co. (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/26/scott-thomas-steps-out-of-the-shadows/) have been doing some digging on Private Beauchamp. One intriguging tidbit comes from another solider, who looked up Beauchamp in a secure, Army database. As he told Ms. Malkin:

I’m active Army & an Iraq vet.


I just pulled up “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” on the secure “Army Knowledge Online” website. It lists his current rank as “PV2″. (That data is kept accurate via pay records on that website.)

In his Sep 06 blog post he listed his rank as “Private First Class”. That indicates that without a doubt he was busted at least one rank as part of Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he likely has a strong ax to grind with his chain of command.
If Beauchamp did lose a stripe for some offense (as part of an Article 15 proceeding), that certainly casts his "attitude" and "writings" in a completely different light.

Lest you shed a tear of pity for the embattled Private Beauchamp, besieged as he is by chickenhawk critics, let’s remember who this man is. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, according to his own reporting, taunted a badly wounded female victim of an IED attack who had the misfortune of sitting near him in the “Chow Hall”:


“I think she’s f*****g hot!” I blurted out.

“What?” said my friend, half-smiling.

“Yeah man,” I continued. “I love chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses . . . .”

“You’re crazy, man!” my friend said, doubling over with laughter. I took it as my cue to continue.

“In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’ We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles.”

My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing. The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall, her half-finished tray of food nearly falling to the ground.
It’s odd that Beauchamp thinks the people questioning the accuracy of his account are the ones who are calling his character into question. Hasn’t he done that rather effectively himself?

This asshole is nothing new, John Kerry and Oliver Stone both came back from Vietnam and did the same thing. I think he just has visions of grandeur. Unfortunately for him, the complicit media aren't the only ones that have access to the facts.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I don't get it vaginaeater, how can you believe the writings of ideologues on their blogs over the actual experiences of an American soldier?

what's his motivation to lie?

[Yonivore]

I don't get it vaginaeater, how can you believe the writings of ideologues on their blogs over the actual experiences of an American soldier?

what's his motivation to lie?
Well, the motivation was mentioned. He has an axe to grind.

But, there's more...he also was probably put up to it.

As it turns out, he got the job writing for the The National Review the same way Joe Wilson got his assignment to go to Niger...nepotism.

Yep, Beauchamp's fi-antsy works at TNR. And, the person who revealed that bit of information to one of the bloggers I read, was fired this morning.

Cheers!

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't get it vaginaeater, how can you believe the writings of ideologues on their blogs over the actual experiences of an American soldier?

what's his motivation to lie?


Of course he has none.. But,but,but Yoni supports the troops..oh wait only the troops who support the war...

[Yonivore]

Of course he has none.. But,but,but Yoni supports the troops..oh wait only the troops who support the war...
The guy's a fucking liar. You obviously haven't been following this story too closely.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The guy's a fucking liar.


what is he lying about?



Those items have been widely challenged by Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, members of the conservative blogosphere, and Army spokesmen.

Oh wait wouldn't these folks have an agenda? Oh they have a conservative ageneda.. and Yoni believes them..although none of them have been to Iraq..

[Yonivore]

what is he lying about?
Well, for starters, the incident in the mess hall, changing flats in sewage, wearing children's skulls under the helmet, and chasing/sneaking up on dogs with a Bradley IFV.

At the very least, he has extraordinarly exaggerated the incidents -- but, more likely, he's a fucking liar.

You'll notice when he outed himself this morning, he only attacked the skeptics -- he didn't defend or provide corroboration for any of the stories. But, don't worry, now that his identity is known, those who served with him will be tracked down and asked to corroborate them. What you want to bet, they call him a fucking liar?

Yeah.

[xrayzebra]

The guy's a fucking liar. You obviously haven't been following this story too closely.

He is to busy worrying about what you and I say. You
got to remember he can only take care of one conversation
at a time.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, for starters, the incident in the mess hall, changing flats in sewage, wearing children's skulls under the helmet, and chasing/sneaking up on dogs with a Bradley IFV.

At the very least, he has extraordinarly exaggerated the incidents -- but, more likely, he's a fucking liar.

You'll notice when he outed himself this morning, he only attacked the skeptics -- he didn't defend or provide corroboration for any of the stories. But, don't worry, now that his identity is known, those who served with him will be tracked down and asked to corroborate them. What you want to bet, they call him a fucking liar?

Yeah.


It's because the skeptics didn't believe he existed? The 'skeptics' attacked the source because they thought it was unflattering to the war effort...


Those items have been widely challenged by Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, members of the conservative blogosphere, and Army spokesmen.

These people have an agenda? You ok with that?

[George Gervin's Afro]

He is to busy worrying about what you and I say. You
got to remember he can only take care of one conversation
at a time.


You dummy Yoni just admitted that he may not have lied but he exaggerated... just keep playing dumb ray..

[Yonivore]

It's because the skeptics didn't believe he existed? The 'skeptics' attacked the source because they thought it was unflattering to the war effort...
They didn't believe he existed because the stories were too fantastic to be true and the "facts" were inconsistent with what REAL soldiers say to be true with respect to each of the stories mentioned.


These people have an agenda? You ok with that?
Yeah, outing a liar and getting to the truth.

[George Gervin's Afro]

They didn't believe he existed because the stories were too fantastic to be true and the "facts" were inconsistent with what REAL soldiers say to be true with respect to each of the stories mentioned.


Yeah, outing a liar and getting to the truth.


But you just wrote he may not have lied.. so now these folks are looking to find him in a lie? An American hero at that.. very brave of the chickenhawks.. attack a guy who is there fighting for his country..

A real soldier? as opposed to you and ray? keyboard soldiers?

[Yonivore]

But you just wrote he may not have lied.. so now these folks are looking to find him in a lie? An American hero at that.. very brave of the chickenhawks.. attack a guy who is there fighting for his country..
I said at the very least, they were gross exaggerations. But, if you want a quote to hang on me. He's a fucking liar. Exaggerating the way he would have had to, is still a fucking lie.

Read up on his stories and then come back and tell me any of them are plausible.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I said at the very least, they were gross exaggerations. But, if you want a quote to hang on me. He's a fucking liar. Exaggerating the way he would have had to, is still a fucking lie.

Read up on his stories and then come back and tell me any of them are plausible.


SO YOU DON'T KNOW..sheesh getting you to admit your making stuff up is getting tiring.. I know Yoni you believe the people who have the most to lose with this Iraq mess.. they don't have an agenda or anything like that. no not them.. but this pvt has an agenda that needs to be exposed.. !

[Yonivore]

SO YOU DON'T KNOW..sheesh getting you to admit your making stuff up is getting tiring.. I know Yoni you believe the people who have the most to lose with this Iraq mess.. they don't have an agenda or anything like that. no not them.. but this pvt has an agenda that needs to be exposed.. !
You are fucking idiot. Military people with a lot more expierence than him and who will go on record have said his stories are full of shit and implausible. Have you read any of his claims in the three stories he wrote for the Then National Review? Are you aware of his personal connection to the magazine?

He's not just some private...

But, you believe what you want.

[xrayzebra]

SO YOU DON'T KNOW..sheesh getting you to admit your making stuff up is getting tiring.. I know Yoni you believe the people who have the most to lose with this Iraq mess.. they don't have an agenda or anything like that. no not them.. but this pvt has an agenda that needs to be exposed.. !


Do you read anything that is posted. He told you he
thought he had an agenda like Kerry.

Oh, hell, I forgot. You probably don't remember Kerry.
He was in the by gone days. And you have slept since
then. Sorry.

[Yonivore]

I've been saying "The National Review" when I should have been saying "The New Republic." My bad.

[Wild Cobra]

This all just sound like to me that a soldier if following in Kerry's footsteps...

[Yonivore]

Dean Barnett (http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/42ab23f2-fbb7-4272-93c0-303e87557187) on the end of the beginning of the “Scott Thomas” affair…


TNR employed as its Baghdad correspondent a guy who was there specifically to mock the war effort while he hopefully advanced his own career as a writer by doing so. Beauchamp’s champions (not that I’m aware of any) have the potential defense that he was a young man who didn’t know any better. TNR’s editors do not. They gravitated to Scott Thomas Beauchamp because he would have the “moral authority” necessary to slander the troops with impunity, a moral authority that Franklin Foer and company of course lack.

One other note: Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s life will be a smoldering ruin when this affair has run its course. His partners in crime at The New Republic will still have jobs and careers. Will they see Scott Beauchamp in their nightmares? And will they see the 160,000 honorable and noble troops that together they conspired to malign?
True that!

[Yonivore]

"An Ideological Battle I Never Wanted To Join..."

So says the very nonpartisan Scott Thomas Beauchamp, baffled at how an apolitical such as himself could possibly have been swept up into an ideological malestrom.


“Glenn is completely submerged in politics on campus. It is honestly impossible to think about politics at MU without thinking of Glenn,” says Scott Beauchamp, editor-in-chief of Prospectus, a liberal campus news magazine. Beauchamp and Rehn met one year ago while campaigning for Howard Dean.
Rehn, incidentally, promised to spend every penny he had, bankrupting himself, in order to campaign for Howard "Interesting Theory" Dean. That's from an article linked on WStandard blog (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/beauchamp_an_ideological_battl.asp) -- which I'll suggest you click on.

Check out the byline. Or do you want to just guess at what it is?

You know what it's going to say, don't you?

Dan Riehl (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/07/tnrs-beauchamp-.html) has more on Rehn and Beauchamp, reluctant ideological warriors. Kind of interesting how an old blog post of Beauchamp's (http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/04/ill-return-to-america-author.html) included the image of someone who'd lost half their face in war.

An image, of course, that would resurface in Beauchamp's "reports" from Baghdad.

From an article in the Missourian online:


Hundreds of thousands of people descended on the nation’s capital Sunday to protest recent U.S. policies regarding women’s reproductive health. Included in the throng of marchers were more than 100 young men and women from the Columbia area.

“I don’t think there’s usually enough men at these kind of events, so it’s really important to show up and support it,” said Scott Beauchamp, who endured a 24-hour bus ride from Columbia to attend Sunday’s march. “I think it’s really a civil rights issue.”
Three guesses as to who co-authored that story and where they work today.

That's right, Beauchamp's fiance, Elspeth Reeve.

A partisan hack...

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Dean Barnett (http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/42ab23f2-fbb7-4272-93c0-303e87557187) on the end of the beginning of the “Scott Thomas” affair…


True that!


Oh bullshit, you're fucking bloggers aren't there. Newsflash, you're bloggers are just keyboard warriors like you.

It's funny that so many republicans come out to do character assassination the second one of their vaunted troops sends us a reality check from the ground.

None of this is too far fetched either, if you have read any accounts of the conditions on the ground outside of the ideological dribble you base your life around you would see that accounts of troop brutality and xenophobia abound .

who the fuck cares though, vaginaeater is going to discount anything the detracts from his ideological position, no matter how ridiculous his position has become

[Yonivore]

Here's a bit of poetry by Mr. Beauchamp (http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/05/bob-dylans-49th-beard.html).


Every morning I get up and I’m a little more liberal than the day before

Every morning I get up and try to recite a fact from something I read last night.

Every morning I get up and wish I was as free as the people that I’m “fighting for”

Every morning I get up and think I’m a tool for global corporations

Every morning I get up and miss my mother

Every morning I get up and shave

Every morning I get up and realize how much I love my comrades

Every morning I get up and say I’m Scott Beauchamp, in the army, living in Germany, and this is my life, and I’m going to be treated like shit today and do landscaping and janitorial work and practice killing people and there could be no other way to appreciate what I had or what I’m going to have once I get out other than enduring this now when all I really want to do is teach history and lay around and read and hustle around and repair the world (tikkun olam) and sift through knowledge and improve culture and learn how to sail and work in soup kitchens and start a family and really, I mean REALLY study the best the western civilization has to offer and facilitiate the mystery and power through everything I do, but I cant do it without getting through this army experience first, which will add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense, etc, and of course its making me a lot less lazy, just because im not use to being lazy any more, etc.

Every morning I get up…

[Yonivore]

Oh bullshit, you're fucking bloggers aren't there.
Michael Yon is.


Newsflash, you're bloggers are just keyboard warriors like you.
Actually, they're not.

Those I've been relying on for this thread are ex-military, active military, or have access to the military that I could never hope to have. Hugh Hewitt just interviewed David Petraeus last week.


It's funny that so many republicans come out to do character assassination the second one of their vaunted troops sends us a reality check from the ground.
Since when is ferreting out the truth considered a "character assassination?" All this guy has to do is produce some evidence -- or witnesses -- to support his fanciful stories and I'm sure the dogs will be called off.

But, those keyboard warriors (as you call them), are going to stay on his ass until the truth is know because, well, it's beginning to look like his motives were less than honorable.


None of this is too far fetched either, if you have read any accounts of the conditions on the ground outside of the ideological dribble you base your life around you would see that accounts of troop brutality and xenophobia abound.
So, using your standard, you must be in Iraq to know this.

Really, pick one of his claims and let's talk it through. You pick, I'll debunk.


who the fuck cares though, vaginaeater is going to discount anything the detracts from his ideological position, no matter how ridiculous his position has become
Apparently, you care. And, I think those who would impugn the troops on the ground for whatever reason; building cred as a writer, advancing a partisan narrative, or to make money from The New Republic needs to be held accountable when their stories prove to be false.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Michael Yon is.


Actually, they're not.

Those I've been relying on for this thread are ex-military, active military, or have access to the military that I could never hope to have. Hugh Hewitt just interviewed David Petraeus last week.


Since when is ferreting out the truth considered a "character assassination?" All this guy has to do is produce some evidence -- or witnesses -- to support his fanciful stories and I'm sure the dogs will be called off.

But, those keyboard warriors (as you call them), are going to stay on his ass until the truth is know because, well, it's beginning to look like his motives were less than honorable.


So, using your standard, you must be in Iraq to know this.

Really, pick one of his claims and let's talk it through. You pick, I'll debunk.


Apparently, you care. And, I think those who would impugn the troops on the ground for whatever reason; building cred as a writer, advancing a partisan narrative, or to make money from The New Republic needs to be held accountable when their stories prove to be false.


Yoni will debunk..using someone's esle's words and opinion.. Yoni seems to know alot about what has ans hasn't happened..oh sorry they are ex military who are telling him..so Yoni says that we need to provide one other person to verify this dude's story. When someone comes out to verify this ( and you know someone will) Yoni will have to come out and apologize for a being a blinded, hateful, partisan..who uses other people's words and opinion's as gospel.. By the way you Yoni, you tire of me asking you to 'prove it'..we have an eye witness to these events... you chose to ignore that...for those to say he's like Kerry..based on what ? your feelings? can you provide anything to prove what his motives or intetnion's are? Or s this just based on your opinion? SO if his stories are verified are you ladies going to apologize to the New Republic? Of course not..

[George Gervin's Afro]

"An Ideological Battle I Never Wanted To Join..."

So says the very nonpartisan Scott Thomas Beauchamp, baffled at how an apolitical such as himself could possibly have been swept up into an ideological malestrom.


Rehn, incidentally, promised to spend every penny he had, bankrupting himself, in order to campaign for Howard "Interesting Theory" Dean. That's from an article linked on WStandard blog (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/beauchamp_an_ideological_battl.asp) -- which I'll suggest you click on.

Check out the byline. Or do you want to just guess at what it is?

You know what it's going to say, don't you?

Dan Riehl (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/07/tnrs-beauchamp-.html) has more on Rehn and Beauchamp, reluctant ideological warriors. Kind of interesting how an old blog post of Beauchamp's (http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/04/ill-return-to-america-author.html) included the image of someone who'd lost half their face in war.

An image, of course, that would resurface in Beauchamp's "reports" from Baghdad.

From an article in the Missourian online:


Three guesses as to who co-authored that story and where they work today.

That's right, Beauchamp's fiance, Elspeth Reeve.

A partisan hack...


News flash..Yoni says democrats can't serve in the military....New flash.. you have to be in agreemet with this govt in order to serve in the military..

[George Gervin's Afro]

You are fucking idiot. Military people with a lot more expierence than him and who will go on record have said his stories are full of shit and implausible. Have you read any of his claims in the three stories he wrote for the Then National Review? Are you aware of his personal connection to the magazine?

He's not just some private...

But, you believe what you want.


You don't know..admit it you piece of pathetic trash..

[Yonivore]

You don't know..admit it you piece of pathetic trash..
I don't know what? If his claims are true?

I'll match my sources to yours and bet you they end up being gross exaggerations to outright lies.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't know what? If his claims are true?

I'll match my sources to yours and bet you they end up being gross exaggerations to outright lies.


I figure this is as close as you will come to admt you don't know if what he said was true or not... many of your brethern didn't even think this guy existed until today. I also know your not big enough to apologize if your wrong on this.. if his claims turn out to be true.. you know the funny thing is that i wouldn't want the guys prosecuted who were invloved wih these 'alleged'atrocities because I get the feeling that these men are under a lot of pressure and do things that are out of each's character..

[fyatuk]

I figure this is as close as you will come to admt you don't know if what he said was true or not... many of your brethern didn't even think this guy existed until today. I also know your not big enough to apologize if your wrong on this.. if his claims turn out to be true.. you know the funny thing is that i wouldn't want the guys prosecuted who were invloved wih these 'alleged'atrocities because I get the feeling that these men are under a lot of pressure and do things that are out of each's character..

No offense, but I find it hilarious you keep trying to make Yoni admit he doesn't really know, while you seem to insist it MUST be all true, even though there's been no identified coroboration and Yoni's links have suggested some possible gross inaccuracies in the claims.

Funny!

[George Gervin's Afro]

No offense, but I find it hilarious you keep trying to make Yoni admit he doesn't really know, while you seem to insist it MUST be all true, even though there's been no identified coroboration and Yoni's links have suggested some possible gross inaccuracies in the claims.

Funny!


I don't know. I can admit that. Yoni never admits he doesn't know.. he knows everything without really knowing it.. That's kind of the point. I have no idea if this guy is right or wrong but neither does yoni. Yoni immediately will attack a source without knowing what the whole story is.. I have proven my point.

[Yonivore]

I don't know. I can admit that. Yoni never admits he doesn't know..
If the claims were more plausible and if I hadn't been following the story for a week, I might have been sufficiently unsure for you. But, I'm not here to make you feel better about what I do and don't know.

If I told you I saw Josh Beckett pitch a no hitter in the Astrodome a few years ago? Would you believe me?

Maybe. But, when you found out Josh Beckett was drafted in 1999 and didn't debut until 2001 and that the Astrodome saw it's last game in 1999; well, you could call me a liar.

Hell there may be other things I don't know about Josh Beckett or the Astrodome that would make my story even less believable -- even though Josh Beckett was a pitcher and, therefore, certainly capable of throwing a no hitter and the Astrodome was a baseball field and certainly a venue in which a no hitter could be thrown.

That's the deal here. This guy is saying things about places and equipment and munitions that have been critically debunked by several military bloggers and denied by military commanders in the areas he claimed these things occurred.

Throw on top of that his rather "colorful" and ideological missives on his blog site and Facebook page, along with the apparent connection to a staffer at the New Republic -- going back years, and you have the makings of a fucking liar.


he knows everything without really knowing it..
Here's something I don't know. I don't know why I waste my fucking time on pricks like you. I hope to figure that out one day.


That's kind of the point. I have no idea if this guy is right or wrong but neither does yoni. Yoni immediately will attack a source without knowing what the whole story is.. I have proven my point.
In fact, I waited a whole week before saying anything about this story -- which broke over a week ago. I've been reading my sources who have thoroughly picked this guy's stories apart. It was due to the complete inplausibility of what he was saying that many of them thought his was fictional himself. Now, that he's come forward, those same sources can hardly wait until he starts corroborating his accounts so they can see if, in fact, he is lying as they believe he is.

It is quite telling, however, that instead of coming out and giving specific details about his stories he, instead, comes out and attacks the critics of his stories -- without talking about his claims at all.

I'm still betting he's a fucking liar.

[Yonivore]

It appears Scott Beauchamp's problems are just beginning.

In addition to his short-lived career as a probable fabulist in The New Republic, Scott Thomas Beauchamp's blog has turned up a self-incriminating clear violation of operational security (http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/03/shirting-soaking-wet-looking-like-i.html):


Another long day...cleaning an M16, landscaping, dipping Pro Masks (gas masks to civilians) into strange concotions, a little bit of office work...basically a hodpodge of menially tasks to keep me busy. We finally got official dates on Iraq deployment: May 15 - Our Bradleys get shipped to Kuwaite June 11- Advanced Units move in June 28 - Bravo Team, second squad, first platoon, Alpha Company, first battalion, 18th brigade, first infantry division (the breakdown of who I belong to) deploys. Were probably going to sit in Kuwaite for some unknown amount of time, and then move into Baghdad...
That post is over a year old and was made obsolete by a changed deployment schedule. It appears, however, Beauchamp clearly violated operational security regulations by posting the deployment schedule for his unit to his blog.

Major Kirk Luedeke, PAO for 4th IBCT, 1st ID at FOB Falcon, stated in response an e-mail inquiry about this blog entry:


It most certainly is an OPSEC violation.
What the U.S. Army decides to do about this operational security violation will probably be kept under wraps until their investigation is complete, but I would not be surprised if Beauchamp soon finds himself charged with UCMJ violations.

I hope his visions of grandeur, some tail from that TNR babe [assuming, of course, she is a babe], and his attempted slander of his comrades in Iraq were worth a court martial.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It appears Scott Beauchamp's problems are just beginning.

In addition to his short-lived career as a probable fabulist in The New Republic, Scott Thomas Beauchamp's blog has turned up a self-incriminating clear violation of operational security (http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/03/shirting-soaking-wet-looking-like-i.html):


That post is over a year old and was made obsolete by a changed deployment schedule. It appears, however, Beauchamp clearly violated operational security regulations by posting the deployment schedule for his unit to his blog.

Major Kirk Luedeke, PAO for 4th IBCT, 1st ID at FOB Falcon, stated in response an e-mail inquiry about this blog entry:


What the U.S. Army decides to do about this operational security violation will probably be kept under wraps until their investigation is complete, but I would not be surprised if Beauchamp soon finds himself charged with UCMJ violations.

I hope his visions of grandeur, some tail from that TNR babe [assuming, of course, she is a babe], and his attempted slander of his comrades in Iraq were worth a court martial.


It's good to see that you want violators of military law prosecuted.. it's good to know for future references..

[Yonivore]

It's good to see that you want violators of military law prosecuted.. it's good to know for future references..
When have I not?

[gtownspur]

It's good to see that you want violators of military law prosecuted.. it's good to know for future references..
Where do you stand on this particular issue, why do the conservatives have to be the ones to take a principle while the libtards get to cherry pick the issue depending what Letter is infront of the politician.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where do you stand on this particular issue, why do the conservatives have to be the ones to take a principle while the libtards get to cherry pick the issue depending what Letter is infront of the politician.

well g-town unike yoni I don't automatically attack the source when someone speaks ill of this war.. the whole point o this thread was to point out tht the Fox News GOP talking heads were ridiculing the New Reublic for 'alledgedly' making up the person in Iraq.. 2 days later they look stupid.. I have said before in this thread IF these stroies are true I don't think th GIsy should be prosecuted..what they may have done was in poor taste but it is far from a crime... conservatives take a 'stand' to protect themselves and their party..

[Yonivore]

well g-town unike yoni I don't automatically attack the source when someone speaks ill of this war.. the whole point o this thread was to point out tht the Fox News GOP talking heads were ridiculing the New Reublic for 'alledgedly' making up the person in Iraq.. 2 days later they look stupid.. I have said before in this thread IF these stroies are true I don't think th GIsy should be prosecuted..what they may have done was in poor taste but it is far from a crime... conservatives take a 'stand' to protect themselves and their party..
Why do they look stupid? Because a person who writes a completely implausible -- and probably false -- account from Iraq actually turns out to be a soldier in Iraq? Hell, only a fictional person would write that crap...well, that and a partisan liberal hoping to fuel an anti-war narrative he'd been practicing for years.

Besides, what kind of news organization deems a reporter "credible" simply because he is married to a staffer?


The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."
What fucking idiots.

I think it's TNR and this Beauchamp chump that are turning out to be stupid.

[Yonivore]

One of his first, and finest, dispatches from Baghdad. Experience the horror of war as a sergeant orders a troop to kill a child, in a scene lifted straight out of Full Metal Jacket:


"Shit, I don't know...put a 556 in his head"

On the street below the mans brown face dissolves into a thick red mist. The lights in the cities houses shut off in unison. Elecricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in hundred and twenty degree weather without water? In the streets the kids bodies start convulsing in semi-orgasmic rhythms. Their pants fill up with shit and piss and the smart ones sneak out to the fields to hidden caches of water jugs and trinkets of candy from the american soldiers.

"See that sarge, kids digging or something?"

"Well, better safe then sorry. Cap his ass Leclaire."

"You sure sarge?"

"Well, im either right or wrong. And if I'm wrong im still right because i could have been right even though i was wrong."

They watch the sliver of red sun fall slower and slower, silhouetting the little barbarians falling bodies. The Chaplain turns and walks back towards the FOB in contemplation. Gotta rack out early tonight. Handing out bibles in the marketplace tomorrow, early. Unintelligible rap blares out of the open doors of the HUMVEE.
Wait, did I say that harrowing account was from Iraq? My bad. It was actually written before he took a step into Iraq. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp)

Now, I'm pretty sure he wasn't passing that off as a true journal entry; I'm pretty sure it was intended as a creative writing exercise.

But, as Goldfarb notes, he certainly seems to have his narrative -- and the sorts of details he'd be seeing and reporting -- formed well in advance of actually arriving in Iraq, doesn't he?

Did he need to make up the running-down-dog stories because his janitorial and maintenance duties just weren't affording him the dramatic, searing experiences of being forced to kill a child by demonic Sgt. Tom Berenger as he had hoped?

Let me ask again:

Is a dude who, in trying to make his blog interesting (apparently via the crowd-pleasing technique of purple prose), resorts to dunderheadedly derivative fiction really the kind of guy you want to make your Baghdad Diarist with no fact-checking whatsoever?

Apparently for Franklin Foer, over at The New Republic, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp

Beauchamp Recants
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:



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


According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

The magazine's editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety--meant to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"--took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been "melted" by an IED.

Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts. "Beauchamp," they said, "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you."

Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?


Looks like this guy lied. What I don't understand is how people think they are going to get away from making stuff up considering the blogosphere will hunt your stories down.

[possessed]

Oh bullshit, you're fucking bloggers aren't there. Newsflash, you're bloggers are just keyboard warriors like you.

It's funny that so many republicans come out to do character assassination the second one of their vaunted troops sends us a reality check from the ground.

None of this is too far fetched either, if you have read any accounts of the conditions on the ground outside of the ideological dribble you base your life around you would see that accounts of troop brutality and xenophobia abound .

who the fuck cares though, vaginaeater is going to discount anything the detracts from his ideological position, no matter how ridiculous his position has become
Equally funny how liberals want to rush to the side of one of their own in the war effort touting him as an American hero serving his country, but easily dismiss the words of any soldier who think they are actually doing good there.

Oh the irony...

[Yonivore]

Looks like this guy lied. What I don't understand is how people think they are going to get away from making stuff up considering the blogosphere will hunt your stories down.
Let me help.

First of all, it's not Beauchamp's fault -- my opinion of him notwithstanding. There are probably more out there just like him. He was published because of his association with a staffer at The New Republic.

In this particular case, The New Republic (who has been burned before -- see Stephen Glass) has a narrative they consider to be the conventional wisdom on Iraq. This Beauchamp character was writing stuff that fit their narrative. It was, to them, obviously true since it agreed with their view on Iraq so, without so much as checking a single fact, they published it as truth.

The New Republic didn't bother to verify Beauchamp's stories, apparently because it found them to be self-authenticating: a depiction of America's soldiers that just had to be true. It appears that Beauchamp's yarns will be another chapter in the sad history of "fake, and not accurate, either" news stories. Whether the New Republic can survive this debacle, in view of its history of falling for hoaxes, remains to be seen.

The final chapter in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga has yet to be written, but Mark Steyn makes a point (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTJhZTViMDUxYmNhNWNiNzAzMGY0N2ExOWE0OGJkZGY=) that should be kept in mind if Michael Goldfarb's intelilgence (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp) bears out:


If that Weekly Standard story is correct, it moves Private Beauchamp into full-blown Stephen Glass territory. In essence, they made the same mistakes all over again - falling for pat cinematic vividness, pseudo-novelistic dialogue, all designed to confirm prejudices so ingrained the editors didn't even recognize they were being pandered to. But this time they did it in war, which is worse.
Recall that nearly thirty of the stories that Stephen Glass wrote for the New Republic were subsequently determined to be fabricated in whole or in part. Recall the conflicting statements posted by "the editors" of the New Republic confirming and standing by Beauchamp's three TNR articles with the ultimate exception of the location of the incident involved in the lead anecodote of "Shock troops" (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307) (which itself destroyed the purported point of the anecdote). We await some definitive word on the Army's investigation and the return of "the editors" from their vacation.

[UV Ray]

Response by the The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739

08.07.07

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

--The Editors
posted 2:32 p.m.

:corn:

[George Gervin's Afro]

Response by the The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739

08.07.07

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

--The Editors
posted 2:32 p.m.

:corn:


Or maybe he didn't lie....

[gtownspur]

Response by the The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739

08.07.07

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

--The Editors
posted 2:32 p.m.

:corn:



The New Republic,


It is true, whole korans were flushed down the toilet at gitmo. The Roswell autopsy videos are authentic, and George Bush is Reptilian shapeshifter.


---THe Editors

posted 2:36 pm

[Yonivore]

Response by the The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739

08.07.07

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

--The Editors
posted 2:32 p.m.

:corn:
I notice The New Republic made no statement regarding Major Steven F. Lamb's on-the-record statement to The Weekly Standard:


An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
And, looking at The New Republic's statement, there's nothing to indicate Beauchamp did not confess to fabricating the stories. Major Lamb merely does not have any knowledge of anonymously sourced allegation and, further, stated he doesn't discuss the details of investigation.

Sorry, nothing exculpatory there for Beauchamp or The New Republic. They're both liars.

[UV Ray]

Sounds like the statement by TNR is simply a way of buying time in order to formulate a strategy for damage control.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I notice The New Republic made no statement regarding Major Steven F. Lamb's on-the-record statement to The Weekly Standard

"We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement" sounds like a statement to me.

[Yonivore]

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement
More anonymity?

Okay, first, they selectively quote Lamb who doesn't specifically say anything about anything. Saying, "I have no knowledge of that," to the particular question posed by The New Republic doesn't really mean much when he follows it with the quote, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct or investigations."

But, secondly, Major Lamb specifically says Beauchamp's allegations were found to be false and The New Republic, who wants to quote him when they can twist it to fit their purposes, fails to quote him when he clearly demonstrates the military believes their Baghdad Diarist is a fucking liar.

Sorry, for The New Republic to win this argument, they're going to have to cough up named sources that substantiate Beauchamp's fantasies.

[UV Ray]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

Weekly Standard response:

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Beauchamp Recants: Update

Three points:

(1) They neglected to report that the Army has concluded its investigation and found Beauchamp's stories to be false. As Major Lamb, the very officer they quote, has said in an authorized statement: "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

(2) Does the failure of the New Republic to report the Army's conclusions mean that the editors believe the Army investigators are wrong about Beauchamp?

(3) We have full confidence in our reporting that Pvt Beauchamp recanted under oath in the course of the investigation. Is the New Republic claiming that Pvt Beauchamp made no such admission to Army investigators? Is Beauchamp?
Posted by Michael Goldfarb at 04:06 PM
Media | E-mail the author | E-mail article