Reply With Quote
You don't know..admit it you piece of pathetic trash..
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..
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 ing liar.
Here's something I don't know. I don't know why I waste my ing time on pricks like you. I hope to figure that out one day.
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 ing liar.
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:
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..
When have I not?
Where do you stand on this particular issue, why do the conservatives have to be the ones to take a principle while the lib s 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..
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? , 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?
What ing idiots.
I think it's TNR and this Beauchamp chump that are turning out to be stupid.
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:
Wait, did I say that harrowing account was from Iraq? My bad. It was actually written before he took a step into Iraq.
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!"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...mp_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.
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...
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 that should be kept in mind if Michael Goldfarb's intelilgence bears out:
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" (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.
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.
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.
Or maybe he didn't lie....
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.
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
I notice The New Republic made no statement regarding Major Steven F. Lamb's on-the-record statement to The Weekly Standard: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.
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.
Sounds like the statement by TNR is simply a way of buying time in order to formulate a strategy for damage control.
"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.
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 ing 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.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblog.../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
Last edited by UV Ray; 08-07-2007 at 04:28 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions