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 Fire 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, en led "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, 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. 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, 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 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 su iously 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.

Mic e Malkin & Co. 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 "at ude" 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 ing liar. You obviously haven't been following this story too closely.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The guy's a ing 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 ing 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 iden y 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 ing liar?

Yeah.

[xrayzebra]

The guy's a ing 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 ing 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 iden y 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 ing 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 ing liar. Exaggerating the way he would have had to, is still a ing 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 ing liar. Exaggerating the way he would have had to, is still a ing 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 ing idiot. Military people with a lot more expierence than him and who will go on record have said his stories are full of 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, , 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 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 -- 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 has more on Rehn and Beauchamp, reluctant ideological warriors. Kind of interesting how an old blog post of Beauchamp's 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 on the end of the beginning of the “Scott Thomas” affair…


True that!

Oh bull , you're ing 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 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.

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 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 bull , you're ing 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 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..