Newshoggers Comments
Agreed.
Especially the bit about CY could be so much more of a force for decent conservative blogging if he would just eschew the haters like Malkin. CY could so easily be another James Joyner - a kind of conservative blogging voice there's precious little of and the GOP really needs more of if it is to save itself from the wilderness. There's a couple out there - Callimachus and Neptunus spring to mind - who could do the same. They have the brights to see past the ultra-right linkfest if only they would broaden their reading and stop playing to the peanut gallery.
Regards, C
I would also put Callimachus and Neptunus in that category, along with a few others that I won't name.
Libby,
I'll burn anyone, at at time, that I think is lying in the press, even when they tell me what they might think I'd want to hear. I've debunked stories (such as the Iranian rifles story) that a true ideologue would let pass unquestioningly.
I'm sorry if you're buying into the Kevin Drum-generated myth that people on teh right definatively claimed he wasn't a soldier. That flatly never happened. We wanted proof TNR verified his credentials, some question him becuase of discrepancies, but never made that kind of claim, to the best I can determine.
Yes, this story does matter.
In all the incidents in "Shock Troops," Beauchamp specifically claimed he was around large groups of soldiers when these acts took place; all would appear to be at least platoon-sized, and perhaps even company-sized. By saying that not one of these soldiers objected to the barbarities he claimed occurred (which the military now states are entirely false), he was libeling an entire company and forward operating base as war criminals, at worst and dishonorable soldiers at best. It matters, just as a stripper's false story in Durham matters to an entire sports team and the university to which it belongs.
I tend to trust specific people in the military PAO system for the same reason that you trust most of the people you trust in your life: a track record of telling me verifiable truths. I've spoken with some of my sources for a very long time, and have been always able to corroborate what they say. Likewise, you should note that unlike TNR, I'm citing people on the record, where they can be held accountable for mistruths.
I agree with you that the Tillman case was poorly handled, and quite possibly a cover-up has occurred, but that incident cannot be used to broadly smear the entire military. That is a form of bigotry, pure, and simple.
I don't recall ever going to Gut Rumbles, but then, maybe I'm getting old.
As for Beauchamp and his claim, my purpose was to shine sunlight in a dark place. I'm sorry if some don't like what was hiding in the dark, but I won't apologize for letting the truth be know, or for my role in debunking a "fake, but accurate" narrative.
And as far as selling my soul for hit counts... well you ought to see my sitemeter. I wouldn't sell myself so cheap.
Next time you come across a site that doesn't allow you to copy an excerpt try pulling it diectly out of the page source code. Unless the text in question is an image it should be extremely easy to do. There's no widget on Earth that can stop you from doing that.
Oh CY. There's no analogy to be made between the Duke case and this story. In the first instance, we have three kids being charged with a serious crime. No one was going to be hauled into court to answer for this guy's story and again, no one would have even read it if you folks hadn't made such a big deal out of it. You and yours took a personal anecdote and turned it into a smear by inference.
And Tillman is only the most recent case of lying. I don't know how you can pass over it when a general is going to be reprimanded. The military has denied time and time again that incidents occurred only to backtrack and find some scapegoat to blame when the lies have been revealed. Abu Ghraib springs to mind for one.
And I surely remember reading the posts myself from the people who were analyzing Beauchamp's writing and concluded he was a grad student or something. Not to mention the idea that it's impossible to run over a dog with a tank. I've seen video of them doing it to cars while they were joyriding around Baghdad. Drum didn't make that up and he's not the only one who linked to those posts. I ended up reading a lot of posts on both sides on this story.
You're just making excuses. I'd like to think that's because in your heart you know that what you folks are doing to your fellow Americans is wrong. Even if you're in too deep with this crowd to admit it out loud.
As to Gut Rumbles. I'm sure I remember you commenting there and also at some of the other Rumblers blogs. Granted it was infrequently and I remembered it, maybe because you're from my part of of the woods.
Anyway, I got the impression you're a decent guy with some mistaken ideas. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be sorry to learn I am.
Dustin - good tip. I should have remembered that myself. It wouldn't be the first time I cribbed out of the source code for a quote, because it had so many links in it that I was too lazy to transpose. Thanks for the reminder.
Bravo, Libby Spencer!
Such manifest sanity will, of course, be ignored in the sea of specious commentary being ginned up (this is the NUMBER ONE story at Memeorandum, more important than the conviction of a soldier for murdering an Iraqi, more important than the bridge collapse, even more important than the latest rightie swiftboating of John Edwards).
I've quoted your post at the link.
Thanks for the encouragement Hart.
Libby,
Beauchamp's accomplices would have faced trouble for their reported actions.
It does matter whether his stories are true. They produce an unfair vision of business as normal in today's military. The military should be congratulated much more than criticized for going to great lengths to inculcate a professional and ethical warrior ethos in today's soldiers. The two primary stories of atrocities at US hands to come out of Iraq have been Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Both incidents were thoroughly aired and investigated and shown to be anamolies. Neither was in anyway shown to be indemic to our military's methods of operations.
There are obviously bad apples in the military that left unchecked would routinely do horrible things. What the soldiers' responses to Beauchamp's allegations generally wanted to make clear was that army protocols and the actions of the majority of soldiers would generally quickly check the kinds of behavior described in "Shock Troops."
The veracity of Beauchamp's remarks also matter because they sully not only his reputation and that of his comrades but the reputation of his entire unit as well. The day before he outed himself he was nailed down to his company (62 to 190 soldiers). As he used his first and middle names as his "pseudonym" it is likely that he was pressured from within his own unit to come clean.
After that his words had the very definite ability to harm the soldiers around him.
Commenting by HaloScan
