by G’Kar
I stayed away from the entire Beauchamp affair. I was aware of it, and I had my own opinion, but since I had no way of proving anything one way or the other, I saw no real value to jumping into the fray. However, an experience I had the other day has left me with the feeling I have little choice but to speak up.
As those familiar with the story know, Beauchamp got into trouble over three claims: that he’d made fun of a woman badly scarred by an IED, that he had been present when a soldier placed part of a child’s skull on his head and entertained his buddies, and that he had seen a Bradley Fighting Vehicle driver kill numerous dogs without reprisal. At the time, my personal opinion was that the last claim was the least likely, since the positioning of the driver in a BFV would make it difficult to pull off the maneuver Beauchamp described.
I still don’t know how much of Beauchamp’s tales were accurate and how much was fabricated. Nor do I care. But I am going to relate this because I think that the vilification Beauchamp received was much less because what he said might not be accurate and far more because what he said attacked a particular narrative near and dear to the hearts of many of those who support the war in Iraq.
I had to get back to my FOB the other night. I was away from my unit, so I hitched a ride. The guys in the HMMWV I rode in seemed like normal soldiers: a bit irreverent, sometimes frustrated, but decent guys. Until we passed through a town and spotted three dogs in the middle of the road. Without hesitation, indeed with genuine glee, the driver accelerated and apparently ran down one of the dogs (in the dark, from my position, all I know for sure is that there was a bump). He then got into a vigorous argument with the gunner over whether or not he had hit the dog; the gunner was attempting to deny him ‘credit’ for the kill. There was no objection from the vehicle commander over any of this…killing a stray dog didn’t seem to faze him in the slightest. Granted, this didn’t affect the mission one way or the other, and it was a dog and not a person. Still…I felt a bit ill at the thought the vehicle I’d been riding in probably ran over a dog, and the fact this seemed to bring joy to otherwise normal appearing people remains appalling to me.
Does this mean Beauchamp was telling the truth? Nope…I still can’t prove that one way or the other. My point in bringing this up is only to note that, whether or not his story was true, soldiers are people, and sometimes people do some pretty unpleasant things. And attacking people who point out that soldiers are people, however cathartic it may be for some, does nothing to change that fact.
someone forward this to ConYank so he can get those guys disciplined!
someone forward this to ConYank so he can get those guys disciplined!
someone forward this to ConYank so he can get those guys disciplined!
You’re not an objective reporter, G’Kar. You just want to be the next J. Michael Straczynski.
You’re not an objective reporter, G’Kar. You just want to be the next J. Michael Straczynski.
You’re not an objective reporter, G’Kar. You just want to be the next J. Michael Straczynski.
Beauchamp wasn’t attacked for saying something that couldn’t have been true, he was attacked for saying something that obviously *could* have been true but which would have reflected badly on the war effort. The *exact same people* who attacked and vilified him and his wife, who went out of their way to make sure he was punished, and who publicly wished for his fragging and death would have cheerfully backed him to the hilt if he had told the exact same stories but with a different valence. If he had published his stories as a macho inducement to other men to join the army and see the world, if he had promoted his experiences as “hardening” him and making him a better fighter for America. The *same people* would have feted him and kissed his ring if he had presented those stories as “soldiers run amuck and fight islamofascist menace by running over dogs or making fun of cripples.”
Isn’t that, in fact, what underlies the continuing myth that “we coulda won vietnam if the civilians had only let us do it our way” which is, not surprisingly, the same myth now being propagated about Iraq? The story that “we could win if we took the gloves off” is already making the rounds. I believe Glenn Greenwald had a fantastic article up at Salon a few months ago about vague phrasing like this that stands in for something so ugly that even its partisans won’t speak it directly.
Beauchamps error wasn’t in writing something demonstrably false, but in writing something true or false that failed to glorify war and the warrior enough to satisfy the immense egos and the immense needs of the right wing supporters of the war. A little reworking of the overall meaning of the stories and he would have been a celebrated hero of the right.
And all my best wishes and thoughts and prayers for you, g’kar.
aimai
Beauchamp wasn’t attacked for saying something that couldn’t have been true, he was attacked for saying something that obviously *could* have been true but which would have reflected badly on the war effort. The *exact same people* who attacked and vilified him and his wife, who went out of their way to make sure he was punished, and who publicly wished for his fragging and death would have cheerfully backed him to the hilt if he had told the exact same stories but with a different valence. If he had published his stories as a macho inducement to other men to join the army and see the world, if he had promoted his experiences as “hardening” him and making him a better fighter for America. The *same people* would have feted him and kissed his ring if he had presented those stories as “soldiers run amuck and fight islamofascist menace by running over dogs or making fun of cripples.”
Isn’t that, in fact, what underlies the continuing myth that “we coulda won vietnam if the civilians had only let us do it our way” which is, not surprisingly, the same myth now being propagated about Iraq? The story that “we could win if we took the gloves off” is already making the rounds. I believe Glenn Greenwald had a fantastic article up at Salon a few months ago about vague phrasing like this that stands in for something so ugly that even its partisans won’t speak it directly.
Beauchamps error wasn’t in writing something demonstrably false, but in writing something true or false that failed to glorify war and the warrior enough to satisfy the immense egos and the immense needs of the right wing supporters of the war. A little reworking of the overall meaning of the stories and he would have been a celebrated hero of the right.
And all my best wishes and thoughts and prayers for you, g’kar.
aimai
Beauchamp wasn’t attacked for saying something that couldn’t have been true, he was attacked for saying something that obviously *could* have been true but which would have reflected badly on the war effort. The *exact same people* who attacked and vilified him and his wife, who went out of their way to make sure he was punished, and who publicly wished for his fragging and death would have cheerfully backed him to the hilt if he had told the exact same stories but with a different valence. If he had published his stories as a macho inducement to other men to join the army and see the world, if he had promoted his experiences as “hardening” him and making him a better fighter for America. The *same people* would have feted him and kissed his ring if he had presented those stories as “soldiers run amuck and fight islamofascist menace by running over dogs or making fun of cripples.”
Isn’t that, in fact, what underlies the continuing myth that “we coulda won vietnam if the civilians had only let us do it our way” which is, not surprisingly, the same myth now being propagated about Iraq? The story that “we could win if we took the gloves off” is already making the rounds. I believe Glenn Greenwald had a fantastic article up at Salon a few months ago about vague phrasing like this that stands in for something so ugly that even its partisans won’t speak it directly.
Beauchamps error wasn’t in writing something demonstrably false, but in writing something true or false that failed to glorify war and the warrior enough to satisfy the immense egos and the immense needs of the right wing supporters of the war. A little reworking of the overall meaning of the stories and he would have been a celebrated hero of the right.
And all my best wishes and thoughts and prayers for you, g’kar.
aimai
Wow. I have to say that I’m surprised at the vehicle commander. At the whole crew but especially the vehicle commander with someone they don’t know on board.
As a dog lover I’m especially appalled.
Wow. I have to say that I’m surprised at the vehicle commander. At the whole crew but especially the vehicle commander with someone they don’t know on board.
As a dog lover I’m especially appalled.
Wow. I have to say that I’m surprised at the vehicle commander. At the whole crew but especially the vehicle commander with someone they don’t know on board.
As a dog lover I’m especially appalled.
“…whether or not his story was true, soldiers are people, and sometimes people do some pretty unpleasant things. And attacking people who point out that soldiers are people, however cathartic it may be for some, does nothing to change that fact.”
Quite true, and the amount of energy expended by the rightwing blogosphere on the Scott Thomas/Beauchamp stories (mainly in vilifying him and TNR) is extraordinary. Aimai is on to something (@ 3:25), I think: the overheated-verging-on-hysterical reaction to what amounts, basically, to publishing a soldier’s tall tales from a war zone has a lot more behind it than simply standing up for better editing standards.
Guilt, maybe? Embarrassment? Chagrin at their pet “splendid little war” turning out to be such a bloody mess?
Anyway, thanks for your input, G’Kar: and all the best for your safe return home.
“…whether or not his story was true, soldiers are people, and sometimes people do some pretty unpleasant things. And attacking people who point out that soldiers are people, however cathartic it may be for some, does nothing to change that fact.”
Quite true, and the amount of energy expended by the rightwing blogosphere on the Scott Thomas/Beauchamp stories (mainly in vilifying him and TNR) is extraordinary. Aimai is on to something (@ 3:25), I think: the overheated-verging-on-hysterical reaction to what amounts, basically, to publishing a soldier’s tall tales from a war zone has a lot more behind it than simply standing up for better editing standards.
Guilt, maybe? Embarrassment? Chagrin at their pet “splendid little war” turning out to be such a bloody mess?
Anyway, thanks for your input, G’Kar: and all the best for your safe return home.
“…whether or not his story was true, soldiers are people, and sometimes people do some pretty unpleasant things. And attacking people who point out that soldiers are people, however cathartic it may be for some, does nothing to change that fact.”
Quite true, and the amount of energy expended by the rightwing blogosphere on the Scott Thomas/Beauchamp stories (mainly in vilifying him and TNR) is extraordinary. Aimai is on to something (@ 3:25), I think: the overheated-verging-on-hysterical reaction to what amounts, basically, to publishing a soldier’s tall tales from a war zone has a lot more behind it than simply standing up for better editing standards.
Guilt, maybe? Embarrassment? Chagrin at their pet “splendid little war” turning out to be such a bloody mess?
Anyway, thanks for your input, G’Kar: and all the best for your safe return home.
Every memoir of war I’ve ever read has featured far worse acts of random cruelty than running over dogs, including those written by American soldiers from a variety of conflicts. As long as they’re only running over dogs I’m not that alarmed. Take a bunch of very young men, put them in an environment that’s 90% boredom and 10% mortal terror, you’ll get games like running over stray dogs.
Anyone upset by the idea of American soldiers running over dogs has a ludicrously My Little Pony-esque idea of what armies at war are like, Americans no different.
Every memoir of war I’ve ever read has featured far worse acts of random cruelty than running over dogs, including those written by American soldiers from a variety of conflicts. As long as they’re only running over dogs I’m not that alarmed. Take a bunch of very young men, put them in an environment that’s 90% boredom and 10% mortal terror, you’ll get games like running over stray dogs.
Anyone upset by the idea of American soldiers running over dogs has a ludicrously My Little Pony-esque idea of what armies at war are like, Americans no different.
Every memoir of war I’ve ever read has featured far worse acts of random cruelty than running over dogs, including those written by American soldiers from a variety of conflicts. As long as they’re only running over dogs I’m not that alarmed. Take a bunch of very young men, put them in an environment that’s 90% boredom and 10% mortal terror, you’ll get games like running over stray dogs.
Anyone upset by the idea of American soldiers running over dogs has a ludicrously My Little Pony-esque idea of what armies at war are like, Americans no different.
Byrningman, are you sure you want to be saying that about G’Kar?
Byrningman, are you sure you want to be saying that about G’Kar?
Byrningman, are you sure you want to be saying that about G’Kar?
I am not byrningman, but I’d suggest the charitable interpretation: anyone upset by someone saying that American soldiers run over dogs is naive (since in any army, some soldiers will do stuff like that.)
I am not byrningman, but I’d suggest the charitable interpretation: anyone upset by someone saying that American soldiers run over dogs is naive (since in any army, some soldiers will do stuff like that.)
I am not byrningman, but I’d suggest the charitable interpretation: anyone upset by someone saying that American soldiers run over dogs is naive (since in any army, some soldiers will do stuff like that.)
Which is what is so damned maddening about the milbloggers, of all people, freaking out on Beauchamp.
They know damned well stuff like Beauchamp described happens, and many of them chose to not only pretend otherwise, but to lead the lynch mob.
Which is what is so damned maddening about the milbloggers, of all people, freaking out on Beauchamp.
They know damned well stuff like Beauchamp described happens, and many of them chose to not only pretend otherwise, but to lead the lynch mob.
Which is what is so damned maddening about the milbloggers, of all people, freaking out on Beauchamp.
They know damned well stuff like Beauchamp described happens, and many of them chose to not only pretend otherwise, but to lead the lynch mob.
To put it more succintly, the Beauchamp business is about blackmailing active duty military into accepting the war and silencing their legitimate protests. The wingers have conflated “supporting the troops” with “supporting the war” even though the reality is the opposite – as in any war. War punishes and harms the troops, an evil we sometimes accept as a necessity for some greater good. Nobody knows this better than those who are getting targetted by snipers and IEDs. A great fear of the wingers is that the soldiers will start saying, honestly, “if you really care about *ME*, GET ME OUT OF HERE!!”
The response of a society in a just war to such accusations is “we know what we ask of you, but you must do it for the good of the country and those at home”. When that’s basically true the soldiers don’t actually raise the complaint because they know the answer. But we are in a profoundly bad war – not just immoral, but not even in our self-interest if we were immoral. If the soldiers start to call for an end there will be no answer and the war will end – without any possibility of a “stabbed in the back” myth. So the wingers have to suppress soldier’s complaints about the war. That’s why they’ve censored all communications from soldiers and now are piling on to Beauchamp. The tens of thousands like him can shred the web of lies the wingers have woven in an instant and so the wingers are jumping fast to silence the threat.
To put it more succintly, the Beauchamp business is about blackmailing active duty military into accepting the war and silencing their legitimate protests. The wingers have conflated “supporting the troops” with “supporting the war” even though the reality is the opposite – as in any war. War punishes and harms the troops, an evil we sometimes accept as a necessity for some greater good. Nobody knows this better than those who are getting targetted by snipers and IEDs. A great fear of the wingers is that the soldiers will start saying, honestly, “if you really care about *ME*, GET ME OUT OF HERE!!”
The response of a society in a just war to such accusations is “we know what we ask of you, but you must do it for the good of the country and those at home”. When that’s basically true the soldiers don’t actually raise the complaint because they know the answer. But we are in a profoundly bad war – not just immoral, but not even in our self-interest if we were immoral. If the soldiers start to call for an end there will be no answer and the war will end – without any possibility of a “stabbed in the back” myth. So the wingers have to suppress soldier’s complaints about the war. That’s why they’ve censored all communications from soldiers and now are piling on to Beauchamp. The tens of thousands like him can shred the web of lies the wingers have woven in an instant and so the wingers are jumping fast to silence the threat.
To put it more succintly, the Beauchamp business is about blackmailing active duty military into accepting the war and silencing their legitimate protests. The wingers have conflated “supporting the troops” with “supporting the war” even though the reality is the opposite – as in any war. War punishes and harms the troops, an evil we sometimes accept as a necessity for some greater good. Nobody knows this better than those who are getting targetted by snipers and IEDs. A great fear of the wingers is that the soldiers will start saying, honestly, “if you really care about *ME*, GET ME OUT OF HERE!!”
The response of a society in a just war to such accusations is “we know what we ask of you, but you must do it for the good of the country and those at home”. When that’s basically true the soldiers don’t actually raise the complaint because they know the answer. But we are in a profoundly bad war – not just immoral, but not even in our self-interest if we were immoral. If the soldiers start to call for an end there will be no answer and the war will end – without any possibility of a “stabbed in the back” myth. So the wingers have to suppress soldier’s complaints about the war. That’s why they’ve censored all communications from soldiers and now are piling on to Beauchamp. The tens of thousands like him can shred the web of lies the wingers have woven in an instant and so the wingers are jumping fast to silence the threat.
Sorry, Byrningman, I wasn’t meaning to suggest that you were saying G’Kar would run over dogs. What I meant was that you seemed to be accusing him of having “a ludicrously My Little Pony-esque idea of what armies at war are like”, because he was upset at American soldiers running over dogs. I think you and Hilzoy have clarified your point now.
Sorry, Byrningman, I wasn’t meaning to suggest that you were saying G’Kar would run over dogs. What I meant was that you seemed to be accusing him of having “a ludicrously My Little Pony-esque idea of what armies at war are like”, because he was upset at American soldiers running over dogs. I think you and Hilzoy have clarified your point now.
Sorry, Byrningman, I wasn’t meaning to suggest that you were saying G’Kar would run over dogs. What I meant was that you seemed to be accusing him of having “a ludicrously My Little Pony-esque idea of what armies at war are like”, because he was upset at American soldiers running over dogs. I think you and Hilzoy have clarified your point now.
What happened to Byrningman’s 05:27?
What happened to Byrningman’s 05:27?
What happened to Byrningman’s 05:27?
I was just asking myself the same question. I have no idea what the answer is.
I was just asking myself the same question. I have no idea what the answer is.
I was just asking myself the same question. I have no idea what the answer is.
Yes that’s what I meant, I just mean that in the grand spectrum of things soldiers have historically done in war, running over dogs is pretty mild. I don’t think running over dogs is nice, I’m pro-dog, and I don’t think all or even most American soldiers do things like running over dogs, or worse, I’m just saying, every other war ever suggests we should expect certain unpleasantness.
Nor did I mean to suggest G’Kar likes My Little Pony, but I would think no less of him if he does… let’s not have overly-gendered expectations of the fighting troops’ playtime preferences.
Thanks to you and Hilzoy for clarifying.
Yes that’s what I meant, I just mean that in the grand spectrum of things soldiers have historically done in war, running over dogs is pretty mild. I don’t think running over dogs is nice, I’m pro-dog, and I don’t think all or even most American soldiers do things like running over dogs, or worse, I’m just saying, every other war ever suggests we should expect certain unpleasantness.
Nor did I mean to suggest G’Kar likes My Little Pony, but I would think no less of him if he does… let’s not have overly-gendered expectations of the fighting troops’ playtime preferences.
Thanks to you and Hilzoy for clarifying.
Yes that’s what I meant, I just mean that in the grand spectrum of things soldiers have historically done in war, running over dogs is pretty mild. I don’t think running over dogs is nice, I’m pro-dog, and I don’t think all or even most American soldiers do things like running over dogs, or worse, I’m just saying, every other war ever suggests we should expect certain unpleasantness.
Nor did I mean to suggest G’Kar likes My Little Pony, but I would think no less of him if he does… let’s not have overly-gendered expectations of the fighting troops’ playtime preferences.
Thanks to you and Hilzoy for clarifying.
Oh. My. God.
It’s the worst music video ever.
(Pam at Atlas Shrigs sings “My Sharia”. This does not seem to be a joke, more’s the pity.)
Oh. My. God.
It’s the worst music video ever.
(Pam at Atlas Shrigs sings “My Sharia”. This does not seem to be a joke, more’s the pity.)
Oh. My. God.
It’s the worst music video ever.
(Pam at Atlas Shrigs sings “My Sharia”. This does not seem to be a joke, more’s the pity.)
Just to follow up, while I had no illusions that all U.S. troops were saints, there is a world of difference between knowing that there are some people doing that kind of thing and actually being in the vehicle while it happens.
Just to follow up, while I had no illusions that all U.S. troops were saints, there is a world of difference between knowing that there are some people doing that kind of thing and actually being in the vehicle while it happens.
Just to follow up, while I had no illusions that all U.S. troops were saints, there is a world of difference between knowing that there are some people doing that kind of thing and actually being in the vehicle while it happens.
The cooperation between ObWi and Balloon Juice to undermine the troops and sap our precious bodily fluids continues.
The cooperation between ObWi and Balloon Juice to undermine the troops and sap our precious bodily fluids continues.
The cooperation between ObWi and Balloon Juice to undermine the troops and sap our precious bodily fluids continues.
And I’m not saying a word about overly-gendered expectations one way or the other…
And I’m not saying a word about overly-gendered expectations one way or the other…
And I’m not saying a word about overly-gendered expectations one way or the other…
The fainting spells on the right over Beauchamp’s anecdotes were always obviously of a piece with all the other theatrical mass-outrage productions.
What’s far more disturbing is the way in which Army leadership is working closely with the right’s propaganda outlets, and not even making an effort to pretend to be a professional information operation.
Vividly demonstrated today by Petraeus’ PR guy in his emails to Glenn Greenwald (even, as John Cole points out, if you accept that the first one wasn’t written by him).
The fainting spells on the right over Beauchamp’s anecdotes were always obviously of a piece with all the other theatrical mass-outrage productions.
What’s far more disturbing is the way in which Army leadership is working closely with the right’s propaganda outlets, and not even making an effort to pretend to be a professional information operation.
Vividly demonstrated today by Petraeus’ PR guy in his emails to Glenn Greenwald (even, as John Cole points out, if you accept that the first one wasn’t written by him).
The fainting spells on the right over Beauchamp’s anecdotes were always obviously of a piece with all the other theatrical mass-outrage productions.
What’s far more disturbing is the way in which Army leadership is working closely with the right’s propaganda outlets, and not even making an effort to pretend to be a professional information operation.
Vividly demonstrated today by Petraeus’ PR guy in his emails to Glenn Greenwald (even, as John Cole points out, if you accept that the first one wasn’t written by him).
btw Ponies, have a look at Apocalypse Pony.
That is more suiting to the Iraq war than the normal little pony stuff.
btw Ponies, have a look at Apocalypse Pony.
That is more suiting to the Iraq war than the normal little pony stuff.
btw Ponies, have a look at Apocalypse Pony.
That is more suiting to the Iraq war than the normal little pony stuff.
I have to say I have been utterly flummoxed by this entire Beauchamp narrative. The very idea that soldiers at war do not commit brutal acts is naive beyond any comprehension of mine. The dissonance makes my ears ring.
Fer cryin out loud, even if you haven’t been to war, haven’t you at least seen movies? How is it hard to understand what combat does to your humanity? You send these young people off to fight and kill, and profess shock when they become the brutal, dehumanized “warrior” you asked them to be?
One horrific night thirty seven years ago I was forced to kill a man with my bare hands in the wire of a company perimeter. Lots of people died that night, that week, and some of them died at my hands. But that one guy, hand to hand under the illum rounds in the drizzling rain, something inside me snapped.
If you think after that I had a problem killing Buffs, burning hooches and rice caches, calling air and arty onto villes full of old people and children, you’re lying to yourself. The important thing to remember is all the bad, evil shit I’ve done here since I came home. You don’t survive combat and come home a paragon of love and virtue.
And it really pisses me off that people who know better pretend to profess shock at Beauchamp’s narrative, simply because they feel it advances a political agenda.
If you don’t like the thought of what combat does to young men, here’s a suggestion. Don’t send young men to war.
Charlie Mike, G’Kar…
mikey
I have to say I have been utterly flummoxed by this entire Beauchamp narrative. The very idea that soldiers at war do not commit brutal acts is naive beyond any comprehension of mine. The dissonance makes my ears ring.
Fer cryin out loud, even if you haven’t been to war, haven’t you at least seen movies? How is it hard to understand what combat does to your humanity? You send these young people off to fight and kill, and profess shock when they become the brutal, dehumanized “warrior” you asked them to be?
One horrific night thirty seven years ago I was forced to kill a man with my bare hands in the wire of a company perimeter. Lots of people died that night, that week, and some of them died at my hands. But that one guy, hand to hand under the illum rounds in the drizzling rain, something inside me snapped.
If you think after that I had a problem killing Buffs, burning hooches and rice caches, calling air and arty onto villes full of old people and children, you’re lying to yourself. The important thing to remember is all the bad, evil shit I’ve done here since I came home. You don’t survive combat and come home a paragon of love and virtue.
And it really pisses me off that people who know better pretend to profess shock at Beauchamp’s narrative, simply because they feel it advances a political agenda.
If you don’t like the thought of what combat does to young men, here’s a suggestion. Don’t send young men to war.
Charlie Mike, G’Kar…
mikey
I have to say I have been utterly flummoxed by this entire Beauchamp narrative. The very idea that soldiers at war do not commit brutal acts is naive beyond any comprehension of mine. The dissonance makes my ears ring.
Fer cryin out loud, even if you haven’t been to war, haven’t you at least seen movies? How is it hard to understand what combat does to your humanity? You send these young people off to fight and kill, and profess shock when they become the brutal, dehumanized “warrior” you asked them to be?
One horrific night thirty seven years ago I was forced to kill a man with my bare hands in the wire of a company perimeter. Lots of people died that night, that week, and some of them died at my hands. But that one guy, hand to hand under the illum rounds in the drizzling rain, something inside me snapped.
If you think after that I had a problem killing Buffs, burning hooches and rice caches, calling air and arty onto villes full of old people and children, you’re lying to yourself. The important thing to remember is all the bad, evil shit I’ve done here since I came home. You don’t survive combat and come home a paragon of love and virtue.
And it really pisses me off that people who know better pretend to profess shock at Beauchamp’s narrative, simply because they feel it advances a political agenda.
If you don’t like the thought of what combat does to young men, here’s a suggestion. Don’t send young men to war.
Charlie Mike, G’Kar…
mikey
“Fer cryin out loud, even if you haven’t been to war, haven’t you at least seen movies?”
ah, but the all-knowing peggy noonan in the wsj explained to us just the other day that this is *exactly* how she knew that beauchamp must be a fake: because it’s too much like what’s in the movies.
ergo, it couldn’t have happened in real life.
ergo, beauchamp’s a liar.
thank you, peggy, and thanks for all of those great speeches you wrote for ronald reagan, too.
“Fer cryin out loud, even if you haven’t been to war, haven’t you at least seen movies?”
ah, but the all-knowing peggy noonan in the wsj explained to us just the other day that this is *exactly* how she knew that beauchamp must be a fake: because it’s too much like what’s in the movies.
ergo, it couldn’t have happened in real life.
ergo, beauchamp’s a liar.
thank you, peggy, and thanks for all of those great speeches you wrote for ronald reagan, too.
“Fer cryin out loud, even if you haven’t been to war, haven’t you at least seen movies?”
ah, but the all-knowing peggy noonan in the wsj explained to us just the other day that this is *exactly* how she knew that beauchamp must be a fake: because it’s too much like what’s in the movies.
ergo, it couldn’t have happened in real life.
ergo, beauchamp’s a liar.
thank you, peggy, and thanks for all of those great speeches you wrote for ronald reagan, too.
We’re painting schoolhouses with DOG BLOOD!
Stay safe, G’Kar. Yeah, I know you can’t, but I don’t know what the hell else to say.
We’re painting schoolhouses with DOG BLOOD!
Stay safe, G’Kar. Yeah, I know you can’t, but I don’t know what the hell else to say.
We’re painting schoolhouses with DOG BLOOD!
Stay safe, G’Kar. Yeah, I know you can’t, but I don’t know what the hell else to say.
It’s wrong that this post completely cracked me up. It’s just the Iraq War version of the Marshall McLuhan moment that happens so often on the Internet: “Funny you should ask: I happen to be an active duty soldier who was just in a vehicle when the driver, apparently intentionally, ran over a dog.” But I’m glad to hear you’re still okay.
(I really, really hate to bring this up. But you’re in very much the same position Beauchamp was, blogging anonymously, and my impression was that he got in trouble with the Army for saying this sort of thing. You’re not putting yourself at risk of discipline if you get outed, are you? Because that would really stink if it happened.) (I mean, presumably the discipline probably wouldn’t have happened if the worst thing Beauchamp had reported was the dog story. But your position is still uncomfortably parallel.)
It’s wrong that this post completely cracked me up. It’s just the Iraq War version of the Marshall McLuhan moment that happens so often on the Internet: “Funny you should ask: I happen to be an active duty soldier who was just in a vehicle when the driver, apparently intentionally, ran over a dog.” But I’m glad to hear you’re still okay.
(I really, really hate to bring this up. But you’re in very much the same position Beauchamp was, blogging anonymously, and my impression was that he got in trouble with the Army for saying this sort of thing. You’re not putting yourself at risk of discipline if you get outed, are you? Because that would really stink if it happened.) (I mean, presumably the discipline probably wouldn’t have happened if the worst thing Beauchamp had reported was the dog story. But your position is still uncomfortably parallel.)
It’s wrong that this post completely cracked me up. It’s just the Iraq War version of the Marshall McLuhan moment that happens so often on the Internet: “Funny you should ask: I happen to be an active duty soldier who was just in a vehicle when the driver, apparently intentionally, ran over a dog.” But I’m glad to hear you’re still okay.
(I really, really hate to bring this up. But you’re in very much the same position Beauchamp was, blogging anonymously, and my impression was that he got in trouble with the Army for saying this sort of thing. You’re not putting yourself at risk of discipline if you get outed, are you? Because that would really stink if it happened.) (I mean, presumably the discipline probably wouldn’t have happened if the worst thing Beauchamp had reported was the dog story. But your position is still uncomfortably parallel.)
lb–
no, the marshall mcluhan moment would have arrived if we’d gotten a post from the *dog* that was hit by beauchamp’s buddies.
“funny you should mention this; i was out the other night scrounging for trash, when this big-ass bradley comes barrelling down, swerves, and knocks me right into the ditch. man, it hurt! luckily, my pal got the serial number from the bradley, which was….”
on the internet, no one can tell you’re a hit-and-run victim.
lb–
no, the marshall mcluhan moment would have arrived if we’d gotten a post from the *dog* that was hit by beauchamp’s buddies.
“funny you should mention this; i was out the other night scrounging for trash, when this big-ass bradley comes barrelling down, swerves, and knocks me right into the ditch. man, it hurt! luckily, my pal got the serial number from the bradley, which was….”
on the internet, no one can tell you’re a hit-and-run victim.
lb–
no, the marshall mcluhan moment would have arrived if we’d gotten a post from the *dog* that was hit by beauchamp’s buddies.
“funny you should mention this; i was out the other night scrounging for trash, when this big-ass bradley comes barrelling down, swerves, and knocks me right into the ditch. man, it hurt! luckily, my pal got the serial number from the bradley, which was….”
on the internet, no one can tell you’re a hit-and-run victim.
Does anyone else here the echo in here? Just wondering.
I’m pretty sure the milbloggers jumped on Beauchamp for the lieing and exaggeration.
Not that soldiers can do harsh things during a time of war.
Does anyone else here the echo in here? Just wondering.
I’m pretty sure the milbloggers jumped on Beauchamp for the lieing and exaggeration.
Not that soldiers can do harsh things during a time of war.
Does anyone else here the echo in here? Just wondering.
I’m pretty sure the milbloggers jumped on Beauchamp for the lieing and exaggeration.
Not that soldiers can do harsh things during a time of war.
I thought John Cole had put the whole idea of what can and can’t be done/seen by the driver of a Bradley to rest.
And yes, the wingnuts made a big deal of the lying and exaggerating but at heart, they claimed that American soldiers were incapable of anything like those actions. Anyone who knows young men of that age knows that they are capable of all kinds of stupid actions, even in civilian life: given the mixture of boredom and terror in a combat zone, and I expect the wingers would be clutching their pearls, grasping for smelling salts, and generally feeling discomfited.
I thought John Cole had put the whole idea of what can and can’t be done/seen by the driver of a Bradley to rest.
And yes, the wingnuts made a big deal of the lying and exaggerating but at heart, they claimed that American soldiers were incapable of anything like those actions. Anyone who knows young men of that age knows that they are capable of all kinds of stupid actions, even in civilian life: given the mixture of boredom and terror in a combat zone, and I expect the wingers would be clutching their pearls, grasping for smelling salts, and generally feeling discomfited.
I thought John Cole had put the whole idea of what can and can’t be done/seen by the driver of a Bradley to rest.
And yes, the wingnuts made a big deal of the lying and exaggerating but at heart, they claimed that American soldiers were incapable of anything like those actions. Anyone who knows young men of that age knows that they are capable of all kinds of stupid actions, even in civilian life: given the mixture of boredom and terror in a combat zone, and I expect the wingers would be clutching their pearls, grasping for smelling salts, and generally feeling discomfited.
Hm. I didn’t get that impression. Some support for that?
Hm. I didn’t get that impression. Some support for that?
Hm. I didn’t get that impression. Some support for that?
“And yes, the wingnuts made a big deal of the lying and exaggerating”
The only lying and exaggerating I’m aware of having seen demonstrated was on the part of Beauchamp’s critics.
“And yes, the wingnuts made a big deal of the lying and exaggerating”
The only lying and exaggerating I’m aware of having seen demonstrated was on the part of Beauchamp’s critics.
“And yes, the wingnuts made a big deal of the lying and exaggerating”
The only lying and exaggerating I’m aware of having seen demonstrated was on the part of Beauchamp’s critics.
Not all that long ago I was in my early twenties and a member of a military unit training in the Wild Wild West. There were jackrabbits everywhere. Some friends and I purchased rifles to go jackrabbit hunting in our off-time. It wasn’t really ethical since we didn’t intend to eat the meat and the 30-06s didn’t give us the option in any case. But we didn’t hit much, and it was good marksmanship practice. We also drank lots of alcohol on occasion and sometimes ended up eating bugs. It was fun at the time. Lots more stories.
There was another unit out there that handled freeze isolation seals for steam piping. Liquid nitrogen was used to create the seals. This unit had fun with rabbits too; they would flash-freeze them in nitrogen and then throw the frozen bunnies against a concrete wall. The furry little bodies shattered cleanly. Potentially a great way for biology students to study animal cross-sections. Maybe a patent in there somewhere.
Question:
What do bunny busting, throwing sub-zero rabbits against concrete walls, and running over Iraqi dogs have in common?
Answer:
(1) They are stupid things that young men do for a number of reasons; and
(2) The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
Not all that long ago I was in my early twenties and a member of a military unit training in the Wild Wild West. There were jackrabbits everywhere. Some friends and I purchased rifles to go jackrabbit hunting in our off-time. It wasn’t really ethical since we didn’t intend to eat the meat and the 30-06s didn’t give us the option in any case. But we didn’t hit much, and it was good marksmanship practice. We also drank lots of alcohol on occasion and sometimes ended up eating bugs. It was fun at the time. Lots more stories.
There was another unit out there that handled freeze isolation seals for steam piping. Liquid nitrogen was used to create the seals. This unit had fun with rabbits too; they would flash-freeze them in nitrogen and then throw the frozen bunnies against a concrete wall. The furry little bodies shattered cleanly. Potentially a great way for biology students to study animal cross-sections. Maybe a patent in there somewhere.
Question:
What do bunny busting, throwing sub-zero rabbits against concrete walls, and running over Iraqi dogs have in common?
Answer:
(1) They are stupid things that young men do for a number of reasons; and
(2) The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
Not all that long ago I was in my early twenties and a member of a military unit training in the Wild Wild West. There were jackrabbits everywhere. Some friends and I purchased rifles to go jackrabbit hunting in our off-time. It wasn’t really ethical since we didn’t intend to eat the meat and the 30-06s didn’t give us the option in any case. But we didn’t hit much, and it was good marksmanship practice. We also drank lots of alcohol on occasion and sometimes ended up eating bugs. It was fun at the time. Lots more stories.
There was another unit out there that handled freeze isolation seals for steam piping. Liquid nitrogen was used to create the seals. This unit had fun with rabbits too; they would flash-freeze them in nitrogen and then throw the frozen bunnies against a concrete wall. The furry little bodies shattered cleanly. Potentially a great way for biology students to study animal cross-sections. Maybe a patent in there somewhere.
Question:
What do bunny busting, throwing sub-zero rabbits against concrete walls, and running over Iraqi dogs have in common?
Answer:
(1) They are stupid things that young men do for a number of reasons; and
(2) The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
Could you explain why, Bill, from your particular perspective? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or ascribe you opinions without some clarification.
The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
Could you explain why, Bill, from your particular perspective? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or ascribe you opinions without some clarification.
The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
Could you explain why, Bill, from your particular perspective? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or ascribe you opinions without some clarification.
What’s scary is that the proponents of the policy are still acting like they care a whole lot more about what people of Alabama think about the conduct of operations than the people of Al Anbar.
None of the latter of whom are in any doubt, by the way, as to whether or not bored/scared young men sometimes do stupid things.
What’s scary is that the proponents of the policy are still acting like they care a whole lot more about what people of Alabama think about the conduct of operations than the people of Al Anbar.
None of the latter of whom are in any doubt, by the way, as to whether or not bored/scared young men sometimes do stupid things.
What’s scary is that the proponents of the policy are still acting like they care a whole lot more about what people of Alabama think about the conduct of operations than the people of Al Anbar.
None of the latter of whom are in any doubt, by the way, as to whether or not bored/scared young men sometimes do stupid things.
“Could you explain why, Bill, from your particular perspective?”
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
That, and modern world events.
“Could you explain why, Bill, from your particular perspective?”
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
That, and modern world events.
“Could you explain why, Bill, from your particular perspective?”
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
That, and modern world events.
One of my students had an older brother who went to Iraq early in the war. He (gleefully) described and incident wherein his brother and the others of his unit shot some kind of weapon repeatedly over an Iraq town, soley for the purpose of making a lot of noise and scaring the hell out of everyone. I got the impression that the weapon made a fireworks-like display in the night sky. It was not a planned military operation. It was harassment, dreamed up by the rank and file. Nobody got disciplined for it.
THe ROTC group at my high school invited a group of Iraq vets to come to the Rotcie class and speak. The vets entertained the students with stories about shooting cows and running over dogs.
No I don’t think all soldiers behave like assholes. I have no idea what porportion has behaved badly. But it doesn’t matter because the reporting of assholish behavior isn’t why Beauchamp got attacked anyway.
He was attacked because he violated the rule laid down by the rightwing: soldiers are supposed to belong to THEM and soldiers are supposed to support THEM. Soldiers who don’t toe their party line are betraying the rightwing. Beauchamp, like Hackett, Fawcett, Winter, Duckworth, Murphy, Cleland, Kerry, Webb, the interrogator who publishhed his remorse in a Times Op ed, the captains, who wrote that we either need a draft or get out, and others violated the rule: they failed to stay within the boundaries of the right wing party line. The rightwing can’t tolerate that.
The political right doesn’t support soldiers. Their belief is that soldies are supposed to support them.
One of my students had an older brother who went to Iraq early in the war. He (gleefully) described and incident wherein his brother and the others of his unit shot some kind of weapon repeatedly over an Iraq town, soley for the purpose of making a lot of noise and scaring the hell out of everyone. I got the impression that the weapon made a fireworks-like display in the night sky. It was not a planned military operation. It was harassment, dreamed up by the rank and file. Nobody got disciplined for it.
THe ROTC group at my high school invited a group of Iraq vets to come to the Rotcie class and speak. The vets entertained the students with stories about shooting cows and running over dogs.
No I don’t think all soldiers behave like assholes. I have no idea what porportion has behaved badly. But it doesn’t matter because the reporting of assholish behavior isn’t why Beauchamp got attacked anyway.
He was attacked because he violated the rule laid down by the rightwing: soldiers are supposed to belong to THEM and soldiers are supposed to support THEM. Soldiers who don’t toe their party line are betraying the rightwing. Beauchamp, like Hackett, Fawcett, Winter, Duckworth, Murphy, Cleland, Kerry, Webb, the interrogator who publishhed his remorse in a Times Op ed, the captains, who wrote that we either need a draft or get out, and others violated the rule: they failed to stay within the boundaries of the right wing party line. The rightwing can’t tolerate that.
The political right doesn’t support soldiers. Their belief is that soldies are supposed to support them.
One of my students had an older brother who went to Iraq early in the war. He (gleefully) described and incident wherein his brother and the others of his unit shot some kind of weapon repeatedly over an Iraq town, soley for the purpose of making a lot of noise and scaring the hell out of everyone. I got the impression that the weapon made a fireworks-like display in the night sky. It was not a planned military operation. It was harassment, dreamed up by the rank and file. Nobody got disciplined for it.
THe ROTC group at my high school invited a group of Iraq vets to come to the Rotcie class and speak. The vets entertained the students with stories about shooting cows and running over dogs.
No I don’t think all soldiers behave like assholes. I have no idea what porportion has behaved badly. But it doesn’t matter because the reporting of assholish behavior isn’t why Beauchamp got attacked anyway.
He was attacked because he violated the rule laid down by the rightwing: soldiers are supposed to belong to THEM and soldiers are supposed to support THEM. Soldiers who don’t toe their party line are betraying the rightwing. Beauchamp, like Hackett, Fawcett, Winter, Duckworth, Murphy, Cleland, Kerry, Webb, the interrogator who publishhed his remorse in a Times Op ed, the captains, who wrote that we either need a draft or get out, and others violated the rule: they failed to stay within the boundaries of the right wing party line. The rightwing can’t tolerate that.
The political right doesn’t support soldiers. Their belief is that soldies are supposed to support them.
There was another unit out there that handled freeze isolation seals for steam piping. Liquid nitrogen was used to create the seals. This unit had fun with rabbits too; they would flash-freeze them in nitrogen and then throw the frozen bunnies against a concrete wall. The furry little bodies shattered cleanly.
Having been, not even a soldier, but a college student, I’d expect the mean time for a group of young men between speculating about the result and performing the experiment to be about 30 minutes cold sober, decreasing with each beer consumed.
There was another unit out there that handled freeze isolation seals for steam piping. Liquid nitrogen was used to create the seals. This unit had fun with rabbits too; they would flash-freeze them in nitrogen and then throw the frozen bunnies against a concrete wall. The furry little bodies shattered cleanly.
Having been, not even a soldier, but a college student, I’d expect the mean time for a group of young men between speculating about the result and performing the experiment to be about 30 minutes cold sober, decreasing with each beer consumed.
There was another unit out there that handled freeze isolation seals for steam piping. Liquid nitrogen was used to create the seals. This unit had fun with rabbits too; they would flash-freeze them in nitrogen and then throw the frozen bunnies against a concrete wall. The furry little bodies shattered cleanly.
Having been, not even a soldier, but a college student, I’d expect the mean time for a group of young men between speculating about the result and performing the experiment to be about 30 minutes cold sober, decreasing with each beer consumed.
So, Bill, how do you feel about these passages?
Are you Christian or Jewish? Why do you believing in selling daughters, and owning slaves?
If you’re Christian: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: “…ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.””
If you’re Christian, do you believe that the Jews “please not God, and are contrary to all men”?
“And a man will choose…any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman…Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33.
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Ecclesiastes 7:26
Do you hate women?
Deuteronomy, chapter 12: “When you are living in the towns that the Lord your God gives you, you may hear 13 that some worthless people of your nation have misled the people of their town to worship gods that you have never worshiped before. 14 If you hear such a rumor, investigate it thoroughly; and if it is true that this evil thing did happen, 15 then kill all the people in that town and all their livestock too. Destroy that town completely. 16 Bring together all the possessions of the people who live there and pile them up in the town square. Then burn the town and everything in it as an offering to the Lord your God. It must be left in ruins forever and never again be rebuilt.”
Do you believe in slaughter?
Etc., etc., etc. Is there some reason to believe that we should take one set of outrageous holy words as more alarming than another?
Because the Old and New Testaments are no less full of horrific crap than the Koran is.
So, Bill, how do you feel about these passages?
Are you Christian or Jewish? Why do you believing in selling daughters, and owning slaves?
If you’re Christian: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: “…ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.””
If you’re Christian, do you believe that the Jews “please not God, and are contrary to all men”?
“And a man will choose…any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman…Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33.
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Ecclesiastes 7:26
Do you hate women?
Deuteronomy, chapter 12: “When you are living in the towns that the Lord your God gives you, you may hear 13 that some worthless people of your nation have misled the people of their town to worship gods that you have never worshiped before. 14 If you hear such a rumor, investigate it thoroughly; and if it is true that this evil thing did happen, 15 then kill all the people in that town and all their livestock too. Destroy that town completely. 16 Bring together all the possessions of the people who live there and pile them up in the town square. Then burn the town and everything in it as an offering to the Lord your God. It must be left in ruins forever and never again be rebuilt.”
Do you believe in slaughter?
Etc., etc., etc. Is there some reason to believe that we should take one set of outrageous holy words as more alarming than another?
Because the Old and New Testaments are no less full of horrific crap than the Koran is.
So, Bill, how do you feel about these passages?
Are you Christian or Jewish? Why do you believing in selling daughters, and owning slaves?
If you’re Christian: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: “…ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.””
If you’re Christian, do you believe that the Jews “please not God, and are contrary to all men”?
“And a man will choose…any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman…Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33.
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Ecclesiastes 7:26
Do you hate women?
Deuteronomy, chapter 12: “When you are living in the towns that the Lord your God gives you, you may hear 13 that some worthless people of your nation have misled the people of their town to worship gods that you have never worshiped before. 14 If you hear such a rumor, investigate it thoroughly; and if it is true that this evil thing did happen, 15 then kill all the people in that town and all their livestock too. Destroy that town completely. 16 Bring together all the possessions of the people who live there and pile them up in the town square. Then burn the town and everything in it as an offering to the Lord your God. It must be left in ruins forever and never again be rebuilt.”
Do you believe in slaughter?
Etc., etc., etc. Is there some reason to believe that we should take one set of outrageous holy words as more alarming than another?
Because the Old and New Testaments are no less full of horrific crap than the Koran is.
And as complement to Gary’s questions (quite legitimate, IMHO), let me ask you, from a wholly different perspective: how much time have you spent in a majority Muslim country? (Especially one not in the Middle East, e.g., Malaysia or Indonesia)?
Did you feel constantly threatened there?
If not, why not?
If so . . . I pity you.
And as complement to Gary’s questions (quite legitimate, IMHO), let me ask you, from a wholly different perspective: how much time have you spent in a majority Muslim country? (Especially one not in the Middle East, e.g., Malaysia or Indonesia)?
Did you feel constantly threatened there?
If not, why not?
If so . . . I pity you.
And as complement to Gary’s questions (quite legitimate, IMHO), let me ask you, from a wholly different perspective: how much time have you spent in a majority Muslim country? (Especially one not in the Middle East, e.g., Malaysia or Indonesia)?
Did you feel constantly threatened there?
If not, why not?
If so . . . I pity you.
Hi Gary. The Red Socks won tonight. I’ve had a couple of beers to celebrate. Regardless:
(1) There is no doctrine for Jews or Christians to either kill, subjugate, or convert non-believers.
(2) The Inquisition ended in the 1200s.
(3) Let’s compare statistics from Saturday:
10/27/2007 (Swat, Pakistan) – Islamic militants behead two captured soldiers and five civilians.
10/27/2007 (Yala, Thailand) – Muslim radicals gun down a 68-year-old man riding home from a tea shop. 10/27/2007 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) – Two local police are killed in an ambush by religious extremists.
10/27/2007 (Baqubah, Iraq) – Seventeen victims of a sectarian milita are found executed in a field.
10/27/2007 (Baghdad, Iraq) – Freedom Fighters kill thirty-four innocent Iraqis in various attacks.
10/27/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) – A 50-year-old plantation worker is beheaded by Islamic militants.
Now how about them Lutherans?
You asked a personal question and I’ll state that I’m spiritual, haven’t been to a religious structure in years, spend some time reading texts, but more time trying to make a living.
p.s. Spent time in Bahrain, Egypt, UAE, and good old Saudi Arabia. Got to watch local security forces take away a drummer in mid-set in the UAE (he reportedly would have been in trouble in his native Ireland, but I remain skeptical). Passed on an invitation to witness beheadings in Saudi.
dr ngo, Is Thailand in the Middle East?
Hi Gary. The Red Socks won tonight. I’ve had a couple of beers to celebrate. Regardless:
(1) There is no doctrine for Jews or Christians to either kill, subjugate, or convert non-believers.
(2) The Inquisition ended in the 1200s.
(3) Let’s compare statistics from Saturday:
10/27/2007 (Swat, Pakistan) – Islamic militants behead two captured soldiers and five civilians.
10/27/2007 (Yala, Thailand) – Muslim radicals gun down a 68-year-old man riding home from a tea shop. 10/27/2007 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) – Two local police are killed in an ambush by religious extremists.
10/27/2007 (Baqubah, Iraq) – Seventeen victims of a sectarian milita are found executed in a field.
10/27/2007 (Baghdad, Iraq) – Freedom Fighters kill thirty-four innocent Iraqis in various attacks.
10/27/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) – A 50-year-old plantation worker is beheaded by Islamic militants.
Now how about them Lutherans?
You asked a personal question and I’ll state that I’m spiritual, haven’t been to a religious structure in years, spend some time reading texts, but more time trying to make a living.
p.s. Spent time in Bahrain, Egypt, UAE, and good old Saudi Arabia. Got to watch local security forces take away a drummer in mid-set in the UAE (he reportedly would have been in trouble in his native Ireland, but I remain skeptical). Passed on an invitation to witness beheadings in Saudi.
dr ngo, Is Thailand in the Middle East?
Hi Gary. The Red Socks won tonight. I’ve had a couple of beers to celebrate. Regardless:
(1) There is no doctrine for Jews or Christians to either kill, subjugate, or convert non-believers.
(2) The Inquisition ended in the 1200s.
(3) Let’s compare statistics from Saturday:
10/27/2007 (Swat, Pakistan) – Islamic militants behead two captured soldiers and five civilians.
10/27/2007 (Yala, Thailand) – Muslim radicals gun down a 68-year-old man riding home from a tea shop. 10/27/2007 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) – Two local police are killed in an ambush by religious extremists.
10/27/2007 (Baqubah, Iraq) – Seventeen victims of a sectarian milita are found executed in a field.
10/27/2007 (Baghdad, Iraq) – Freedom Fighters kill thirty-four innocent Iraqis in various attacks.
10/27/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) – A 50-year-old plantation worker is beheaded by Islamic militants.
Now how about them Lutherans?
You asked a personal question and I’ll state that I’m spiritual, haven’t been to a religious structure in years, spend some time reading texts, but more time trying to make a living.
p.s. Spent time in Bahrain, Egypt, UAE, and good old Saudi Arabia. Got to watch local security forces take away a drummer in mid-set in the UAE (he reportedly would have been in trouble in his native Ireland, but I remain skeptical). Passed on an invitation to witness beheadings in Saudi.
dr ngo, Is Thailand in the Middle East?
Bill, professed Christians are represented in the upper echelons of the civilian and military government of the nation responsible for the first major completely unjustified invasion of this century, with a death toll including a million dead and two to five million refugees, a campaign justified by ongoing lies and criminal conspiracy, including what are almost certainly war crimes by the standards set up by (among others) that country’s own previous administrations. Leaders speak openly of forcible conversion, of the victims’ religion as the devil’s creed, of mounting holy crusade against their beliefs and way and life, and tie it all to interpretations of their own faith that have them eager to help advance the approaching apocalypse.
A million dead Iraqis say that Christians can be as good murdering scum as anyone, and just as full of the fervent conviction that God loves them for it.
Bill, professed Christians are represented in the upper echelons of the civilian and military government of the nation responsible for the first major completely unjustified invasion of this century, with a death toll including a million dead and two to five million refugees, a campaign justified by ongoing lies and criminal conspiracy, including what are almost certainly war crimes by the standards set up by (among others) that country’s own previous administrations. Leaders speak openly of forcible conversion, of the victims’ religion as the devil’s creed, of mounting holy crusade against their beliefs and way and life, and tie it all to interpretations of their own faith that have them eager to help advance the approaching apocalypse.
A million dead Iraqis say that Christians can be as good murdering scum as anyone, and just as full of the fervent conviction that God loves them for it.
Bill, professed Christians are represented in the upper echelons of the civilian and military government of the nation responsible for the first major completely unjustified invasion of this century, with a death toll including a million dead and two to five million refugees, a campaign justified by ongoing lies and criminal conspiracy, including what are almost certainly war crimes by the standards set up by (among others) that country’s own previous administrations. Leaders speak openly of forcible conversion, of the victims’ religion as the devil’s creed, of mounting holy crusade against their beliefs and way and life, and tie it all to interpretations of their own faith that have them eager to help advance the approaching apocalypse.
A million dead Iraqis say that Christians can be as good murdering scum as anyone, and just as full of the fervent conviction that God loves them for it.
I worked as a civilian in Vietnam for 18 months between 1969 and 1971, and was told a number of stories by GIs about their own and their buddies’ callousness toward the Vietnamese.
I had no way of verifying the stories, but the fact that they bragged in that way told me a lot about the mentality of the young men fighting that war. How can you go around killing people without dissociating yourself from the humanity of those who are being killed, or going crazy?
There were many examples of both, but I think the military culture encourages the dissociation route, so as not to lose any more fighting power than necessary.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
I worked as a civilian in Vietnam for 18 months between 1969 and 1971, and was told a number of stories by GIs about their own and their buddies’ callousness toward the Vietnamese.
I had no way of verifying the stories, but the fact that they bragged in that way told me a lot about the mentality of the young men fighting that war. How can you go around killing people without dissociating yourself from the humanity of those who are being killed, or going crazy?
There were many examples of both, but I think the military culture encourages the dissociation route, so as not to lose any more fighting power than necessary.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
I worked as a civilian in Vietnam for 18 months between 1969 and 1971, and was told a number of stories by GIs about their own and their buddies’ callousness toward the Vietnamese.
I had no way of verifying the stories, but the fact that they bragged in that way told me a lot about the mentality of the young men fighting that war. How can you go around killing people without dissociating yourself from the humanity of those who are being killed, or going crazy?
There were many examples of both, but I think the military culture encourages the dissociation route, so as not to lose any more fighting power than necessary.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Beauchamp has already admitted, and TNR acknowledged, that his story about the mocking of a IED-disfigured woman was inaccurate regarding a crucial detail: It took place in Kuwait, before the mocking soldiers engaged in combat, and not in Iraq.
Because it’s hard to believe that one could innocently:
1 – Get the country wrong, and
2 – Get the crucial distinction of before v. after hostilities wrong,
the only reasonable conclusion is that Beauchamp was lying, in order to create a “horrors of war” narrative (and that’s assuming the incident took place at all, when there’s no independent evidence.)
And if Beauchamp was willing to lie regarding his signature story about the brutalizing psychic consequences of war, why should be believe his other stories?
BTW, G’Kar, Beauchamp’s narrative was not that soldiers, being people, are capable of bad behavior. His narrative was that the Iraq was turning them into monsters. And that narrative was posted on MySpace, before Beauchamp ever served in Iraq.
Beauchamp has already admitted, and TNR acknowledged, that his story about the mocking of a IED-disfigured woman was inaccurate regarding a crucial detail: It took place in Kuwait, before the mocking soldiers engaged in combat, and not in Iraq.
Because it’s hard to believe that one could innocently:
1 – Get the country wrong, and
2 – Get the crucial distinction of before v. after hostilities wrong,
the only reasonable conclusion is that Beauchamp was lying, in order to create a “horrors of war” narrative (and that’s assuming the incident took place at all, when there’s no independent evidence.)
And if Beauchamp was willing to lie regarding his signature story about the brutalizing psychic consequences of war, why should be believe his other stories?
BTW, G’Kar, Beauchamp’s narrative was not that soldiers, being people, are capable of bad behavior. His narrative was that the Iraq was turning them into monsters. And that narrative was posted on MySpace, before Beauchamp ever served in Iraq.
Beauchamp has already admitted, and TNR acknowledged, that his story about the mocking of a IED-disfigured woman was inaccurate regarding a crucial detail: It took place in Kuwait, before the mocking soldiers engaged in combat, and not in Iraq.
Because it’s hard to believe that one could innocently:
1 – Get the country wrong, and
2 – Get the crucial distinction of before v. after hostilities wrong,
the only reasonable conclusion is that Beauchamp was lying, in order to create a “horrors of war” narrative (and that’s assuming the incident took place at all, when there’s no independent evidence.)
And if Beauchamp was willing to lie regarding his signature story about the brutalizing psychic consequences of war, why should be believe his other stories?
BTW, G’Kar, Beauchamp’s narrative was not that soldiers, being people, are capable of bad behavior. His narrative was that the Iraq was turning them into monsters. And that narrative was posted on MySpace, before Beauchamp ever served in Iraq.
(1) There is no doctrine for Jews or Christians to either kill, subjugate, or convert non-believers.
There is no doctrine for Christians to convert non-believers? Are you effing kidding me?
(1) There is no doctrine for Jews or Christians to either kill, subjugate, or convert non-believers.
There is no doctrine for Christians to convert non-believers? Are you effing kidding me?
(1) There is no doctrine for Jews or Christians to either kill, subjugate, or convert non-believers.
There is no doctrine for Christians to convert non-believers? Are you effing kidding me?
As to Bill’s claim that the Inquisition ended in the 1200s: Either you mistyped or you should check a history book. The most notorious, the Spanish Inquisition (that nobody expects 😉 ), ended when Napoleon conquered Spain and there were attempts even in the 20th century to reintroduce it. It would be less wrong to say that the thing started about the 12th century in earnest.
I could also quote some sources from the 1930ies where Roman Catholic authors (with imprimatur) fantasized about drowning all protestants in their own blood or refer to the Polish Radio Marya of today that (with backing of parts of the church hierarchy) spreads anti-semitism of the worst kind.
Do I have even to mention demands by influential American Christians to wipe out the holy cities of Islam with nuclear fire (provocation would be nice but is not really necessary).
Sorry, where I am I fear other fanatics more than the ME beheaders. My estimate is also that a Jew in parts of Poland has more to fear for his life than in Iran (I wouldn’t say the same about other ME countries though).
—
mikey said:
In the right (in several meanings of the word) movies only the evil gooks/commies/enemy du jour kill dogs (usually belonging to the child* in distress the heros have to rescue). Bad behaviour by ‘us’ (at least unjustified bad behaviour) is only in those movies that attempt to undermine the image and will to fight of Teh Troops and Teh Amurkan People. 😉
Do I have to say that I prefer British war movies? 🙂
*damsels prefer other pets 😉
As to Bill’s claim that the Inquisition ended in the 1200s: Either you mistyped or you should check a history book. The most notorious, the Spanish Inquisition (that nobody expects 😉 ), ended when Napoleon conquered Spain and there were attempts even in the 20th century to reintroduce it. It would be less wrong to say that the thing started about the 12th century in earnest.
I could also quote some sources from the 1930ies where Roman Catholic authors (with imprimatur) fantasized about drowning all protestants in their own blood or refer to the Polish Radio Marya of today that (with backing of parts of the church hierarchy) spreads anti-semitism of the worst kind.
Do I have even to mention demands by influential American Christians to wipe out the holy cities of Islam with nuclear fire (provocation would be nice but is not really necessary).
Sorry, where I am I fear other fanatics more than the ME beheaders. My estimate is also that a Jew in parts of Poland has more to fear for his life than in Iran (I wouldn’t say the same about other ME countries though).
—
mikey said:
In the right (in several meanings of the word) movies only the evil gooks/commies/enemy du jour kill dogs (usually belonging to the child* in distress the heros have to rescue). Bad behaviour by ‘us’ (at least unjustified bad behaviour) is only in those movies that attempt to undermine the image and will to fight of Teh Troops and Teh Amurkan People. 😉
Do I have to say that I prefer British war movies? 🙂
*damsels prefer other pets 😉
As to Bill’s claim that the Inquisition ended in the 1200s: Either you mistyped or you should check a history book. The most notorious, the Spanish Inquisition (that nobody expects 😉 ), ended when Napoleon conquered Spain and there were attempts even in the 20th century to reintroduce it. It would be less wrong to say that the thing started about the 12th century in earnest.
I could also quote some sources from the 1930ies where Roman Catholic authors (with imprimatur) fantasized about drowning all protestants in their own blood or refer to the Polish Radio Marya of today that (with backing of parts of the church hierarchy) spreads anti-semitism of the worst kind.
Do I have even to mention demands by influential American Christians to wipe out the holy cities of Islam with nuclear fire (provocation would be nice but is not really necessary).
Sorry, where I am I fear other fanatics more than the ME beheaders. My estimate is also that a Jew in parts of Poland has more to fear for his life than in Iran (I wouldn’t say the same about other ME countries though).
—
mikey said:
In the right (in several meanings of the word) movies only the evil gooks/commies/enemy du jour kill dogs (usually belonging to the child* in distress the heros have to rescue). Bad behaviour by ‘us’ (at least unjustified bad behaviour) is only in those movies that attempt to undermine the image and will to fight of Teh Troops and Teh Amurkan People. 😉
Do I have to say that I prefer British war movies? 🙂
*damsels prefer other pets 😉
Fake but accurate again. Look, even if they could be right, it does kinda matter if the media are feeding us lies in any particular instance…
Fake but accurate again. Look, even if they could be right, it does kinda matter if the media are feeding us lies in any particular instance…
Fake but accurate again. Look, even if they could be right, it does kinda matter if the media are feeding us lies in any particular instance…
The real problem with this story is that so many are wiling to buy the fake, but accurate scenario.
He admitted to lieing but look how many people here still want to believe he told the truth.
It’s dangerous when people are so gullible that even an admitted liar is believed to have told the “real” story.
The real problem with this story is that so many are wiling to buy the fake, but accurate scenario.
He admitted to lieing but look how many people here still want to believe he told the truth.
It’s dangerous when people are so gullible that even an admitted liar is believed to have told the “real” story.
The real problem with this story is that so many are wiling to buy the fake, but accurate scenario.
He admitted to lieing but look how many people here still want to believe he told the truth.
It’s dangerous when people are so gullible that even an admitted liar is believed to have told the “real” story.
Fake but accurate again.
at least nobody started a fifty-thousand dead, trillion dollar war over this one.
Fake but accurate again.
at least nobody started a fifty-thousand dead, trillion dollar war over this one.
Fake but accurate again.
at least nobody started a fifty-thousand dead, trillion dollar war over this one.
Remember, kids: If you’re not getting the story details precisely right, you don’t have a hazy memory – you’re obviously lying!
This friendly message was brought to you by your regional Dolschstoss Center: “We would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those angry liberals and their meddling media!”
Remember, kids: If you’re not getting the story details precisely right, you don’t have a hazy memory – you’re obviously lying!
This friendly message was brought to you by your regional Dolschstoss Center: “We would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those angry liberals and their meddling media!”
Remember, kids: If you’re not getting the story details precisely right, you don’t have a hazy memory – you’re obviously lying!
This friendly message was brought to you by your regional Dolschstoss Center: “We would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those angry liberals and their meddling media!”
For,
Good point, so given the number of lies the Bush Administration has been caught telling I assume that you believe nothing anyone in the administration says. It amazes me the number of people who fail to greet every Bush pronouncement with incredulity, given his and his administration’s record.
For,
Good point, so given the number of lies the Bush Administration has been caught telling I assume that you believe nothing anyone in the administration says. It amazes me the number of people who fail to greet every Bush pronouncement with incredulity, given his and his administration’s record.
For,
Good point, so given the number of lies the Bush Administration has been caught telling I assume that you believe nothing anyone in the administration says. It amazes me the number of people who fail to greet every Bush pronouncement with incredulity, given his and his administration’s record.
For,
Good point, so given the number of lies the Bush Administration has been caught telling I assume that you believe nothing anyone in the administration says. It amazes me the number of people who fail to greet every Bush pronouncement with incredulity, given his and his administration’s record.
For,
Good point, so given the number of lies the Bush Administration has been caught telling I assume that you believe nothing anyone in the administration says. It amazes me the number of people who fail to greet every Bush pronouncement with incredulity, given his and his administration’s record.
For,
Good point, so given the number of lies the Bush Administration has been caught telling I assume that you believe nothing anyone in the administration says. It amazes me the number of people who fail to greet every Bush pronouncement with incredulity, given his and his administration’s record.
Are you conceding that the stories are accurate, Brett?
Are you conceding that the stories are accurate, Brett?
Are you conceding that the stories are accurate, Brett?
Only in this current political climate could so much virtual ink be spilled regarding the entirely unsurprising notion that soldiers do bad things in war.
Only in this current political climate could so much virtual ink be spilled regarding the entirely unsurprising notion that soldiers do bad things in war.
Only in this current political climate could so much virtual ink be spilled regarding the entirely unsurprising notion that soldiers do bad things in war.
wait, did i say “trillion” ?
i meant to say $2,400,000,000,000.
my first number was, umm, wildly off the mark. don’t believe anything i say, ever again.
wait, did i say “trillion” ?
i meant to say $2,400,000,000,000.
my first number was, umm, wildly off the mark. don’t believe anything i say, ever again.
wait, did i say “trillion” ?
i meant to say $2,400,000,000,000.
my first number was, umm, wildly off the mark. don’t believe anything i say, ever again.
Scott Beauchamp = Graeme Frost.
Scott Beauchamp = Graeme Frost.
Scott Beauchamp = Graeme Frost.
i’ve heard that Scott Beauchamp, Graeme Frost, and Jamil Hussein have never been seen in the same room together. can anyone honestly believe that’s just a coincidence ?
i’ve heard that Scott Beauchamp, Graeme Frost, and Jamil Hussein have never been seen in the same room together. can anyone honestly believe that’s just a coincidence ?
i’ve heard that Scott Beauchamp, Graeme Frost, and Jamil Hussein have never been seen in the same room together. can anyone honestly believe that’s just a coincidence ?
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right, I strongly object to the strawmen being flailed to death by quite a few commenters and even the author here.
For those of you who claim that the criticism of Beauchamp and The New Republic is an attempt by leading conservative blogs to deny some soldiers commit depraved acts, GIVE ME PROOF. Provide links to prominent conservative blogs that state soldiers never commit atrocities, are never cruel, and are never scarred by war.
Good luck, for I’ve not been able to find any blogs making those claims, just left-of-center blogs claiming that milbloggers are making those claims. You’re creating your own strawmen, to avoid the fact that Beauchamp is a serial liar, and TNR is acting unethically.
What we are clearly challenging are the stories written by Scott Beauchamp, and The New Republic’s continued lying to their readers and critics, their attempted whitewash of an investigation that was blown away by one of their own civilian experts who had been misled by the magazine, and their continued stonewalling, which continues well beyond the point an ethical group of editors would have printed a retraction.
There is significant evidence that TNR utterly failed to fact-check any of Beauchamp’s three articles prior to publication. There is significant reason to retract all three of his articles, not just “Shock Troops.”
We NEVER attacked TNR for posting about real acts of depravity; we have gone after them for made-up claims so bad that even civilians could read them and spot them as obvious fakes.
G’Kar’s story of a Humvee driver attempting to hit a dog rings true; it was a small unit (1 Humvee) with a small number of soldiers inside. It is a much faster, quieter, and more agile vehicle than a 25-ton tracked personnel carrier, with much better vision for the driver. In comparison, a spokesmen for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV states that Beauchamp’s dog-killing stories are crap, and further, TNR kept him in the dark about what Beauchamp claimed.
Oops.
In addition, ALL THREE of Beauchamp’s stories involve units of at least platoon strength; the verbal assault on the burned woman in the dining facility took place in front of dozens of soldiers.
There is simply no truth in Beauchamp’s statements, just sick fantasy. Franklin Foer has not been able to bring forth one witness, or fact to support these stories.
Bad things happen in war. But THESE things did not happen, and The New Republic’s ethical bankruptcy in supporting this proven-false fictions is the entire focus of our ire.
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right, I strongly object to the strawmen being flailed to death by quite a few commenters and even the author here.
For those of you who claim that the criticism of Beauchamp and The New Republic is an attempt by leading conservative blogs to deny some soldiers commit depraved acts, GIVE ME PROOF. Provide links to prominent conservative blogs that state soldiers never commit atrocities, are never cruel, and are never scarred by war.
Good luck, for I’ve not been able to find any blogs making those claims, just left-of-center blogs claiming that milbloggers are making those claims. You’re creating your own strawmen, to avoid the fact that Beauchamp is a serial liar, and TNR is acting unethically.
What we are clearly challenging are the stories written by Scott Beauchamp, and The New Republic’s continued lying to their readers and critics, their attempted whitewash of an investigation that was blown away by one of their own civilian experts who had been misled by the magazine, and their continued stonewalling, which continues well beyond the point an ethical group of editors would have printed a retraction.
There is significant evidence that TNR utterly failed to fact-check any of Beauchamp’s three articles prior to publication. There is significant reason to retract all three of his articles, not just “Shock Troops.”
We NEVER attacked TNR for posting about real acts of depravity; we have gone after them for made-up claims so bad that even civilians could read them and spot them as obvious fakes.
G’Kar’s story of a Humvee driver attempting to hit a dog rings true; it was a small unit (1 Humvee) with a small number of soldiers inside. It is a much faster, quieter, and more agile vehicle than a 25-ton tracked personnel carrier, with much better vision for the driver. In comparison, a spokesmen for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV states that Beauchamp’s dog-killing stories are crap, and further, TNR kept him in the dark about what Beauchamp claimed.
Oops.
In addition, ALL THREE of Beauchamp’s stories involve units of at least platoon strength; the verbal assault on the burned woman in the dining facility took place in front of dozens of soldiers.
There is simply no truth in Beauchamp’s statements, just sick fantasy. Franklin Foer has not been able to bring forth one witness, or fact to support these stories.
Bad things happen in war. But THESE things did not happen, and The New Republic’s ethical bankruptcy in supporting this proven-false fictions is the entire focus of our ire.
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right, I strongly object to the strawmen being flailed to death by quite a few commenters and even the author here.
For those of you who claim that the criticism of Beauchamp and The New Republic is an attempt by leading conservative blogs to deny some soldiers commit depraved acts, GIVE ME PROOF. Provide links to prominent conservative blogs that state soldiers never commit atrocities, are never cruel, and are never scarred by war.
Good luck, for I’ve not been able to find any blogs making those claims, just left-of-center blogs claiming that milbloggers are making those claims. You’re creating your own strawmen, to avoid the fact that Beauchamp is a serial liar, and TNR is acting unethically.
What we are clearly challenging are the stories written by Scott Beauchamp, and The New Republic’s continued lying to their readers and critics, their attempted whitewash of an investigation that was blown away by one of their own civilian experts who had been misled by the magazine, and their continued stonewalling, which continues well beyond the point an ethical group of editors would have printed a retraction.
There is significant evidence that TNR utterly failed to fact-check any of Beauchamp’s three articles prior to publication. There is significant reason to retract all three of his articles, not just “Shock Troops.”
We NEVER attacked TNR for posting about real acts of depravity; we have gone after them for made-up claims so bad that even civilians could read them and spot them as obvious fakes.
G’Kar’s story of a Humvee driver attempting to hit a dog rings true; it was a small unit (1 Humvee) with a small number of soldiers inside. It is a much faster, quieter, and more agile vehicle than a 25-ton tracked personnel carrier, with much better vision for the driver. In comparison, a spokesmen for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV states that Beauchamp’s dog-killing stories are crap, and further, TNR kept him in the dark about what Beauchamp claimed.
Oops.
In addition, ALL THREE of Beauchamp’s stories involve units of at least platoon strength; the verbal assault on the burned woman in the dining facility took place in front of dozens of soldiers.
There is simply no truth in Beauchamp’s statements, just sick fantasy. Franklin Foer has not been able to bring forth one witness, or fact to support these stories.
Bad things happen in war. But THESE things did not happen, and The New Republic’s ethical bankruptcy in supporting this proven-false fictions is the entire focus of our ire.
“Are you conceding that the stories are accurate, Brett?”
The phrase, “fake but accurate” no more implies that the story really IS accurate, than “poisoning the well” implies somebody is dumping rat poison in a well. It’s just a short hand description of the tactic of defending fraud on the basis that the underlying story the fraud is meant to advance is none the less true, and so the fraud is inconsequential.
For the record, though, I agree that war is Hell.
“Are you conceding that the stories are accurate, Brett?”
The phrase, “fake but accurate” no more implies that the story really IS accurate, than “poisoning the well” implies somebody is dumping rat poison in a well. It’s just a short hand description of the tactic of defending fraud on the basis that the underlying story the fraud is meant to advance is none the less true, and so the fraud is inconsequential.
For the record, though, I agree that war is Hell.
“Are you conceding that the stories are accurate, Brett?”
The phrase, “fake but accurate” no more implies that the story really IS accurate, than “poisoning the well” implies somebody is dumping rat poison in a well. It’s just a short hand description of the tactic of defending fraud on the basis that the underlying story the fraud is meant to advance is none the less true, and so the fraud is inconsequential.
For the record, though, I agree that war is Hell.
G’Kar’s story of a Humvee driver attempting to hit a dog rings true
how it “rings” is irrelevant. you haven’t verified it. now get on the phone and start verifying! lives hang in the balance!
G’Kar’s story of a Humvee driver attempting to hit a dog rings true
how it “rings” is irrelevant. you haven’t verified it. now get on the phone and start verifying! lives hang in the balance!
G’Kar’s story of a Humvee driver attempting to hit a dog rings true
how it “rings” is irrelevant. you haven’t verified it. now get on the phone and start verifying! lives hang in the balance!
Well it appears TDOS has wrapped this all up for us.
Shouldn’t he also have quoted an email from a certain PAO in Iraq as icing on the cake?
Well it appears TDOS has wrapped this all up for us.
Shouldn’t he also have quoted an email from a certain PAO in Iraq as icing on the cake?
Well it appears TDOS has wrapped this all up for us.
Shouldn’t he also have quoted an email from a certain PAO in Iraq as icing on the cake?
“In comparison, a spokesmen for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV states that Beauchamp’s dog-killing stories are crap, and further, TNR kept him in the dark about what Beauchamp claimed”
TNR: Hi, we’d like to talk to you about your product.
Bradley press contact: Sure, we’re always happy to talk to the media about our fine vehicles.
TNR: So, the BFV – is it good for running down dogs?
Bpc: Excuse me, sir?
TNR: I’m wondering about the dog-running-down capabilities of the BFV. Say I was driving down the street and saw a poodle in the opposite lane – could I swerve over and hit it?
Bpc: Could you please show me your credentials again? [Phone call to boss] I have to ask, why do you want to know?
TNR: We want you to make a statement for the record about whether your product is good at running over dogs in the street.
BPC: [Phone call] No, it’s not, anybody who tells you so is lying.
“In comparison, a spokesmen for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV states that Beauchamp’s dog-killing stories are crap, and further, TNR kept him in the dark about what Beauchamp claimed”
TNR: Hi, we’d like to talk to you about your product.
Bradley press contact: Sure, we’re always happy to talk to the media about our fine vehicles.
TNR: So, the BFV – is it good for running down dogs?
Bpc: Excuse me, sir?
TNR: I’m wondering about the dog-running-down capabilities of the BFV. Say I was driving down the street and saw a poodle in the opposite lane – could I swerve over and hit it?
Bpc: Could you please show me your credentials again? [Phone call to boss] I have to ask, why do you want to know?
TNR: We want you to make a statement for the record about whether your product is good at running over dogs in the street.
BPC: [Phone call] No, it’s not, anybody who tells you so is lying.
“In comparison, a spokesmen for the company that manufactures the Bradley IFV states that Beauchamp’s dog-killing stories are crap, and further, TNR kept him in the dark about what Beauchamp claimed”
TNR: Hi, we’d like to talk to you about your product.
Bradley press contact: Sure, we’re always happy to talk to the media about our fine vehicles.
TNR: So, the BFV – is it good for running down dogs?
Bpc: Excuse me, sir?
TNR: I’m wondering about the dog-running-down capabilities of the BFV. Say I was driving down the street and saw a poodle in the opposite lane – could I swerve over and hit it?
Bpc: Could you please show me your credentials again? [Phone call to boss] I have to ask, why do you want to know?
TNR: We want you to make a statement for the record about whether your product is good at running over dogs in the street.
BPC: [Phone call] No, it’s not, anybody who tells you so is lying.
Wow, look at all the trolls who came by.
I am astonished, even boggled, by how passionate they are about blackening Beauchamp over and over and over again.
This constant pounding on one soldier – accused of neither war crimes nor treason – reminds me, for some reason, of L’Affaire Dreyfuss.
Wow, look at all the trolls who came by.
I am astonished, even boggled, by how passionate they are about blackening Beauchamp over and over and over again.
This constant pounding on one soldier – accused of neither war crimes nor treason – reminds me, for some reason, of L’Affaire Dreyfuss.
Wow, look at all the trolls who came by.
I am astonished, even boggled, by how passionate they are about blackening Beauchamp over and over and over again.
This constant pounding on one soldier – accused of neither war crimes nor treason – reminds me, for some reason, of L’Affaire Dreyfuss.
By the way, I think it’s probably misleading to call them stray dogs. In Iraq there is no Animal Control that will take a dog to the shelter if it’s on the street at night. I would guess that many people don’t keep their dogs indoors or gated. So many of these dogs probably do have owners.
By the way, I think it’s probably misleading to call them stray dogs. In Iraq there is no Animal Control that will take a dog to the shelter if it’s on the street at night. I would guess that many people don’t keep their dogs indoors or gated. So many of these dogs probably do have owners.
By the way, I think it’s probably misleading to call them stray dogs. In Iraq there is no Animal Control that will take a dog to the shelter if it’s on the street at night. I would guess that many people don’t keep their dogs indoors or gated. So many of these dogs probably do have owners.
The reason that so much virtual ink is being spilled ‘proving’ the stories untrue is comparable to what happened in the UK after the publication of the faked photos of the British Army beating up Iraqi civilians. Because the photos were easily, obviously, demonstrably fake, it took the media a very long time to get its collective head around the idea that some members of the Army really were beating up Iraqi civilians ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/10/umartial.xml ).
No-one, it seemed, could easily reconcile the two ideas ‘this bad thing is taking place/these aren’t the photos of it’. In the minds of some, if Beauchamp’s stories aren’t true, then these things aren’t really happening, and so they don’t need to adjust or, worse still, question their worldview.
The reason that so much virtual ink is being spilled ‘proving’ the stories untrue is comparable to what happened in the UK after the publication of the faked photos of the British Army beating up Iraqi civilians. Because the photos were easily, obviously, demonstrably fake, it took the media a very long time to get its collective head around the idea that some members of the Army really were beating up Iraqi civilians ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/10/umartial.xml ).
No-one, it seemed, could easily reconcile the two ideas ‘this bad thing is taking place/these aren’t the photos of it’. In the minds of some, if Beauchamp’s stories aren’t true, then these things aren’t really happening, and so they don’t need to adjust or, worse still, question their worldview.
The reason that so much virtual ink is being spilled ‘proving’ the stories untrue is comparable to what happened in the UK after the publication of the faked photos of the British Army beating up Iraqi civilians. Because the photos were easily, obviously, demonstrably fake, it took the media a very long time to get its collective head around the idea that some members of the Army really were beating up Iraqi civilians ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/10/umartial.xml ).
No-one, it seemed, could easily reconcile the two ideas ‘this bad thing is taking place/these aren’t the photos of it’. In the minds of some, if Beauchamp’s stories aren’t true, then these things aren’t really happening, and so they don’t need to adjust or, worse still, question their worldview.
The reason that so much virtual ink is being spilled ‘proving’ the stories untrue is comparable to what happened in the UK after the publication of the faked photos of the British Army beating up Iraqi civilians.
Nah, it has everything to do with reinforcing the “Stabbed In The Back” narrative. Just read TIDOS Yankee’s reply up above.
The reason that so much virtual ink is being spilled ‘proving’ the stories untrue is comparable to what happened in the UK after the publication of the faked photos of the British Army beating up Iraqi civilians.
Nah, it has everything to do with reinforcing the “Stabbed In The Back” narrative. Just read TIDOS Yankee’s reply up above.
The reason that so much virtual ink is being spilled ‘proving’ the stories untrue is comparable to what happened in the UK after the publication of the faked photos of the British Army beating up Iraqi civilians.
Nah, it has everything to do with reinforcing the “Stabbed In The Back” narrative. Just read TIDOS Yankee’s reply up above.
I just don’t like the idea that we shouldn’t care when the media feed us fraudulent stories. That we EVER shouldn’t care.
Really, if they get into the habit of doing that, what makes you think they’ll only do it when the underlying story is true?
I just don’t like the idea that we shouldn’t care when the media feed us fraudulent stories. That we EVER shouldn’t care.
Really, if they get into the habit of doing that, what makes you think they’ll only do it when the underlying story is true?
I just don’t like the idea that we shouldn’t care when the media feed us fraudulent stories. That we EVER shouldn’t care.
Really, if they get into the habit of doing that, what makes you think they’ll only do it when the underlying story is true?
This article, and particularly the comments, seems to point up one obvious distinction betwixt left and right in this (and most) matters: Left/Demos are totally comfortible with fact-void narrative. Look at how they mock and ridicule the work Righties have done on Beauchamp. There is no fog here: ConfedYank et al have done a superior job proving and confirming the facts of the lies of Beauchamp and a superior job of proving the obfuscations of the TNR “editors.” There is no wiggle room here, it is beyond second guessing. And yet the Left/Demo sect continues to strain the neather regions of credulity in order to maintain their worldview. Ridiculous.
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant: They will fight a lost battle straight into the ground because they seem to intuit that to give one inch on any topic will eventually lead to the unravelling of their entire concept of “truth” or “relity.” The Beauchamp affair is a prime example. Were I of Left/Demo worldview I would walk away from this losing battle as it is, clearly, demonstrably, o-v-e-r. And yet they continue to froth, trot out old, beat “zillion trillion $ war/zillion trillion dead, bush lied, bu$hcheneyhalliburtothugnazi” claptrap and STILL get some sort of odd, 4th grade smug satisfaction from it! As if they were making real, mature, valid or rational points.
No doubt, were Beauchamp himself to step forward and say “I made it all up, I lied” on the pages of the New York Times we would still be subject to the spectacle of these folks continuing to support if not him, at least the narrative.
Once again I wish that I got to debate grown-ups. So sad.
This article, and particularly the comments, seems to point up one obvious distinction betwixt left and right in this (and most) matters: Left/Demos are totally comfortible with fact-void narrative. Look at how they mock and ridicule the work Righties have done on Beauchamp. There is no fog here: ConfedYank et al have done a superior job proving and confirming the facts of the lies of Beauchamp and a superior job of proving the obfuscations of the TNR “editors.” There is no wiggle room here, it is beyond second guessing. And yet the Left/Demo sect continues to strain the neather regions of credulity in order to maintain their worldview. Ridiculous.
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant: They will fight a lost battle straight into the ground because they seem to intuit that to give one inch on any topic will eventually lead to the unravelling of their entire concept of “truth” or “relity.” The Beauchamp affair is a prime example. Were I of Left/Demo worldview I would walk away from this losing battle as it is, clearly, demonstrably, o-v-e-r. And yet they continue to froth, trot out old, beat “zillion trillion $ war/zillion trillion dead, bush lied, bu$hcheneyhalliburtothugnazi” claptrap and STILL get some sort of odd, 4th grade smug satisfaction from it! As if they were making real, mature, valid or rational points.
No doubt, were Beauchamp himself to step forward and say “I made it all up, I lied” on the pages of the New York Times we would still be subject to the spectacle of these folks continuing to support if not him, at least the narrative.
Once again I wish that I got to debate grown-ups. So sad.
This article, and particularly the comments, seems to point up one obvious distinction betwixt left and right in this (and most) matters: Left/Demos are totally comfortible with fact-void narrative. Look at how they mock and ridicule the work Righties have done on Beauchamp. There is no fog here: ConfedYank et al have done a superior job proving and confirming the facts of the lies of Beauchamp and a superior job of proving the obfuscations of the TNR “editors.” There is no wiggle room here, it is beyond second guessing. And yet the Left/Demo sect continues to strain the neather regions of credulity in order to maintain their worldview. Ridiculous.
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant: They will fight a lost battle straight into the ground because they seem to intuit that to give one inch on any topic will eventually lead to the unravelling of their entire concept of “truth” or “relity.” The Beauchamp affair is a prime example. Were I of Left/Demo worldview I would walk away from this losing battle as it is, clearly, demonstrably, o-v-e-r. And yet they continue to froth, trot out old, beat “zillion trillion $ war/zillion trillion dead, bush lied, bu$hcheneyhalliburtothugnazi” claptrap and STILL get some sort of odd, 4th grade smug satisfaction from it! As if they were making real, mature, valid or rational points.
No doubt, were Beauchamp himself to step forward and say “I made it all up, I lied” on the pages of the New York Times we would still be subject to the spectacle of these folks continuing to support if not him, at least the narrative.
Once again I wish that I got to debate grown-ups. So sad.
I just don’t like the idea that we shouldn’t care when the media feed us fraudulent stories. That we EVER shouldn’t care.
You’re assuming that the Beauchamp stories are, in fact, ‘fraudulent’.
I just don’t like the idea that we shouldn’t care when the media feed us fraudulent stories. That we EVER shouldn’t care.
You’re assuming that the Beauchamp stories are, in fact, ‘fraudulent’.
I just don’t like the idea that we shouldn’t care when the media feed us fraudulent stories. That we EVER shouldn’t care.
You’re assuming that the Beauchamp stories are, in fact, ‘fraudulent’.
No, I’m accepting the evidence that they’re fraudulent. Not quite the same thing…
No, I’m accepting the evidence that they’re fraudulent. Not quite the same thing…
No, I’m accepting the evidence that they’re fraudulent. Not quite the same thing…
I’d debate the merits of said evidence, but that’s a fair enough position.
I’d debate the merits of said evidence, but that’s a fair enough position.
I’d debate the merits of said evidence, but that’s a fair enough position.
I’m somewhat surprised that G’Kar doesn’t care about the truth of Beauchamp’s accounts, given that he is as much a victim of Beauchamp’s libel as is any other U.S. soldier in Iraq.
No one who’s been paying attention will deny that some U.S. soldiers in Iraq have done very bad things. Abu Ghraib and Mahmoudiya come to mind. In any large organization you will always find idiots and assholes. The important thing, however, is how much effort the organization puts forth to correct the problems.
The Hummer crew you rode with certainly falls into this category, for two reasons. One, if they’re concentrating on finding dogs to hit, they’re probably not doing a good job of watching for signs of IEDs in their path. Two, they have no way of knowing whether the dog in question has an owner who might realize a U.S. crew ran over his pet; if you run over the local sheikh’s favorite mutt, then your unit has a problem.
So, what did you do about it, G’Kar? Did you tell your CO? Did you tell anyone else who might have been able to fix the problem?
I’m somewhat surprised that G’Kar doesn’t care about the truth of Beauchamp’s accounts, given that he is as much a victim of Beauchamp’s libel as is any other U.S. soldier in Iraq.
No one who’s been paying attention will deny that some U.S. soldiers in Iraq have done very bad things. Abu Ghraib and Mahmoudiya come to mind. In any large organization you will always find idiots and assholes. The important thing, however, is how much effort the organization puts forth to correct the problems.
The Hummer crew you rode with certainly falls into this category, for two reasons. One, if they’re concentrating on finding dogs to hit, they’re probably not doing a good job of watching for signs of IEDs in their path. Two, they have no way of knowing whether the dog in question has an owner who might realize a U.S. crew ran over his pet; if you run over the local sheikh’s favorite mutt, then your unit has a problem.
So, what did you do about it, G’Kar? Did you tell your CO? Did you tell anyone else who might have been able to fix the problem?
I’m somewhat surprised that G’Kar doesn’t care about the truth of Beauchamp’s accounts, given that he is as much a victim of Beauchamp’s libel as is any other U.S. soldier in Iraq.
No one who’s been paying attention will deny that some U.S. soldiers in Iraq have done very bad things. Abu Ghraib and Mahmoudiya come to mind. In any large organization you will always find idiots and assholes. The important thing, however, is how much effort the organization puts forth to correct the problems.
The Hummer crew you rode with certainly falls into this category, for two reasons. One, if they’re concentrating on finding dogs to hit, they’re probably not doing a good job of watching for signs of IEDs in their path. Two, they have no way of knowing whether the dog in question has an owner who might realize a U.S. crew ran over his pet; if you run over the local sheikh’s favorite mutt, then your unit has a problem.
So, what did you do about it, G’Kar? Did you tell your CO? Did you tell anyone else who might have been able to fix the problem?
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant: They will fight a lost battle straight into the ground because they seem to intuit that to give one inch on any topic will eventually lead to the unravelling of their entire concept of “truth” or “relity.” The Beauchamp affair is a prime example. Were I of Left/Demo worldview I would walk away from this losing battle as it is, clearly, demonstrably, o-v-e-r.
How interesting. Do let me know when you find those WMDs, by the way.
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant: They will fight a lost battle straight into the ground because they seem to intuit that to give one inch on any topic will eventually lead to the unravelling of their entire concept of “truth” or “relity.” The Beauchamp affair is a prime example. Were I of Left/Demo worldview I would walk away from this losing battle as it is, clearly, demonstrably, o-v-e-r.
How interesting. Do let me know when you find those WMDs, by the way.
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant: They will fight a lost battle straight into the ground because they seem to intuit that to give one inch on any topic will eventually lead to the unravelling of their entire concept of “truth” or “relity.” The Beauchamp affair is a prime example. Were I of Left/Demo worldview I would walk away from this losing battle as it is, clearly, demonstrably, o-v-e-r.
How interesting. Do let me know when you find those WMDs, by the way.
A lot of us, vetter, don’t care about Beauchamp one way or the other. I never heard of the guy until the controversy over his truthfulness started. The people bringing up the cost of the war do so because they suspect that the issue of Beauchamp’s truthfulness has been elevated to something of major importance because it’s the one issue where you rightwingers might be right. And it doesn’t matter. If you succeed in destroying the credibility of TNR, very few of us will shed a tear. I’ve hated TNR for over twenty years and if they’ve screwed up in this case, it would hardly be the first time.
A lot of us, vetter, don’t care about Beauchamp one way or the other. I never heard of the guy until the controversy over his truthfulness started. The people bringing up the cost of the war do so because they suspect that the issue of Beauchamp’s truthfulness has been elevated to something of major importance because it’s the one issue where you rightwingers might be right. And it doesn’t matter. If you succeed in destroying the credibility of TNR, very few of us will shed a tear. I’ve hated TNR for over twenty years and if they’ve screwed up in this case, it would hardly be the first time.
A lot of us, vetter, don’t care about Beauchamp one way or the other. I never heard of the guy until the controversy over his truthfulness started. The people bringing up the cost of the war do so because they suspect that the issue of Beauchamp’s truthfulness has been elevated to something of major importance because it’s the one issue where you rightwingers might be right. And it doesn’t matter. If you succeed in destroying the credibility of TNR, very few of us will shed a tear. I’ve hated TNR for over twenty years and if they’ve screwed up in this case, it would hardly be the first time.
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant
they all take place in the comment sections on blogs ?
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant
they all take place in the comment sections on blogs ?
In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant
they all take place in the comment sections on blogs ?
“You’re assuming that the Beauchamp stories are, in fact, ‘fraudulent’.”
The burden is on him to prove his assertions. You’re assuming that his stories are, in fact, true. This is similar to Rather and Mapes bleating that no one has proven the TNG memos “fraudulent.” They apparently were out sick the day in journalism school where they were taught that the burden is on them to prove such documents are genuine.
“You’re assuming that the Beauchamp stories are, in fact, ‘fraudulent’.”
The burden is on him to prove his assertions. You’re assuming that his stories are, in fact, true. This is similar to Rather and Mapes bleating that no one has proven the TNG memos “fraudulent.” They apparently were out sick the day in journalism school where they were taught that the burden is on them to prove such documents are genuine.
“You’re assuming that the Beauchamp stories are, in fact, ‘fraudulent’.”
The burden is on him to prove his assertions. You’re assuming that his stories are, in fact, true. This is similar to Rather and Mapes bleating that no one has proven the TNG memos “fraudulent.” They apparently were out sick the day in journalism school where they were taught that the burden is on them to prove such documents are genuine.
The burden is on him to prove his assertions. You’re assuming that his stories are, in fact, true.
Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true? Or are we now supposed to take all war stories as false until proven otherwise by right-wing blogs?
The burden is on him to prove his assertions. You’re assuming that his stories are, in fact, true.
Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true? Or are we now supposed to take all war stories as false until proven otherwise by right-wing blogs?
The burden is on him to prove his assertions. You’re assuming that his stories are, in fact, true.
Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true? Or are we now supposed to take all war stories as false until proven otherwise by right-wing blogs?
Says who? And how would he go about doing that?
Says who? And how would he go about doing that?
Says who? And how would he go about doing that?
Frankly, when it comes to spinning tall tales out of Iraq I’d say the right has been much more effective than the left.
Of course, the military itself beats them both, but as has been pointed out it’s hard to distinguish them (the leadership at least) from “the right”.
Frankly, when it comes to spinning tall tales out of Iraq I’d say the right has been much more effective than the left.
Of course, the military itself beats them both, but as has been pointed out it’s hard to distinguish them (the leadership at least) from “the right”.
Frankly, when it comes to spinning tall tales out of Iraq I’d say the right has been much more effective than the left.
Of course, the military itself beats them both, but as has been pointed out it’s hard to distinguish them (the leadership at least) from “the right”.
Re: Doug H 11.29 – apologies if being too elliptical, as we’re both arguing the same thing. Disproving Beauchamp helps preserve the wingnut worldview AND helps the ‘Stabbed-in-the-Back’ meme as it keeps the wingnut argument within the two lines ‘We would be winning if it weren’t for (insert bogeyman here)’ and ‘We ARE winning but nobody’s reporting that’
Re: Doug H 11.29 – apologies if being too elliptical, as we’re both arguing the same thing. Disproving Beauchamp helps preserve the wingnut worldview AND helps the ‘Stabbed-in-the-Back’ meme as it keeps the wingnut argument within the two lines ‘We would be winning if it weren’t for (insert bogeyman here)’ and ‘We ARE winning but nobody’s reporting that’
Re: Doug H 11.29 – apologies if being too elliptical, as we’re both arguing the same thing. Disproving Beauchamp helps preserve the wingnut worldview AND helps the ‘Stabbed-in-the-Back’ meme as it keeps the wingnut argument within the two lines ‘We would be winning if it weren’t for (insert bogeyman here)’ and ‘We ARE winning but nobody’s reporting that’
“In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant
Do you know what allele that’s on? Because I think GenWay might have something for that target.
I had a friend once who said, “Why do all my girlfriends end up being total b**ches?”
There was a constant in his case as well.
“In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant
Do you know what allele that’s on? Because I think GenWay might have something for that target.
I had a friend once who said, “Why do all my girlfriends end up being total b**ches?”
There was a constant in his case as well.
“In the many debates I have had with Left/Demo types I have found one constant
Do you know what allele that’s on? Because I think GenWay might have something for that target.
I had a friend once who said, “Why do all my girlfriends end up being total b**ches?”
There was a constant in his case as well.
Frankly, when it comes to spinning tall tales out of Iraq I’d say the right has been much more effective than the left.
Most war stories will generally fall into the tall tale category. Human memories are fallible, and it doesn’t help your memory skills when you’re too busy dodging bullets or keeping an eye out for IEDs. Add in that the war is an almost instantly polarizing topic, and you’ve got a recipe for tall tales and hazy memories.
The thing is, though, there’s a difference between having reasonable doubt about Beauchamp’s stories and using said reasonable doubt to proclaim absolute guilt for him and TNR. The right blogosphere has turned this into a twisted version of the OJ trial with Uncle Jimbo and TIDOS Yankee in the roles of Robert Shapiro and Johnny Cochrane.
Frankly, when it comes to spinning tall tales out of Iraq I’d say the right has been much more effective than the left.
Most war stories will generally fall into the tall tale category. Human memories are fallible, and it doesn’t help your memory skills when you’re too busy dodging bullets or keeping an eye out for IEDs. Add in that the war is an almost instantly polarizing topic, and you’ve got a recipe for tall tales and hazy memories.
The thing is, though, there’s a difference between having reasonable doubt about Beauchamp’s stories and using said reasonable doubt to proclaim absolute guilt for him and TNR. The right blogosphere has turned this into a twisted version of the OJ trial with Uncle Jimbo and TIDOS Yankee in the roles of Robert Shapiro and Johnny Cochrane.
Frankly, when it comes to spinning tall tales out of Iraq I’d say the right has been much more effective than the left.
Most war stories will generally fall into the tall tale category. Human memories are fallible, and it doesn’t help your memory skills when you’re too busy dodging bullets or keeping an eye out for IEDs. Add in that the war is an almost instantly polarizing topic, and you’ve got a recipe for tall tales and hazy memories.
The thing is, though, there’s a difference between having reasonable doubt about Beauchamp’s stories and using said reasonable doubt to proclaim absolute guilt for him and TNR. The right blogosphere has turned this into a twisted version of the OJ trial with Uncle Jimbo and TIDOS Yankee in the roles of Robert Shapiro and Johnny Cochrane.
Gun Counter Bob Sez:
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right
Sorry, I didn’t get the rest of what you were saying, I was laughing too hard. Can you please repeat that, without the joke?
Gun Counter Bob Sez:
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right
Sorry, I didn’t get the rest of what you were saying, I was laughing too hard. Can you please repeat that, without the joke?
Gun Counter Bob Sez:
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right
Sorry, I didn’t get the rest of what you were saying, I was laughing too hard. Can you please repeat that, without the joke?
TIDOS?
TIDOS?
TIDOS?
“Treason in Defense of Slavery”, I believe. Substituted for “Confederate”. Probably an insult.
“Treason in Defense of Slavery”, I believe. Substituted for “Confederate”. Probably an insult.
“Treason in Defense of Slavery”, I believe. Substituted for “Confederate”. Probably an insult.
Because he is the author! Every professional news organization puts the primary burden of proof on the author.
My God, man, what kind of bizzaro world do you inhabit?
Because he is the author! Every professional news organization puts the primary burden of proof on the author.
My God, man, what kind of bizzaro world do you inhabit?
Because he is the author! Every professional news organization puts the primary burden of proof on the author.
My God, man, what kind of bizzaro world do you inhabit?
I want to urge Confederate Yankee to ignore the comments here and keep up his crusade against Scott Beauchamp!
There is no greater cause in wingnuttia at this moment in time.
Besides, it provides great comedy.
I want to urge Confederate Yankee to ignore the comments here and keep up his crusade against Scott Beauchamp!
There is no greater cause in wingnuttia at this moment in time.
Besides, it provides great comedy.
I want to urge Confederate Yankee to ignore the comments here and keep up his crusade against Scott Beauchamp!
There is no greater cause in wingnuttia at this moment in time.
Besides, it provides great comedy.
Yes, “treason in defense of slavery” is his better known monicker, at least the publishable one. Its insulting, of course, but accurate. And I think John Cole at Baloon Juice has really had the last word on whether the aptly named hysteric above has anything useful to tell us about war or war stories.
aimai
Yes, “treason in defense of slavery” is his better known monicker, at least the publishable one. Its insulting, of course, but accurate. And I think John Cole at Baloon Juice has really had the last word on whether the aptly named hysteric above has anything useful to tell us about war or war stories.
aimai
Yes, “treason in defense of slavery” is his better known monicker, at least the publishable one. Its insulting, of course, but accurate. And I think John Cole at Baloon Juice has really had the last word on whether the aptly named hysteric above has anything useful to tell us about war or war stories.
aimai
Brett Bellmore: The phrase, “fake but accurate” no more implies that the story really IS accurate, than “poisoning the well” implies somebody is dumping rat poison in a well. It’s just a short hand description of the tactic of defending fraud on the basis that the underlying story the fraud is meant to advance is none the less true, and so the fraud is inconsequential.
Oh, so, in using the “fake but accurate” label you were using a characterization that wasn’t strictly true to convey a deeper truth?
Brett Bellmore: The phrase, “fake but accurate” no more implies that the story really IS accurate, than “poisoning the well” implies somebody is dumping rat poison in a well. It’s just a short hand description of the tactic of defending fraud on the basis that the underlying story the fraud is meant to advance is none the less true, and so the fraud is inconsequential.
Oh, so, in using the “fake but accurate” label you were using a characterization that wasn’t strictly true to convey a deeper truth?
Brett Bellmore: The phrase, “fake but accurate” no more implies that the story really IS accurate, than “poisoning the well” implies somebody is dumping rat poison in a well. It’s just a short hand description of the tactic of defending fraud on the basis that the underlying story the fraud is meant to advance is none the less true, and so the fraud is inconsequential.
Oh, so, in using the “fake but accurate” label you were using a characterization that wasn’t strictly true to convey a deeper truth?
[Gromit plays his hand deftly. may have just won the thread]
[Gromit plays his hand deftly. may have just won the thread]
[Gromit plays his hand deftly. may have just won the thread]
“Oh, so, in using the “fake but accurate” label you were using a characterization that wasn’t strictly true to convey a deeper truth?”
I wasn’t using a “characterization” at all, I was using the (ironic!) name of this tactic. If I refer to my old buddy Vic as “Victor”, am I characterizing him as the winner in a conflict?
“Oh, so, in using the “fake but accurate” label you were using a characterization that wasn’t strictly true to convey a deeper truth?”
I wasn’t using a “characterization” at all, I was using the (ironic!) name of this tactic. If I refer to my old buddy Vic as “Victor”, am I characterizing him as the winner in a conflict?
“Oh, so, in using the “fake but accurate” label you were using a characterization that wasn’t strictly true to convey a deeper truth?”
I wasn’t using a “characterization” at all, I was using the (ironic!) name of this tactic. If I refer to my old buddy Vic as “Victor”, am I characterizing him as the winner in a conflict?
Bob Owens ups the ante on Gromit over at Matt Y’s blog.
Bob Owens ups the ante on Gromit over at Matt Y’s blog.
Bob Owens ups the ante on Gromit over at Matt Y’s blog.
Brett – Saying it’s a “name” is not strictly true, since the term is descriptive rather than simply ostensive. Perhaps you meant “name” in a way that wasn’t strictly true but conveyed a deeper truth.
Brett – Saying it’s a “name” is not strictly true, since the term is descriptive rather than simply ostensive. Perhaps you meant “name” in a way that wasn’t strictly true but conveyed a deeper truth.
Brett – Saying it’s a “name” is not strictly true, since the term is descriptive rather than simply ostensive. Perhaps you meant “name” in a way that wasn’t strictly true but conveyed a deeper truth.
Late back to this, but I can now speak my mind about Bill’s point:
The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
And no, it’s not. While Bill abstracts himself into the aether with his quotations, a small percentage of the US population is placed in a situation that brutalizes them, while a far larger percentage back home gets to ponder whether American exceptionalism extends to torture and extrajudicial incarceration.
(Also, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before all of G’Kar’s military records curiously find their way into Gun Shop Gomer’s inbox, courtesy of Col. Boylan’s office.)
Late back to this, but I can now speak my mind about Bill’s point:
The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
And no, it’s not. While Bill abstracts himself into the aether with his quotations, a small percentage of the US population is placed in a situation that brutalizes them, while a far larger percentage back home gets to ponder whether American exceptionalism extends to torture and extrajudicial incarceration.
(Also, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before all of G’Kar’s military records curiously find their way into Gun Shop Gomer’s inbox, courtesy of Col. Boylan’s office.)
Late back to this, but I can now speak my mind about Bill’s point:
The fact that any of them are a part of the national dialogue as we debate policy positions to counter the ideology of Islamic supremacy is scary.
And no, it’s not. While Bill abstracts himself into the aether with his quotations, a small percentage of the US population is placed in a situation that brutalizes them, while a far larger percentage back home gets to ponder whether American exceptionalism extends to torture and extrajudicial incarceration.
(Also, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before all of G’Kar’s military records curiously find their way into Gun Shop Gomer’s inbox, courtesy of Col. Boylan’s office.)
Re Confederate Yankee’s revisionism:
I love this sanctimonious harrumphing from someone who’s taken the word of Steve Boylan as dispositive of the matter.
Re Confederate Yankee’s revisionism:
I love this sanctimonious harrumphing from someone who’s taken the word of Steve Boylan as dispositive of the matter.
Re Confederate Yankee’s revisionism:
I love this sanctimonious harrumphing from someone who’s taken the word of Steve Boylan as dispositive of the matter.
“The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
I’d translate that into German but I don’t know how to preserve the grammar.
“The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
I’d translate that into German but I don’t know how to preserve the grammar.
“The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
I’d translate that into German but I don’t know how to preserve the grammar.
“Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true?”
I take it you believe Whitley Strieber.
“Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true?”
I take it you believe Whitley Strieber.
“Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true?”
I take it you believe Whitley Strieber.
He corrected it. He meant “stabbed”. So it’s, “The knives are being stabbed at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
OT, but cleek is just as brilliant over at Yglesias as he is here.
He corrected it. He meant “stabbed”. So it’s, “The knives are being stabbed at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
OT, but cleek is just as brilliant over at Yglesias as he is here.
He corrected it. He meant “stabbed”. So it’s, “The knives are being stabbed at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
OT, but cleek is just as brilliant over at Yglesias as he is here.
The logic of you people is really quite amazing. Reminds of the Happy Days episode when the Fonz was dating a stripper, and he didn’t know she was a stripper. He tried telling the guys that she was a virgin. One of them said that maybe she lied. Fonz responds with “Virgins don’t lie.”
“Of course it happened! He was a witness to it!”
The logic of you people is really quite amazing. Reminds of the Happy Days episode when the Fonz was dating a stripper, and he didn’t know she was a stripper. He tried telling the guys that she was a virgin. One of them said that maybe she lied. Fonz responds with “Virgins don’t lie.”
“Of course it happened! He was a witness to it!”
The logic of you people is really quite amazing. Reminds of the Happy Days episode when the Fonz was dating a stripper, and he didn’t know she was a stripper. He tried telling the guys that she was a virgin. One of them said that maybe she lied. Fonz responds with “Virgins don’t lie.”
“Of course it happened! He was a witness to it!”
I take it you believe Whitley Strieber.
Soldiers behaving badly or alien abductions, which is more fantastical. Hmmmm.
I take it you believe Whitley Strieber.
Soldiers behaving badly or alien abductions, which is more fantastical. Hmmmm.
I take it you believe Whitley Strieber.
Soldiers behaving badly or alien abductions, which is more fantastical. Hmmmm.
Crimso, who here is saying Beauchamp was telling the truth ?
Crimso, who here is saying Beauchamp was telling the truth ?
Crimso, who here is saying Beauchamp was telling the truth ?
“One of them said that maybe she lied.”
Here’s the source of your confusion. You’re not saying “maybe”. At the moment it’s Beauchamp’s word plus the corroborating evidence TNR found plus corroborating evidence from e.g. John Cole or this post vs the claim by deeply-invested parties that the articles are false. Maybe the deeply-invested parties are right – it would be nice if they showed us the data they’re using. Maybe Beauchamp’s account is generally or entirely (modulo the one inaccuracy he and TNR acknowledged) right. Note the “maybe”s.
“One of them said that maybe she lied.”
Here’s the source of your confusion. You’re not saying “maybe”. At the moment it’s Beauchamp’s word plus the corroborating evidence TNR found plus corroborating evidence from e.g. John Cole or this post vs the claim by deeply-invested parties that the articles are false. Maybe the deeply-invested parties are right – it would be nice if they showed us the data they’re using. Maybe Beauchamp’s account is generally or entirely (modulo the one inaccuracy he and TNR acknowledged) right. Note the “maybe”s.
“One of them said that maybe she lied.”
Here’s the source of your confusion. You’re not saying “maybe”. At the moment it’s Beauchamp’s word plus the corroborating evidence TNR found plus corroborating evidence from e.g. John Cole or this post vs the claim by deeply-invested parties that the articles are false. Maybe the deeply-invested parties are right – it would be nice if they showed us the data they’re using. Maybe Beauchamp’s account is generally or entirely (modulo the one inaccuracy he and TNR acknowledged) right. Note the “maybe”s.
Anyone here who says Beauchamp doesn’t have to prove the veracity of his statements is implicitly believing what he says. And it has absolutely nothing to do with “It’s believable that soldiers would act that way” vs. “It’s reprehensible that anyone would assert that soldiers behave such a way.” The issue in question is whether or not he lied about the specifics of his story (and if he did, then only a fool would put any stock in what he says from here on out). In my area of expertise, if you’re caught fabricating (even once), you’ll never be believed by your peers again (i.e., your career is over). Guess these high-falutin journalists have different standards.
Anyone here who says Beauchamp doesn’t have to prove the veracity of his statements is implicitly believing what he says. And it has absolutely nothing to do with “It’s believable that soldiers would act that way” vs. “It’s reprehensible that anyone would assert that soldiers behave such a way.” The issue in question is whether or not he lied about the specifics of his story (and if he did, then only a fool would put any stock in what he says from here on out). In my area of expertise, if you’re caught fabricating (even once), you’ll never be believed by your peers again (i.e., your career is over). Guess these high-falutin journalists have different standards.
Anyone here who says Beauchamp doesn’t have to prove the veracity of his statements is implicitly believing what he says. And it has absolutely nothing to do with “It’s believable that soldiers would act that way” vs. “It’s reprehensible that anyone would assert that soldiers behave such a way.” The issue in question is whether or not he lied about the specifics of his story (and if he did, then only a fool would put any stock in what he says from here on out). In my area of expertise, if you’re caught fabricating (even once), you’ll never be believed by your peers again (i.e., your career is over). Guess these high-falutin journalists have different standards.
The issue in question is whether or not he lied about the specifics of his story
no it isn’t.
the issue is that you guys are obsessed and crazy. for some reason, CY decided this was the biggest story ever and has chased it around and around for months, while the rest of the world looked at y’all and wondered “WTF is wrong with those people?”
people aren’t supporting Beauchamp. they’re laughing at you.
The issue in question is whether or not he lied about the specifics of his story
no it isn’t.
the issue is that you guys are obsessed and crazy. for some reason, CY decided this was the biggest story ever and has chased it around and around for months, while the rest of the world looked at y’all and wondered “WTF is wrong with those people?”
people aren’t supporting Beauchamp. they’re laughing at you.
The issue in question is whether or not he lied about the specifics of his story
no it isn’t.
the issue is that you guys are obsessed and crazy. for some reason, CY decided this was the biggest story ever and has chased it around and around for months, while the rest of the world looked at y’all and wondered “WTF is wrong with those people?”
people aren’t supporting Beauchamp. they’re laughing at you.
Presumably your area of expertise has nothing to do with politics or punditry, especially of the right-wing variety.
Presumably your area of expertise has nothing to do with politics or punditry, especially of the right-wing variety.
Presumably your area of expertise has nothing to do with politics or punditry, especially of the right-wing variety.
In my area of expertise, if you’re caught fabricating (even once), you’ll never be believed by your peers again (i.e., your career is over). Guess these high-falutin journalists have different standards.
Right, because Scott Beauchamp is an accomplished journalist like Stephen Glass or Judy Miller, and not, say, a full-time soldier who writes Baghdad Diaries (emphasis on Diaries) when he’s not dodging IEDs.
So when do we start checking the inaccuracies in Richard Tregaskis and Robert Lee Scott Jr’s works?
In my area of expertise, if you’re caught fabricating (even once), you’ll never be believed by your peers again (i.e., your career is over). Guess these high-falutin journalists have different standards.
Right, because Scott Beauchamp is an accomplished journalist like Stephen Glass or Judy Miller, and not, say, a full-time soldier who writes Baghdad Diaries (emphasis on Diaries) when he’s not dodging IEDs.
So when do we start checking the inaccuracies in Richard Tregaskis and Robert Lee Scott Jr’s works?
In my area of expertise, if you’re caught fabricating (even once), you’ll never be believed by your peers again (i.e., your career is over). Guess these high-falutin journalists have different standards.
Right, because Scott Beauchamp is an accomplished journalist like Stephen Glass or Judy Miller, and not, say, a full-time soldier who writes Baghdad Diaries (emphasis on Diaries) when he’s not dodging IEDs.
So when do we start checking the inaccuracies in Richard Tregaskis and Robert Lee Scott Jr’s works?
cleek is just as brilliant over at Yglesias as he is here.
thanks, you’re too kind. 🙂
i’ll be here all week.
and the next. and the next.
cleek is just as brilliant over at Yglesias as he is here.
thanks, you’re too kind. 🙂
i’ll be here all week.
and the next. and the next.
cleek is just as brilliant over at Yglesias as he is here.
thanks, you’re too kind. 🙂
i’ll be here all week.
and the next. and the next.
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions. Whatever you do, don’t expect the author (journalist or not) of a piece in TNR (or his editors) to provide any evidence that his assertions are true. Can’t have that. And when people think you’re crackpots, don’t wonder why. Just keep insisting that anyone (whether believable or not) who asserts something (whether believable or not) should be assumed to be telling the truth until proven a liar.
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions. Whatever you do, don’t expect the author (journalist or not) of a piece in TNR (or his editors) to provide any evidence that his assertions are true. Can’t have that. And when people think you’re crackpots, don’t wonder why. Just keep insisting that anyone (whether believable or not) who asserts something (whether believable or not) should be assumed to be telling the truth until proven a liar.
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions. Whatever you do, don’t expect the author (journalist or not) of a piece in TNR (or his editors) to provide any evidence that his assertions are true. Can’t have that. And when people think you’re crackpots, don’t wonder why. Just keep insisting that anyone (whether believable or not) who asserts something (whether believable or not) should be assumed to be telling the truth until proven a liar.
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
‘Soldiers behaving badly’ is a preconceived notion?
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
‘Soldiers behaving badly’ is a preconceived notion?
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
‘Soldiers behaving badly’ is a preconceived notion?
people aren’t supporting Beauchamp. they’re laughing at you.
So true. It’s an anecdote, a war story. No one cared whether or not the anecdotes were true when they were published and they don’t care now. It takes a strange person indeed to flip out and start obsessing over the kerning.
people aren’t supporting Beauchamp. they’re laughing at you.
So true. It’s an anecdote, a war story. No one cared whether or not the anecdotes were true when they were published and they don’t care now. It takes a strange person indeed to flip out and start obsessing over the kerning.
people aren’t supporting Beauchamp. they’re laughing at you.
So true. It’s an anecdote, a war story. No one cared whether or not the anecdotes were true when they were published and they don’t care now. It takes a strange person indeed to flip out and start obsessing over the kerning.
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
Such as, say, the MSM is full of libtards who hate America and are actively hoping we lose in Iraq?
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
Such as, say, the MSM is full of libtards who hate America and are actively hoping we lose in Iraq?
You people go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
Such as, say, the MSM is full of libtards who hate America and are actively hoping we lose in Iraq?
Crimso: “You people….”
… are individuals in an open forum. Which is to say, anyone and everyone who chooses to read, and/or who chooses to respond, including yourself.
Why are you lecturing yourself?
If you have issues with anyone’s comments, the relevant style is to quote enough of that comment so we know what you’re referring to, and to respond to that comment.
Addressing “you people” makes you sound like a lunatic, on the other hand, no different from anyone else walking down a sidewalk shouting at everyone who passes by.
Crimso: “You people….”
… are individuals in an open forum. Which is to say, anyone and everyone who chooses to read, and/or who chooses to respond, including yourself.
Why are you lecturing yourself?
If you have issues with anyone’s comments, the relevant style is to quote enough of that comment so we know what you’re referring to, and to respond to that comment.
Addressing “you people” makes you sound like a lunatic, on the other hand, no different from anyone else walking down a sidewalk shouting at everyone who passes by.
Crimso: “You people….”
… are individuals in an open forum. Which is to say, anyone and everyone who chooses to read, and/or who chooses to respond, including yourself.
Why are you lecturing yourself?
If you have issues with anyone’s comments, the relevant style is to quote enough of that comment so we know what you’re referring to, and to respond to that comment.
Addressing “you people” makes you sound like a lunatic, on the other hand, no different from anyone else walking down a sidewalk shouting at everyone who passes by.
And we’re laughing especially hard because all this noise is being devoted to trashing a pro-war publication that’s certainly no favorite of the left wing.
And we’re laughing especially hard because all this noise is being devoted to trashing a pro-war publication that’s certainly no favorite of the left wing.
And we’re laughing especially hard because all this noise is being devoted to trashing a pro-war publication that’s certainly no favorite of the left wing.
Crimso: “Whatever you do, don’t expect the author (journalist or not) of a piece in TNR (or his editors) to provide any evidence that his assertions are true.”
Obviously Beauchamp is in no position to defend his assertions in the face of his employer’s apparent determination to shut him up. But of course TNR should be asked to defend the articles – and mirabile dictu they have, by finding corroborating evidence, and by trying to get the documents the army based their claim on.
Crimso: “Whatever you do, don’t expect the author (journalist or not) of a piece in TNR (or his editors) to provide any evidence that his assertions are true.”
Obviously Beauchamp is in no position to defend his assertions in the face of his employer’s apparent determination to shut him up. But of course TNR should be asked to defend the articles – and mirabile dictu they have, by finding corroborating evidence, and by trying to get the documents the army based their claim on.
Crimso: “Whatever you do, don’t expect the author (journalist or not) of a piece in TNR (or his editors) to provide any evidence that his assertions are true.”
Obviously Beauchamp is in no position to defend his assertions in the face of his employer’s apparent determination to shut him up. But of course TNR should be asked to defend the articles – and mirabile dictu they have, by finding corroborating evidence, and by trying to get the documents the army based their claim on.
“ TNR: So, the BFV – is it good for running down dogs?”
That was marvelous, rilkefan.
“ TNR: So, the BFV – is it good for running down dogs?”
That was marvelous, rilkefan.
“ TNR: So, the BFV – is it good for running down dogs?”
That was marvelous, rilkefan.
I have it on good authority that Rilkefan’s transcript was fabricated, and I, for one, will never believe another word he writes. And I’m pretty sure his kitchen counters are granite.
I have it on good authority that Rilkefan’s transcript was fabricated, and I, for one, will never believe another word he writes. And I’m pretty sure his kitchen counters are granite.
I have it on good authority that Rilkefan’s transcript was fabricated, and I, for one, will never believe another word he writes. And I’m pretty sure his kitchen counters are granite.
I’d translate that into German but I don’t know how to preserve the grammar.
I’m having a helluva a time remembering the proper endings, and it’s next to impossible to translate it without making it correct. Anyway, didn’t look anything up, so it’s a rough stab. As it were.
Die Messeren, dass auf dem Ruecke[n?] unsere[m?] Soldaten geswungen geworden sind, kommen von dem Hand Franklin Foers.
I’d translate that into German but I don’t know how to preserve the grammar.
I’m having a helluva a time remembering the proper endings, and it’s next to impossible to translate it without making it correct. Anyway, didn’t look anything up, so it’s a rough stab. As it were.
Die Messeren, dass auf dem Ruecke[n?] unsere[m?] Soldaten geswungen geworden sind, kommen von dem Hand Franklin Foers.
I’d translate that into German but I don’t know how to preserve the grammar.
I’m having a helluva a time remembering the proper endings, and it’s next to impossible to translate it without making it correct. Anyway, didn’t look anything up, so it’s a rough stab. As it were.
Die Messeren, dass auf dem Ruecke[n?] unsere[m?] Soldaten geswungen geworden sind, kommen von dem Hand Franklin Foers.
“And I’m pretty sure his kitchen counters are granite.”
I think we are taking rilkefan’s contributions to this thread for granite.
“And I’m pretty sure his kitchen counters are granite.”
I think we are taking rilkefan’s contributions to this thread for granite.
“And I’m pretty sure his kitchen counters are granite.”
I think we are taking rilkefan’s contributions to this thread for granite.
No but Franklin Foer, J. Peter Scoblic, and Jason Zengerle presumably are, and they are the people who were in charge of making sure his stories were accurate before they were published, and they are the people we are focusing on.
It is these journalists, not Beauchamp, that have continued to purposefully mislead their readers, and who refuse to retract stories for which they have provided no support.
It is these men that did not report that they had a conversation with Beauchamp (and if they are now to be believed, as many as three) while claiming that the Army was preventing them from speaking to him.
It was these accomplished journalists that attempted to hide the fact Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer, who just happened to be a TNR fact-checker.
It was these men who incompetently sent a FOAI request to the wrong part of the Army, and then blamed Central Command for not acting quickly upon a request they did not have.
It was and is these “accomplished” journalists that claim the articles were fact-checked prior to publication, only to be forced into admitting that one of the anecdotes happened at another time, in another country, and that they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all.
Get that, rilkefan? No facts at all. None.
Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Nada.
I’m glad you are amused at my grammatical blunder (we all have bad days), but far more amused that you cannot rebut any of the substantive elements of my arguments, and don’t even try.
No but Franklin Foer, J. Peter Scoblic, and Jason Zengerle presumably are, and they are the people who were in charge of making sure his stories were accurate before they were published, and they are the people we are focusing on.
It is these journalists, not Beauchamp, that have continued to purposefully mislead their readers, and who refuse to retract stories for which they have provided no support.
It is these men that did not report that they had a conversation with Beauchamp (and if they are now to be believed, as many as three) while claiming that the Army was preventing them from speaking to him.
It was these accomplished journalists that attempted to hide the fact Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer, who just happened to be a TNR fact-checker.
It was these men who incompetently sent a FOAI request to the wrong part of the Army, and then blamed Central Command for not acting quickly upon a request they did not have.
It was and is these “accomplished” journalists that claim the articles were fact-checked prior to publication, only to be forced into admitting that one of the anecdotes happened at another time, in another country, and that they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all.
Get that, rilkefan? No facts at all. None.
Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Nada.
I’m glad you are amused at my grammatical blunder (we all have bad days), but far more amused that you cannot rebut any of the substantive elements of my arguments, and don’t even try.
No but Franklin Foer, J. Peter Scoblic, and Jason Zengerle presumably are, and they are the people who were in charge of making sure his stories were accurate before they were published, and they are the people we are focusing on.
It is these journalists, not Beauchamp, that have continued to purposefully mislead their readers, and who refuse to retract stories for which they have provided no support.
It is these men that did not report that they had a conversation with Beauchamp (and if they are now to be believed, as many as three) while claiming that the Army was preventing them from speaking to him.
It was these accomplished journalists that attempted to hide the fact Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer, who just happened to be a TNR fact-checker.
It was these men who incompetently sent a FOAI request to the wrong part of the Army, and then blamed Central Command for not acting quickly upon a request they did not have.
It was and is these “accomplished” journalists that claim the articles were fact-checked prior to publication, only to be forced into admitting that one of the anecdotes happened at another time, in another country, and that they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all.
Get that, rilkefan? No facts at all. None.
Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Nada.
I’m glad you are amused at my grammatical blunder (we all have bad days), but far more amused that you cannot rebut any of the substantive elements of my arguments, and don’t even try.
indeed, rilkefan’s contributions are typically rock-solid. i’m sure his counters are quite gneiss.
indeed, rilkefan’s contributions are typically rock-solid. i’m sure his counters are quite gneiss.
indeed, rilkefan’s contributions are typically rock-solid. i’m sure his counters are quite gneiss.
It was and is these “accomplished” journalists that claim the articles were fact-checked prior to publication, only to be forced into admitting that one of the anecdotes happened at another time, in another country, and that they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all. Get that, rilkefan? No facts at all. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Wow, if you repeat yourself enough, maybe you’ll get someone to buy the argument that a magazine is required to name its sources whenever the right-wing blogosphere demands it.
It was and is these “accomplished” journalists that claim the articles were fact-checked prior to publication, only to be forced into admitting that one of the anecdotes happened at another time, in another country, and that they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all. Get that, rilkefan? No facts at all. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Wow, if you repeat yourself enough, maybe you’ll get someone to buy the argument that a magazine is required to name its sources whenever the right-wing blogosphere demands it.
It was and is these “accomplished” journalists that claim the articles were fact-checked prior to publication, only to be forced into admitting that one of the anecdotes happened at another time, in another country, and that they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all. Get that, rilkefan? No facts at all. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Wow, if you repeat yourself enough, maybe you’ll get someone to buy the argument that a magazine is required to name its sources whenever the right-wing blogosphere demands it.
Confederate Yankee: It was these accomplished journalists that attempted to hide the fact Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer, who just happened to be a TNR fact-checker.
Or did the wife send him on a junket [to Iraq]?
Confederate Yankee: It was these accomplished journalists that attempted to hide the fact Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer, who just happened to be a TNR fact-checker.
Or did the wife send him on a junket [to Iraq]?
Confederate Yankee: It was these accomplished journalists that attempted to hide the fact Beauchamp was married to a TNR staffer, who just happened to be a TNR fact-checker.
Or did the wife send him on a junket [to Iraq]?
Well there you go, Steve.
You don’t think they should have to cite sources, and Doug H doesn’t believe that he should have to prove his claims, even though a formal investigation considers all three claims in “Shock Troops” to be fiction.
If you are bound and determined to swallow whatever they would feed you despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don’t think there is a lot we can do to keep you from it.
Enjoy.
Well there you go, Steve.
You don’t think they should have to cite sources, and Doug H doesn’t believe that he should have to prove his claims, even though a formal investigation considers all three claims in “Shock Troops” to be fiction.
If you are bound and determined to swallow whatever they would feed you despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don’t think there is a lot we can do to keep you from it.
Enjoy.
Well there you go, Steve.
You don’t think they should have to cite sources, and Doug H doesn’t believe that he should have to prove his claims, even though a formal investigation considers all three claims in “Shock Troops” to be fiction.
If you are bound and determined to swallow whatever they would feed you despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don’t think there is a lot we can do to keep you from it.
Enjoy.
I really wish typepad would quit eating my comments.
CY, This is the masthead of TNR.
As you’ll note, the man in charge, the man who until February was the owner of TNR since 1975, and who was the utterly hands-on owner all that time (see Shattered Glass for an example of him dictating mandates on commas to the staff), the man who is today still editor-in-chief, the man absolutely in charge of The New Republic, for some peculiar reason, you do not mention, although he, of course, bears all ultimate responsibility.
Setting that aside, however: why do you and your fellows think anyone of a left, liberal, or anti-war persuasion would have the faintest desire to defend TNR, or any of these people, given that Marty Peretz, and the general editorial line of TNR, have long famously been neo-conservative; Peretz, and the general editorial line of TNR, have never wavered from agitating first in favor of the war in Iraq, then on the importance of maintaining it, and have subsequently not stopped warning of the dangers of Iran.
This is the magazine whose latest staff graduate is James Kirchuk.
Why do you expect anyone who is anti-war to do other than cheer at y’all questioning the credibility of this pro-war magazine and its staff editors?
Please don’t throw us in that briar patch.
But, seriously, what’s your goal or point here? I genuinely don’t grasp what you think it is.
I really wish typepad would quit eating my comments.
CY, This is the masthead of TNR.
As you’ll note, the man in charge, the man who until February was the owner of TNR since 1975, and who was the utterly hands-on owner all that time (see Shattered Glass for an example of him dictating mandates on commas to the staff), the man who is today still editor-in-chief, the man absolutely in charge of The New Republic, for some peculiar reason, you do not mention, although he, of course, bears all ultimate responsibility.
Setting that aside, however: why do you and your fellows think anyone of a left, liberal, or anti-war persuasion would have the faintest desire to defend TNR, or any of these people, given that Marty Peretz, and the general editorial line of TNR, have long famously been neo-conservative; Peretz, and the general editorial line of TNR, have never wavered from agitating first in favor of the war in Iraq, then on the importance of maintaining it, and have subsequently not stopped warning of the dangers of Iran.
This is the magazine whose latest staff graduate is James Kirchuk.
Why do you expect anyone who is anti-war to do other than cheer at y’all questioning the credibility of this pro-war magazine and its staff editors?
Please don’t throw us in that briar patch.
But, seriously, what’s your goal or point here? I genuinely don’t grasp what you think it is.
I really wish typepad would quit eating my comments.
CY, This is the masthead of TNR.
As you’ll note, the man in charge, the man who until February was the owner of TNR since 1975, and who was the utterly hands-on owner all that time (see Shattered Glass for an example of him dictating mandates on commas to the staff), the man who is today still editor-in-chief, the man absolutely in charge of The New Republic, for some peculiar reason, you do not mention, although he, of course, bears all ultimate responsibility.
Setting that aside, however: why do you and your fellows think anyone of a left, liberal, or anti-war persuasion would have the faintest desire to defend TNR, or any of these people, given that Marty Peretz, and the general editorial line of TNR, have long famously been neo-conservative; Peretz, and the general editorial line of TNR, have never wavered from agitating first in favor of the war in Iraq, then on the importance of maintaining it, and have subsequently not stopped warning of the dangers of Iran.
This is the magazine whose latest staff graduate is James Kirchuk.
Why do you expect anyone who is anti-war to do other than cheer at y’all questioning the credibility of this pro-war magazine and its staff editors?
Please don’t throw us in that briar patch.
But, seriously, what’s your goal or point here? I genuinely don’t grasp what you think it is.
But, seriously, what’s your goal or point here? I genuinely don’t grasp what you think it is.
That Frank Foer and his wobbly ilk at TNR are dolschstossing our troops in the back, and should be replaced by more (politically) reliable staff. I hear Ben Domenech is available.
But, seriously, what’s your goal or point here? I genuinely don’t grasp what you think it is.
That Frank Foer and his wobbly ilk at TNR are dolschstossing our troops in the back, and should be replaced by more (politically) reliable staff. I hear Ben Domenech is available.
But, seriously, what’s your goal or point here? I genuinely don’t grasp what you think it is.
That Frank Foer and his wobbly ilk at TNR are dolschstossing our troops in the back, and should be replaced by more (politically) reliable staff. I hear Ben Domenech is available.
“Confederate Yankee”: “I’m glad you are amused at my grammatical blunder”
Apologies, I didn’t realize you’re “Bob Owens”. Never mind about the grammar – why in the world would you pick this deeply unfortunate metaphor?
“It was these men who incompetently sent a FOAI request to the wrong part of the Army, and then blamed Central Command for not acting quickly upon a request they did not have.”
I take it CC will be releasing the data to TNR pronto now that that issue is cleared up?
“while claiming that the Army was preventing them from speaking to him.”
This still seems to be the case, in a Do-what-you-like-as-I-look-over-your-shoulder-glowering sense.
“they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all”
This is plain false.
“Confederate Yankee”: “I’m glad you are amused at my grammatical blunder”
Apologies, I didn’t realize you’re “Bob Owens”. Never mind about the grammar – why in the world would you pick this deeply unfortunate metaphor?
“It was these men who incompetently sent a FOAI request to the wrong part of the Army, and then blamed Central Command for not acting quickly upon a request they did not have.”
I take it CC will be releasing the data to TNR pronto now that that issue is cleared up?
“while claiming that the Army was preventing them from speaking to him.”
This still seems to be the case, in a Do-what-you-like-as-I-look-over-your-shoulder-glowering sense.
“they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all”
This is plain false.
“Confederate Yankee”: “I’m glad you are amused at my grammatical blunder”
Apologies, I didn’t realize you’re “Bob Owens”. Never mind about the grammar – why in the world would you pick this deeply unfortunate metaphor?
“It was these men who incompetently sent a FOAI request to the wrong part of the Army, and then blamed Central Command for not acting quickly upon a request they did not have.”
I take it CC will be releasing the data to TNR pronto now that that issue is cleared up?
“while claiming that the Army was preventing them from speaking to him.”
This still seems to be the case, in a Do-what-you-like-as-I-look-over-your-shoulder-glowering sense.
“they could not, in fact, provide any facts or named witnesses to support any of the three anecdotes at all”
This is plain false.
“This is the magazine whose latest staff graduate is James Kirchuk.”
James Kirchick, rather; sorry.
“This is the magazine whose latest staff graduate is James Kirchuk.”
James Kirchick, rather; sorry.
“This is the magazine whose latest staff graduate is James Kirchuk.”
James Kirchick, rather; sorry.
Kissinger’s wise comment about academia comes to mind here–the reason the fighting is so vicious is because the stakes are so small. Though actually, I think only one side is fighting like it really matters.
I’m enjoying this thread. It’s like Gary said. I have no ideological dog in this fight–I’m far left, antiwar, despise TNR (as most lefties have since the early 80’s and maybe before then) and all that’s missing is some fresh popcorn. If TNR is humiliated that’s fine with me–the fact that the far right thinks it’s taking down a left-leaning antiwar magazine just makes it all the more fun.
It does matter for Beauchamp, of course–if he’s honest then he’s been slandered and if he’s not then his journalistic career should be ended. But I’ve got no insight into that question, and no interest either.
Kissinger’s wise comment about academia comes to mind here–the reason the fighting is so vicious is because the stakes are so small. Though actually, I think only one side is fighting like it really matters.
I’m enjoying this thread. It’s like Gary said. I have no ideological dog in this fight–I’m far left, antiwar, despise TNR (as most lefties have since the early 80’s and maybe before then) and all that’s missing is some fresh popcorn. If TNR is humiliated that’s fine with me–the fact that the far right thinks it’s taking down a left-leaning antiwar magazine just makes it all the more fun.
It does matter for Beauchamp, of course–if he’s honest then he’s been slandered and if he’s not then his journalistic career should be ended. But I’ve got no insight into that question, and no interest either.
Kissinger’s wise comment about academia comes to mind here–the reason the fighting is so vicious is because the stakes are so small. Though actually, I think only one side is fighting like it really matters.
I’m enjoying this thread. It’s like Gary said. I have no ideological dog in this fight–I’m far left, antiwar, despise TNR (as most lefties have since the early 80’s and maybe before then) and all that’s missing is some fresh popcorn. If TNR is humiliated that’s fine with me–the fact that the far right thinks it’s taking down a left-leaning antiwar magazine just makes it all the more fun.
It does matter for Beauchamp, of course–if he’s honest then he’s been slandered and if he’s not then his journalistic career should be ended. But I’ve got no insight into that question, and no interest either.
If you are bound and determined to swallow whatever they would feed you despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don’t think there is a lot we can do to keep you from it.
Just in case the 100th repetition of the point might suddenly get through to you, I note that no one I know is interested in “swallowing whatever TNR would feed us.” We don’t care one way or the other if Beauchamp’s anecdotes are true because they are utterly trivial.
If Beauchamp had made factual claims that were actually material to our conduct of the war, then the fact-checking or lack thereof would be much more important. But somehow I never see you guys spend your time fact-checking anything that actually matters.
When’s the last time anyone in the righty blogosphere looked behind a claim by CENTCOM to determine if it was actually truthful? A single example will do.
If you are bound and determined to swallow whatever they would feed you despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don’t think there is a lot we can do to keep you from it.
Just in case the 100th repetition of the point might suddenly get through to you, I note that no one I know is interested in “swallowing whatever TNR would feed us.” We don’t care one way or the other if Beauchamp’s anecdotes are true because they are utterly trivial.
If Beauchamp had made factual claims that were actually material to our conduct of the war, then the fact-checking or lack thereof would be much more important. But somehow I never see you guys spend your time fact-checking anything that actually matters.
When’s the last time anyone in the righty blogosphere looked behind a claim by CENTCOM to determine if it was actually truthful? A single example will do.
If you are bound and determined to swallow whatever they would feed you despite all the evidence to the contrary, I don’t think there is a lot we can do to keep you from it.
Just in case the 100th repetition of the point might suddenly get through to you, I note that no one I know is interested in “swallowing whatever TNR would feed us.” We don’t care one way or the other if Beauchamp’s anecdotes are true because they are utterly trivial.
If Beauchamp had made factual claims that were actually material to our conduct of the war, then the fact-checking or lack thereof would be much more important. But somehow I never see you guys spend your time fact-checking anything that actually matters.
When’s the last time anyone in the righty blogosphere looked behind a claim by CENTCOM to determine if it was actually truthful? A single example will do.
rilkefan: “The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
translates roughly to
“Die Messer, die auf den Rücken unserer Soldaten gerichtet sind, werden von Franklin Frost geschwungen.”
Not quite literal, but that just would not work out.
Jackmormon, that just hurt. Corrected it’s “Die Messer, die gegen die Rücken unserer Soldaten geschwungen werden, sind in der Hand Franklin Foers.”
(time for bed. 23:13 here in Austria)
rilkefan: “The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
translates roughly to
“Die Messer, die auf den Rücken unserer Soldaten gerichtet sind, werden von Franklin Frost geschwungen.”
Not quite literal, but that just would not work out.
Jackmormon, that just hurt. Corrected it’s “Die Messer, die gegen die Rücken unserer Soldaten geschwungen werden, sind in der Hand Franklin Foers.”
(time for bed. 23:13 here in Austria)
rilkefan: “The knives are being swung at the back of our soldiers comes from the hand of Franklin Foer.”
translates roughly to
“Die Messer, die auf den Rücken unserer Soldaten gerichtet sind, werden von Franklin Frost geschwungen.”
Not quite literal, but that just would not work out.
Jackmormon, that just hurt. Corrected it’s “Die Messer, die gegen die Rücken unserer Soldaten geschwungen werden, sind in der Hand Franklin Foers.”
(time for bed. 23:13 here in Austria)
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right,
Wait a minute, “center-right?”
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right,
Wait a minute, “center-right?”
As one of the primary bloggers covering this story from the center-right,
Wait a minute, “center-right?”
Okay, coming in late. Now that Beauchamp’s dog of a story has been run over by the MilBlog Bradley Fighting Vehicle, there isn’t much to say. Except most here keep saying it doesn’t matter.
As Crismo said, this is just like the Rather/Mapes TNG memos. Everyone is burning up the electronic pages in a frenzy to keep saying: 1) it really doesn’t matter; 2) we’re laughing at the conservatives (look at those rabid republicans rant) 3) it was accurate anyway even if false . . .
The Baghdad Diaries were clearly meant to influence public opinion. They were false. Even if they may portray actions that soldiers MIGHT be doing elsewhere, they defamed Beauchamp’s own unit. They allegedly were doing what may be not-so-rare elsewhere. That his own unit is apparently keeping him shows their true character.
G’Kar’s comment implies that such action is not common in his experience (or is it?). And his own experience happened in a different unit.
G’Kar, you found the conduct appalling. I would assume that one of your fellow soldiers falsely accusing your unit of similar appalling conduct would bother you, especially if used to promote a particular view point, would you not?
Can’t we all agree on this simple point, namely that lying about a particular unit’s conduct for a political purpose is unseemly?
Why are many of you defending it as “inconsequential,” “meaningless troll drivel” etc. etc. etc.?
And if many of you think TNR is centrist or center-right, then the majority of those posting comments here have no claim to the middle.
Okay, coming in late. Now that Beauchamp’s dog of a story has been run over by the MilBlog Bradley Fighting Vehicle, there isn’t much to say. Except most here keep saying it doesn’t matter.
As Crismo said, this is just like the Rather/Mapes TNG memos. Everyone is burning up the electronic pages in a frenzy to keep saying: 1) it really doesn’t matter; 2) we’re laughing at the conservatives (look at those rabid republicans rant) 3) it was accurate anyway even if false . . .
The Baghdad Diaries were clearly meant to influence public opinion. They were false. Even if they may portray actions that soldiers MIGHT be doing elsewhere, they defamed Beauchamp’s own unit. They allegedly were doing what may be not-so-rare elsewhere. That his own unit is apparently keeping him shows their true character.
G’Kar’s comment implies that such action is not common in his experience (or is it?). And his own experience happened in a different unit.
G’Kar, you found the conduct appalling. I would assume that one of your fellow soldiers falsely accusing your unit of similar appalling conduct would bother you, especially if used to promote a particular view point, would you not?
Can’t we all agree on this simple point, namely that lying about a particular unit’s conduct for a political purpose is unseemly?
Why are many of you defending it as “inconsequential,” “meaningless troll drivel” etc. etc. etc.?
And if many of you think TNR is centrist or center-right, then the majority of those posting comments here have no claim to the middle.
Okay, coming in late. Now that Beauchamp’s dog of a story has been run over by the MilBlog Bradley Fighting Vehicle, there isn’t much to say. Except most here keep saying it doesn’t matter.
As Crismo said, this is just like the Rather/Mapes TNG memos. Everyone is burning up the electronic pages in a frenzy to keep saying: 1) it really doesn’t matter; 2) we’re laughing at the conservatives (look at those rabid republicans rant) 3) it was accurate anyway even if false . . .
The Baghdad Diaries were clearly meant to influence public opinion. They were false. Even if they may portray actions that soldiers MIGHT be doing elsewhere, they defamed Beauchamp’s own unit. They allegedly were doing what may be not-so-rare elsewhere. That his own unit is apparently keeping him shows their true character.
G’Kar’s comment implies that such action is not common in his experience (or is it?). And his own experience happened in a different unit.
G’Kar, you found the conduct appalling. I would assume that one of your fellow soldiers falsely accusing your unit of similar appalling conduct would bother you, especially if used to promote a particular view point, would you not?
Can’t we all agree on this simple point, namely that lying about a particular unit’s conduct for a political purpose is unseemly?
Why are many of you defending it as “inconsequential,” “meaningless troll drivel” etc. etc. etc.?
And if many of you think TNR is centrist or center-right, then the majority of those posting comments here have no claim to the middle.
oops. sorry. Should have read: “Would [it] not?” Bad sentence anyway.
oops. sorry. Should have read: “Would [it] not?” Bad sentence anyway.
oops. sorry. Should have read: “Would [it] not?” Bad sentence anyway.
Beauchamp claimed this happened with a Bradley fighting vehicle , not a HMMWV.
Beauchamp claimed this happened with a Bradley fighting vehicle , not a HMMWV.
Beauchamp claimed this happened with a Bradley fighting vehicle , not a HMMWV.
In what direction? Keep in mind the earlier story about the insurgents cutting out the tongue of a boy, which the various Conservapedia Browns somehow neglected to subject to the same level of analysis.
In what direction? Keep in mind the earlier story about the insurgents cutting out the tongue of a boy, which the various Conservapedia Browns somehow neglected to subject to the same level of analysis.
In what direction? Keep in mind the earlier story about the insurgents cutting out the tongue of a boy, which the various Conservapedia Browns somehow neglected to subject to the same level of analysis.
bc: As Crismo said, this is just like the Rather/Mapes TNG memos. Everyone is burning up the electronic pages in a frenzy to keep saying: 1) it really doesn’t matter; 2) we’re laughing at the conservatives (look at those rabid republicans rant) 3) it was accurate anyway even if false . . .
Well, yeah: it is. We know Bush went AWOL/deserted during the Vietnam war: we know roughly the period during which he went AWOL: the memos merely added a colorful picture of how Bush’s CO reacted to one of his pilots going AWOL. And, despite all of the right-wing bloviating, no one has been able to prove they were faked: Rather was blogmobbed out, much as Eason Jordan was, because he was a convenient target to distract attention from the real story: Bush’s desertion and lies about it.
Likewise with the Scott Beauchamp anecdotes: as has been noted already, none of them are unbelievable, all of them could have had details changed to protect the identities of the people Beauchamp was writing about, and if they’d been written with just a slightly different spin, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders would have lapped them up and loved Beauchamp lots.
Can’t we all agree on this simple point, namely that lying about a particular unit’s conduct for a political purpose is unseemly?
We can, but I think you’d find that most people agree that lying about torture, murder, and rape for a political purpose is even more unseemly: and that for the Pentagon to lie about a unit’s conduct for a political purpose is far more unseemly than for a low-ranking soldier to tell anecdotes about his comrades behavior – even if the soldier can’t prove the truth of his anecdotes.
bc: As Crismo said, this is just like the Rather/Mapes TNG memos. Everyone is burning up the electronic pages in a frenzy to keep saying: 1) it really doesn’t matter; 2) we’re laughing at the conservatives (look at those rabid republicans rant) 3) it was accurate anyway even if false . . .
Well, yeah: it is. We know Bush went AWOL/deserted during the Vietnam war: we know roughly the period during which he went AWOL: the memos merely added a colorful picture of how Bush’s CO reacted to one of his pilots going AWOL. And, despite all of the right-wing bloviating, no one has been able to prove they were faked: Rather was blogmobbed out, much as Eason Jordan was, because he was a convenient target to distract attention from the real story: Bush’s desertion and lies about it.
Likewise with the Scott Beauchamp anecdotes: as has been noted already, none of them are unbelievable, all of them could have had details changed to protect the identities of the people Beauchamp was writing about, and if they’d been written with just a slightly different spin, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders would have lapped them up and loved Beauchamp lots.
Can’t we all agree on this simple point, namely that lying about a particular unit’s conduct for a political purpose is unseemly?
We can, but I think you’d find that most people agree that lying about torture, murder, and rape for a political purpose is even more unseemly: and that for the Pentagon to lie about a unit’s conduct for a political purpose is far more unseemly than for a low-ranking soldier to tell anecdotes about his comrades behavior – even if the soldier can’t prove the truth of his anecdotes.
bc: As Crismo said, this is just like the Rather/Mapes TNG memos. Everyone is burning up the electronic pages in a frenzy to keep saying: 1) it really doesn’t matter; 2) we’re laughing at the conservatives (look at those rabid republicans rant) 3) it was accurate anyway even if false . . .
Well, yeah: it is. We know Bush went AWOL/deserted during the Vietnam war: we know roughly the period during which he went AWOL: the memos merely added a colorful picture of how Bush’s CO reacted to one of his pilots going AWOL. And, despite all of the right-wing bloviating, no one has been able to prove they were faked: Rather was blogmobbed out, much as Eason Jordan was, because he was a convenient target to distract attention from the real story: Bush’s desertion and lies about it.
Likewise with the Scott Beauchamp anecdotes: as has been noted already, none of them are unbelievable, all of them could have had details changed to protect the identities of the people Beauchamp was writing about, and if they’d been written with just a slightly different spin, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders would have lapped them up and loved Beauchamp lots.
Can’t we all agree on this simple point, namely that lying about a particular unit’s conduct for a political purpose is unseemly?
We can, but I think you’d find that most people agree that lying about torture, murder, and rape for a political purpose is even more unseemly: and that for the Pentagon to lie about a unit’s conduct for a political purpose is far more unseemly than for a low-ranking soldier to tell anecdotes about his comrades behavior – even if the soldier can’t prove the truth of his anecdotes.
Sorry otmar. I knew someone would have my head for that.
Sorry otmar. I knew someone would have my head for that.
Sorry otmar. I knew someone would have my head for that.
Let’s nip this shit in the bud before it gets any dumber, because it is one of the things that is driving me CRAZY. Scott Beauchamp was not an investigative reporter doing hard-hitting pieces on very important issues, writing articles after weeks and months of research and interviews. He was not Woodward and Bernstein, he was not “reporting” on issues of grave importance, and as such, the fact-checking process for his diaries was not something you would dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with.
It is quite possible for TNR to be working in COMPLETELY good faith by doing cursory checks on his stories, and from what I have seen they went through, they went above and beyond the call of duty checking his information. Especially when you consider they were little more than personal dispatches from a combat zone, and what the right wing is freaking out about is COMPLETELY and totally inconsequential. Beauchamp wasn’t leveling allegations about traitors, or people sneaking nuclear secrets, or corrupt political processes within the baghdad government. He was talking about things he had seen- people making fun of a woman and some jackasses running over dogs. WHOOP-DE-F**KING-DO. TNR did nothing wrong, and even more, I am not even remotely convinced that Beauchamp was lying.
Not that any of these idiots cared about fact-checking when it came to Judy Miller or any of the coterie of idiots who routinely shit the administration line into our public discourse.
Let’s nip this shit in the bud before it gets any dumber, because it is one of the things that is driving me CRAZY. Scott Beauchamp was not an investigative reporter doing hard-hitting pieces on very important issues, writing articles after weeks and months of research and interviews. He was not Woodward and Bernstein, he was not “reporting” on issues of grave importance, and as such, the fact-checking process for his diaries was not something you would dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with.
It is quite possible for TNR to be working in COMPLETELY good faith by doing cursory checks on his stories, and from what I have seen they went through, they went above and beyond the call of duty checking his information. Especially when you consider they were little more than personal dispatches from a combat zone, and what the right wing is freaking out about is COMPLETELY and totally inconsequential. Beauchamp wasn’t leveling allegations about traitors, or people sneaking nuclear secrets, or corrupt political processes within the baghdad government. He was talking about things he had seen- people making fun of a woman and some jackasses running over dogs. WHOOP-DE-F**KING-DO. TNR did nothing wrong, and even more, I am not even remotely convinced that Beauchamp was lying.
Not that any of these idiots cared about fact-checking when it came to Judy Miller or any of the coterie of idiots who routinely shit the administration line into our public discourse.
Let’s nip this shit in the bud before it gets any dumber, because it is one of the things that is driving me CRAZY. Scott Beauchamp was not an investigative reporter doing hard-hitting pieces on very important issues, writing articles after weeks and months of research and interviews. He was not Woodward and Bernstein, he was not “reporting” on issues of grave importance, and as such, the fact-checking process for his diaries was not something you would dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with.
It is quite possible for TNR to be working in COMPLETELY good faith by doing cursory checks on his stories, and from what I have seen they went through, they went above and beyond the call of duty checking his information. Especially when you consider they were little more than personal dispatches from a combat zone, and what the right wing is freaking out about is COMPLETELY and totally inconsequential. Beauchamp wasn’t leveling allegations about traitors, or people sneaking nuclear secrets, or corrupt political processes within the baghdad government. He was talking about things he had seen- people making fun of a woman and some jackasses running over dogs. WHOOP-DE-F**KING-DO. TNR did nothing wrong, and even more, I am not even remotely convinced that Beauchamp was lying.
Not that any of these idiots cared about fact-checking when it came to Judy Miller or any of the coterie of idiots who routinely shit the administration line into our public discourse.
otmar, thanks, but I was just joking. I thought “Dolchschleudernlegende” or whatever was too harsh.
otmar, thanks, but I was just joking. I thought “Dolchschleudernlegende” or whatever was too harsh.
otmar, thanks, but I was just joking. I thought “Dolchschleudernlegende” or whatever was too harsh.
The discovery phase of the Rather lawsuit is something very much to look forward to.
Thinking about it makes me do an inward Montgomery Burns: “Eeeehxcellent! Release the hounds…”
Even in its current early stages, it’s revealed quite a bit about the regime’s efforts to get the network to kill the Abu Ghraib and torture story.
The discovery phase of the Rather lawsuit is something very much to look forward to.
Thinking about it makes me do an inward Montgomery Burns: “Eeeehxcellent! Release the hounds…”
Even in its current early stages, it’s revealed quite a bit about the regime’s efforts to get the network to kill the Abu Ghraib and torture story.
The discovery phase of the Rather lawsuit is something very much to look forward to.
Thinking about it makes me do an inward Montgomery Burns: “Eeeehxcellent! Release the hounds…”
Even in its current early stages, it’s revealed quite a bit about the regime’s efforts to get the network to kill the Abu Ghraib and torture story.
Hey John, the Kitten doesn’t like four-letter-words because of work filters etc. We try to keep this site as staid as possible – part of the reason a lot of us read your blog, probably…
Hey John, the Kitten doesn’t like four-letter-words because of work filters etc. We try to keep this site as staid as possible – part of the reason a lot of us read your blog, probably…
Hey John, the Kitten doesn’t like four-letter-words because of work filters etc. We try to keep this site as staid as possible – part of the reason a lot of us read your blog, probably…
And one more thing- the absurdity of all of this is compounded by the notion that at best, 50,000 people saw these stories before the freak out(and that is assuming everyone with a web and print subscription).
Anyone who thinks Beauchamp’s stories meant anything to anyone other than a shrug is a complete and total idiot, and as such, I will not treat seriously for a LONG, LONG time.
And one more thing- the absurdity of all of this is compounded by the notion that at best, 50,000 people saw these stories before the freak out(and that is assuming everyone with a web and print subscription).
Anyone who thinks Beauchamp’s stories meant anything to anyone other than a shrug is a complete and total idiot, and as such, I will not treat seriously for a LONG, LONG time.
And one more thing- the absurdity of all of this is compounded by the notion that at best, 50,000 people saw these stories before the freak out(and that is assuming everyone with a web and print subscription).
Anyone who thinks Beauchamp’s stories meant anything to anyone other than a shrug is a complete and total idiot, and as such, I will not treat seriously for a LONG, LONG time.
My apologies, Rilkefan. If someone with the power to edit can replace those words with other words, it would be appreciated.
My point still stands, though.
My apologies, Rilkefan. If someone with the power to edit can replace those words with other words, it would be appreciated.
My point still stands, though.
My apologies, Rilkefan. If someone with the power to edit can replace those words with other words, it would be appreciated.
My point still stands, though.
“My apologies, Rilkefan. If someone with the power to edit can replace those words with other words, it would be appreciated.”
I don’t think the Kitten cares that much. For that matter She’s probably a fan of Tunch so you can do no wrong here.
“My apologies, Rilkefan. If someone with the power to edit can replace those words with other words, it would be appreciated.”
I don’t think the Kitten cares that much. For that matter She’s probably a fan of Tunch so you can do no wrong here.
“My apologies, Rilkefan. If someone with the power to edit can replace those words with other words, it would be appreciated.”
I don’t think the Kitten cares that much. For that matter She’s probably a fan of Tunch so you can do no wrong here.
Especially when you consider they were little more than personal dispatches from a combat zone, and what the right wing is freaking out about is COMPLETELY and totally inconsequential. Beauchamp wasn’t leveling allegations about traitors, or people sneaking nuclear secrets, or corrupt political processes within the baghdad government. He was talking about things he had seen- people making fun of a woman and some jackasses running over dogs.
But John, you must have missed the comment where it was asserted that “the Baghdad Diaries were clearly meant to influence public opinion.” I mean, do you not get how they were part and parcel of an insidious left-wing campaign to discredit the war effort? Really, your naivete is appalling.
I wonder what it would be like if the lefty blogs were more like their counterparts. I mean, imagine if every time Michelle Malkin shared a heartwarming story of a US soldier helping some Iraqi kid get his kitten out of a tree, or whatever, dozens of left-wing factcheckers leaped to the forefront, demanding to see pawprints.
Especially when you consider they were little more than personal dispatches from a combat zone, and what the right wing is freaking out about is COMPLETELY and totally inconsequential. Beauchamp wasn’t leveling allegations about traitors, or people sneaking nuclear secrets, or corrupt political processes within the baghdad government. He was talking about things he had seen- people making fun of a woman and some jackasses running over dogs.
But John, you must have missed the comment where it was asserted that “the Baghdad Diaries were clearly meant to influence public opinion.” I mean, do you not get how they were part and parcel of an insidious left-wing campaign to discredit the war effort? Really, your naivete is appalling.
I wonder what it would be like if the lefty blogs were more like their counterparts. I mean, imagine if every time Michelle Malkin shared a heartwarming story of a US soldier helping some Iraqi kid get his kitten out of a tree, or whatever, dozens of left-wing factcheckers leaped to the forefront, demanding to see pawprints.
Especially when you consider they were little more than personal dispatches from a combat zone, and what the right wing is freaking out about is COMPLETELY and totally inconsequential. Beauchamp wasn’t leveling allegations about traitors, or people sneaking nuclear secrets, or corrupt political processes within the baghdad government. He was talking about things he had seen- people making fun of a woman and some jackasses running over dogs.
But John, you must have missed the comment where it was asserted that “the Baghdad Diaries were clearly meant to influence public opinion.” I mean, do you not get how they were part and parcel of an insidious left-wing campaign to discredit the war effort? Really, your naivete is appalling.
I wonder what it would be like if the lefty blogs were more like their counterparts. I mean, imagine if every time Michelle Malkin shared a heartwarming story of a US soldier helping some Iraqi kid get his kitten out of a tree, or whatever, dozens of left-wing factcheckers leaped to the forefront, demanding to see pawprints.
Jesurgislac:
I give you credit for not side-stepping the issue completely. The gratuitous comments on other lying aside, at least we can agree that what Beauchamp allegedly did was unseemly. (what he is doing now is a different story).
But I’m not sure how anyone can argue “it just might be true, it just might!!” under the facts.
I won’t even step into the “no one has been able to prove they were faked” (the Rather memos) other than to simply say I now understand you better.
And Steve, although I give you a hat tip for your excellent sarcasm, the problem is we don’t hear those kitten stories very often in the MSM. What we hear is doom and gloom. Even the NY Times had to be “coaxed” into carrying a story on a Medal of Honor recipient (Lt. Michael Murphy)!
But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.
And John, I’ll truly miss your good opinion of me (as I take it that comment was aimed my way) even though I agree they probably wouldn’t have had much influence. My point was they were intended to have such. But, then again, we didn’t give the Gray Lady enough time. I’m sure she would have rather reprinted the Baghdad Diaries than anything to honor Lt. Murphy.
Jesurgislac:
I give you credit for not side-stepping the issue completely. The gratuitous comments on other lying aside, at least we can agree that what Beauchamp allegedly did was unseemly. (what he is doing now is a different story).
But I’m not sure how anyone can argue “it just might be true, it just might!!” under the facts.
I won’t even step into the “no one has been able to prove they were faked” (the Rather memos) other than to simply say I now understand you better.
And Steve, although I give you a hat tip for your excellent sarcasm, the problem is we don’t hear those kitten stories very often in the MSM. What we hear is doom and gloom. Even the NY Times had to be “coaxed” into carrying a story on a Medal of Honor recipient (Lt. Michael Murphy)!
But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.
And John, I’ll truly miss your good opinion of me (as I take it that comment was aimed my way) even though I agree they probably wouldn’t have had much influence. My point was they were intended to have such. But, then again, we didn’t give the Gray Lady enough time. I’m sure she would have rather reprinted the Baghdad Diaries than anything to honor Lt. Murphy.
Jesurgislac:
I give you credit for not side-stepping the issue completely. The gratuitous comments on other lying aside, at least we can agree that what Beauchamp allegedly did was unseemly. (what he is doing now is a different story).
But I’m not sure how anyone can argue “it just might be true, it just might!!” under the facts.
I won’t even step into the “no one has been able to prove they were faked” (the Rather memos) other than to simply say I now understand you better.
And Steve, although I give you a hat tip for your excellent sarcasm, the problem is we don’t hear those kitten stories very often in the MSM. What we hear is doom and gloom. Even the NY Times had to be “coaxed” into carrying a story on a Medal of Honor recipient (Lt. Michael Murphy)!
But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.
And John, I’ll truly miss your good opinion of me (as I take it that comment was aimed my way) even though I agree they probably wouldn’t have had much influence. My point was they were intended to have such. But, then again, we didn’t give the Gray Lady enough time. I’m sure she would have rather reprinted the Baghdad Diaries than anything to honor Lt. Murphy.
A nominal effort might help.
A nominal effort might help.
A nominal effort might help.
You are truly magnificent at divining intent. How about an easy test? Right now I am holding up my middle finger. What am I thinking?
You are truly magnificent at divining intent. How about an easy test? Right now I am holding up my middle finger. What am I thinking?
You are truly magnificent at divining intent. How about an easy test? Right now I am holding up my middle finger. What am I thinking?
“What we hear is doom and gloom.”
Imagine that. Iraq loses somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million people, millions are driven from their homes, and any drop in violence in Baghdad might well be due to successful ethnic cleansing and all we get is doom and gloom. Weird, I call it.
Little wonder so much effort must be expended on shooting down some possibly false and basically trivial stories about young men behaving like assholes.
BTW, bc, the reason the New Republic isn’t regarded as leftwing by lefties is because of the positions they’ve taken over the years. Pro-contra, for instance. Pro Iraq war. The phrase “even the liberal New Republic” started out as an argument and ended up as a joke.
“What we hear is doom and gloom.”
Imagine that. Iraq loses somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million people, millions are driven from their homes, and any drop in violence in Baghdad might well be due to successful ethnic cleansing and all we get is doom and gloom. Weird, I call it.
Little wonder so much effort must be expended on shooting down some possibly false and basically trivial stories about young men behaving like assholes.
BTW, bc, the reason the New Republic isn’t regarded as leftwing by lefties is because of the positions they’ve taken over the years. Pro-contra, for instance. Pro Iraq war. The phrase “even the liberal New Republic” started out as an argument and ended up as a joke.
“What we hear is doom and gloom.”
Imagine that. Iraq loses somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million people, millions are driven from their homes, and any drop in violence in Baghdad might well be due to successful ethnic cleansing and all we get is doom and gloom. Weird, I call it.
Little wonder so much effort must be expended on shooting down some possibly false and basically trivial stories about young men behaving like assholes.
BTW, bc, the reason the New Republic isn’t regarded as leftwing by lefties is because of the positions they’ve taken over the years. Pro-contra, for instance. Pro Iraq war. The phrase “even the liberal New Republic” started out as an argument and ended up as a joke.
I think what bugs me the most about this story is the thuggery of it all. At the risk of psychoanalyzing, it’s as if the folks beating this drum have been so humiliated by the disaster their heroes have wreaked on this nation and on the world that they have to somehow prove their righteous potency and, realizing they don’t have the intellectual fortitude or moral standing to take on targets of any real consequence, they decide to pick on some soldier writing slice-of-life essays from the theater of combat. It’s like the blogosphere’s version of the Ledeen Doctrine, and it’s a pathetic and repulsive display that debases those on the giving end as much as those on the receiving end.
I think what bugs me the most about this story is the thuggery of it all. At the risk of psychoanalyzing, it’s as if the folks beating this drum have been so humiliated by the disaster their heroes have wreaked on this nation and on the world that they have to somehow prove their righteous potency and, realizing they don’t have the intellectual fortitude or moral standing to take on targets of any real consequence, they decide to pick on some soldier writing slice-of-life essays from the theater of combat. It’s like the blogosphere’s version of the Ledeen Doctrine, and it’s a pathetic and repulsive display that debases those on the giving end as much as those on the receiving end.
I think what bugs me the most about this story is the thuggery of it all. At the risk of psychoanalyzing, it’s as if the folks beating this drum have been so humiliated by the disaster their heroes have wreaked on this nation and on the world that they have to somehow prove their righteous potency and, realizing they don’t have the intellectual fortitude or moral standing to take on targets of any real consequence, they decide to pick on some soldier writing slice-of-life essays from the theater of combat. It’s like the blogosphere’s version of the Ledeen Doctrine, and it’s a pathetic and repulsive display that debases those on the giving end as much as those on the receiving end.
Bc, again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?
Bc, again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?
Bc, again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?
I may be a little slow here, so let me see if I can summarize the situation as I understand it. In the worst case, in which Scott Beauchamp deliberately manufactured all his most exciting stories and the editorial chain of command at The New Republic completely ignored all basics of professional and honorable fact-checking, then…
A magazine known for its vociferous support of the war and occupation of Iraq (and for other military action throughout the Middle East, against essentially every nation there but Israel), blew past all canons of responsible journalism for the sake of cheap thrills.
To which absolutely every anti-Iraq-war-and-occupation blogger says, well, duh.
A complete conviction of Beauchamp and his enablers would not mean that Bush, Cheney, or their administration told the truth about the reasons for war, nor their decision-making about how to conduct it. It wouldn’t mean that there were no crimes of the sort we’d punish as war crimes if others committed them against our soldiers, at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase, and many other locales. It wouldn’t mean that the administration has been responsible with money, lives, and resources. It wouldn’t mean that we have regained the sympathy of the world we had on 9/11/2001 and then forfeited. it wouldn’t mean that the administration has been vigorous in understanding the costs to Iraq and Iraqis of the war and occupation, or that independent efforts to uncover those costs have received cooperation and support rather than campaigns of vilification. It wouldn’t mean…
Well, honestly, I can see that it would mean anything at all about the large issues of the war. At all. It would just mean that a magazine popular among supporters of the war was careless and/or dishonest, and that’s no surprise, like I said.
I may be a little slow here, so let me see if I can summarize the situation as I understand it. In the worst case, in which Scott Beauchamp deliberately manufactured all his most exciting stories and the editorial chain of command at The New Republic completely ignored all basics of professional and honorable fact-checking, then…
A magazine known for its vociferous support of the war and occupation of Iraq (and for other military action throughout the Middle East, against essentially every nation there but Israel), blew past all canons of responsible journalism for the sake of cheap thrills.
To which absolutely every anti-Iraq-war-and-occupation blogger says, well, duh.
A complete conviction of Beauchamp and his enablers would not mean that Bush, Cheney, or their administration told the truth about the reasons for war, nor their decision-making about how to conduct it. It wouldn’t mean that there were no crimes of the sort we’d punish as war crimes if others committed them against our soldiers, at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase, and many other locales. It wouldn’t mean that the administration has been responsible with money, lives, and resources. It wouldn’t mean that we have regained the sympathy of the world we had on 9/11/2001 and then forfeited. it wouldn’t mean that the administration has been vigorous in understanding the costs to Iraq and Iraqis of the war and occupation, or that independent efforts to uncover those costs have received cooperation and support rather than campaigns of vilification. It wouldn’t mean…
Well, honestly, I can see that it would mean anything at all about the large issues of the war. At all. It would just mean that a magazine popular among supporters of the war was careless and/or dishonest, and that’s no surprise, like I said.
I may be a little slow here, so let me see if I can summarize the situation as I understand it. In the worst case, in which Scott Beauchamp deliberately manufactured all his most exciting stories and the editorial chain of command at The New Republic completely ignored all basics of professional and honorable fact-checking, then…
A magazine known for its vociferous support of the war and occupation of Iraq (and for other military action throughout the Middle East, against essentially every nation there but Israel), blew past all canons of responsible journalism for the sake of cheap thrills.
To which absolutely every anti-Iraq-war-and-occupation blogger says, well, duh.
A complete conviction of Beauchamp and his enablers would not mean that Bush, Cheney, or their administration told the truth about the reasons for war, nor their decision-making about how to conduct it. It wouldn’t mean that there were no crimes of the sort we’d punish as war crimes if others committed them against our soldiers, at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airbase, and many other locales. It wouldn’t mean that the administration has been responsible with money, lives, and resources. It wouldn’t mean that we have regained the sympathy of the world we had on 9/11/2001 and then forfeited. it wouldn’t mean that the administration has been vigorous in understanding the costs to Iraq and Iraqis of the war and occupation, or that independent efforts to uncover those costs have received cooperation and support rather than campaigns of vilification. It wouldn’t mean…
Well, honestly, I can see that it would mean anything at all about the large issues of the war. At all. It would just mean that a magazine popular among supporters of the war was careless and/or dishonest, and that’s no surprise, like I said.
there’s a reason Atrios calls TNR “Joe Lieberman Weekly”… it’s roughly the same reason Joe’s not well-liked by his former party these days.
there’s a reason Atrios calls TNR “Joe Lieberman Weekly”… it’s roughly the same reason Joe’s not well-liked by his former party these days.
there’s a reason Atrios calls TNR “Joe Lieberman Weekly”… it’s roughly the same reason Joe’s not well-liked by his former party these days.
Beauchamp was targetted for three major things:
1) Claiming that his supposed crazy antics were widely supported and liked. That made all of the troops look like thugs, not just a few individuals. The IED victim story was particularly unbelievable in that regard. Two guys telling jokes to each other is one thing. Doing it in front of your entire unit and your NCO? That’s something else entirely.
2) Telling a hollywood-esque extravagant story, which was patently false and contradicted past experience. This was not as big as the first one.
3) Overflow from the anger at TNR and Foer. Unfair, but it did occur.
Beauchamp got busted. He chose to stay in Iraq rather than go home, and the Drudge transcripts show him to be more of a decent guy who seriously screwed up than a jerk. He’s no longer the real focus of the story. Personally, I just hope he comes home in one piece. The new issue is TNR still backing his story.
It really doesn’t matter on the whole matter of Iraq. Just about everyone has already decided their position on Iraq, and the news no longer matters. This is mostly a matter of journalism.
Beauchamp was targetted for three major things:
1) Claiming that his supposed crazy antics were widely supported and liked. That made all of the troops look like thugs, not just a few individuals. The IED victim story was particularly unbelievable in that regard. Two guys telling jokes to each other is one thing. Doing it in front of your entire unit and your NCO? That’s something else entirely.
2) Telling a hollywood-esque extravagant story, which was patently false and contradicted past experience. This was not as big as the first one.
3) Overflow from the anger at TNR and Foer. Unfair, but it did occur.
Beauchamp got busted. He chose to stay in Iraq rather than go home, and the Drudge transcripts show him to be more of a decent guy who seriously screwed up than a jerk. He’s no longer the real focus of the story. Personally, I just hope he comes home in one piece. The new issue is TNR still backing his story.
It really doesn’t matter on the whole matter of Iraq. Just about everyone has already decided their position on Iraq, and the news no longer matters. This is mostly a matter of journalism.
Beauchamp was targetted for three major things:
1) Claiming that his supposed crazy antics were widely supported and liked. That made all of the troops look like thugs, not just a few individuals. The IED victim story was particularly unbelievable in that regard. Two guys telling jokes to each other is one thing. Doing it in front of your entire unit and your NCO? That’s something else entirely.
2) Telling a hollywood-esque extravagant story, which was patently false and contradicted past experience. This was not as big as the first one.
3) Overflow from the anger at TNR and Foer. Unfair, but it did occur.
Beauchamp got busted. He chose to stay in Iraq rather than go home, and the Drudge transcripts show him to be more of a decent guy who seriously screwed up than a jerk. He’s no longer the real focus of the story. Personally, I just hope he comes home in one piece. The new issue is TNR still backing his story.
It really doesn’t matter on the whole matter of Iraq. Just about everyone has already decided their position on Iraq, and the news no longer matters. This is mostly a matter of journalism.
Hmm, I guess the people asserting that Beauchamp has been shown to be lying are going to just stick with that position absent anything solid or even a fair hearing of his side. So this discussion is basically stymied and we should all go on to better things. At least John Cole got a lot of excellent snark out of it.
Hmm, I guess the people asserting that Beauchamp has been shown to be lying are going to just stick with that position absent anything solid or even a fair hearing of his side. So this discussion is basically stymied and we should all go on to better things. At least John Cole got a lot of excellent snark out of it.
Hmm, I guess the people asserting that Beauchamp has been shown to be lying are going to just stick with that position absent anything solid or even a fair hearing of his side. So this discussion is basically stymied and we should all go on to better things. At least John Cole got a lot of excellent snark out of it.
“But, then again, we didn’t give the Gray Lady enough time. I’m sure she would have rather reprinted the Baghdad Diaries than anything to honor Lt. Murphy.”
As I endlessly point out, the NY Times isn’t a unitary being, and has no consciousness; which individuals are you specifically accusing of desiring of being unenthusiastic about printing a story on a Medal of Honor winner, and what evidence do you offer to support your charge against the individuals you have in mind?
Of TNR:
You’re accusing Marty Peretz and TNR, a somewhat neo-conservative, pro-war magazine, of conspiring to publish anti-war material? What would their motivation be? To contradict the magazine’s editorial support of the war?
Let’s go to actual history:
TNR in general.
“Left-wing” thirty-years-plus owner and publisher, and still editor-in-chief of TNR, Marty Peretz, a sample. Marty Peretz in more depth.
TNR:
Etc. HTH.
“But, then again, we didn’t give the Gray Lady enough time. I’m sure she would have rather reprinted the Baghdad Diaries than anything to honor Lt. Murphy.”
As I endlessly point out, the NY Times isn’t a unitary being, and has no consciousness; which individuals are you specifically accusing of desiring of being unenthusiastic about printing a story on a Medal of Honor winner, and what evidence do you offer to support your charge against the individuals you have in mind?
Of TNR:
You’re accusing Marty Peretz and TNR, a somewhat neo-conservative, pro-war magazine, of conspiring to publish anti-war material? What would their motivation be? To contradict the magazine’s editorial support of the war?
Let’s go to actual history:
TNR in general.
“Left-wing” thirty-years-plus owner and publisher, and still editor-in-chief of TNR, Marty Peretz, a sample. Marty Peretz in more depth.
TNR:
Etc. HTH.
“But, then again, we didn’t give the Gray Lady enough time. I’m sure she would have rather reprinted the Baghdad Diaries than anything to honor Lt. Murphy.”
As I endlessly point out, the NY Times isn’t a unitary being, and has no consciousness; which individuals are you specifically accusing of desiring of being unenthusiastic about printing a story on a Medal of Honor winner, and what evidence do you offer to support your charge against the individuals you have in mind?
Of TNR:
You’re accusing Marty Peretz and TNR, a somewhat neo-conservative, pro-war magazine, of conspiring to publish anti-war material? What would their motivation be? To contradict the magazine’s editorial support of the war?
Let’s go to actual history:
TNR in general.
“Left-wing” thirty-years-plus owner and publisher, and still editor-in-chief of TNR, Marty Peretz, a sample. Marty Peretz in more depth.
TNR:
Etc. HTH.
The more I think about this, the more it keeps looking to me like this:
Granting the premise that Beauchamp and his editors are as culpible as their critics say – a premise that I don’t really feel informed about or concerned about – then the major lesson is that supporters of war and occupation have once again been the targets of an effort at deception. I guess I can see why that would make them angry.
It still seems disproportionate to me, but then I’m not the one dealing with a legacy of having been used and lied to about the alleged national interest since sometime in the ’90s. I don’t have a stance that requires me to think each night, “Hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent people are being killed, injured, and scattered to the winds because I swallowed a pack of lies.” I understand the values of symbols and foci, too, having myself sometimes unleashed disproportionate fury on minor targets when big ones seemed out of reach.
The one part I continue to not get is why there are so few on the war side asking anything like, “How did we let ourselves be suckered into trusting these guys in the first place?”, let alone “How can we avoid doing it again in the future?” That’s the part that seems missing, whether it’s an analysis of how Peretz et al have been able to feed bogosities to a willing war-favoring audience in one magazine, or a look at the administration’s favorite rhetorical tricks (used repeatedly – there is a structure there) beef up imaginary or minor threats in public statements, or the warning signs of incompetent people appointed to critical offices, or, well, anything much.
It seems like anyone who actually starts asking serious questions of that personal sort – the ones that run like “how did I…?”, rather than trying to blame others – ends up leaving the war party. To me that means something, but again, it’s not my cause, so maybe there’s something I’m missing.
The more I think about this, the more it keeps looking to me like this:
Granting the premise that Beauchamp and his editors are as culpible as their critics say – a premise that I don’t really feel informed about or concerned about – then the major lesson is that supporters of war and occupation have once again been the targets of an effort at deception. I guess I can see why that would make them angry.
It still seems disproportionate to me, but then I’m not the one dealing with a legacy of having been used and lied to about the alleged national interest since sometime in the ’90s. I don’t have a stance that requires me to think each night, “Hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent people are being killed, injured, and scattered to the winds because I swallowed a pack of lies.” I understand the values of symbols and foci, too, having myself sometimes unleashed disproportionate fury on minor targets when big ones seemed out of reach.
The one part I continue to not get is why there are so few on the war side asking anything like, “How did we let ourselves be suckered into trusting these guys in the first place?”, let alone “How can we avoid doing it again in the future?” That’s the part that seems missing, whether it’s an analysis of how Peretz et al have been able to feed bogosities to a willing war-favoring audience in one magazine, or a look at the administration’s favorite rhetorical tricks (used repeatedly – there is a structure there) beef up imaginary or minor threats in public statements, or the warning signs of incompetent people appointed to critical offices, or, well, anything much.
It seems like anyone who actually starts asking serious questions of that personal sort – the ones that run like “how did I…?”, rather than trying to blame others – ends up leaving the war party. To me that means something, but again, it’s not my cause, so maybe there’s something I’m missing.
The more I think about this, the more it keeps looking to me like this:
Granting the premise that Beauchamp and his editors are as culpible as their critics say – a premise that I don’t really feel informed about or concerned about – then the major lesson is that supporters of war and occupation have once again been the targets of an effort at deception. I guess I can see why that would make them angry.
It still seems disproportionate to me, but then I’m not the one dealing with a legacy of having been used and lied to about the alleged national interest since sometime in the ’90s. I don’t have a stance that requires me to think each night, “Hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent people are being killed, injured, and scattered to the winds because I swallowed a pack of lies.” I understand the values of symbols and foci, too, having myself sometimes unleashed disproportionate fury on minor targets when big ones seemed out of reach.
The one part I continue to not get is why there are so few on the war side asking anything like, “How did we let ourselves be suckered into trusting these guys in the first place?”, let alone “How can we avoid doing it again in the future?” That’s the part that seems missing, whether it’s an analysis of how Peretz et al have been able to feed bogosities to a willing war-favoring audience in one magazine, or a look at the administration’s favorite rhetorical tricks (used repeatedly – there is a structure there) beef up imaginary or minor threats in public statements, or the warning signs of incompetent people appointed to critical offices, or, well, anything much.
It seems like anyone who actually starts asking serious questions of that personal sort – the ones that run like “how did I…?”, rather than trying to blame others – ends up leaving the war party. To me that means something, but again, it’s not my cause, so maybe there’s something I’m missing.
Gary:
“As I endlessly point out, the NY Times isn’t a unitary being, and has no consciousness;”
Is this a liberal version of the Nicene Creed? :).
Your post disproves your own point, I think. That TNR is a left-leaning periodical (as the materials you quote state) is grounds enough for motive.
For further grounds for motive you need look no further than their editorial intent to distance themselves from their earlier stance or to appeal to their readers. TNR took a lot of flack for its pro-war stance. How better to seek forgiveness for their conservative sins and be rebaptized in the waters of liberalism than to run the Baghadad Diaries?
So what do you think, they ran in it SUPPORT of the war?
Gary:
“As I endlessly point out, the NY Times isn’t a unitary being, and has no consciousness;”
Is this a liberal version of the Nicene Creed? :).
Your post disproves your own point, I think. That TNR is a left-leaning periodical (as the materials you quote state) is grounds enough for motive.
For further grounds for motive you need look no further than their editorial intent to distance themselves from their earlier stance or to appeal to their readers. TNR took a lot of flack for its pro-war stance. How better to seek forgiveness for their conservative sins and be rebaptized in the waters of liberalism than to run the Baghadad Diaries?
So what do you think, they ran in it SUPPORT of the war?
Gary:
“As I endlessly point out, the NY Times isn’t a unitary being, and has no consciousness;”
Is this a liberal version of the Nicene Creed? :).
Your post disproves your own point, I think. That TNR is a left-leaning periodical (as the materials you quote state) is grounds enough for motive.
For further grounds for motive you need look no further than their editorial intent to distance themselves from their earlier stance or to appeal to their readers. TNR took a lot of flack for its pro-war stance. How better to seek forgiveness for their conservative sins and be rebaptized in the waters of liberalism than to run the Baghadad Diaries?
So what do you think, they ran in it SUPPORT of the war?
Bruce – I think the short answer to your question is that belief systems tend to be more social than rational.
Bruce – I think the short answer to your question is that belief systems tend to be more social than rational.
Bruce – I think the short answer to your question is that belief systems tend to be more social than rational.
John Cole:
“You are truly magnificent at divining intent. How about an easy test? Right now I am holding up my middle finger. What am I thinking?”
I dunno. Are you really still in high school?
John Cole:
“You are truly magnificent at divining intent. How about an easy test? Right now I am holding up my middle finger. What am I thinking?”
I dunno. Are you really still in high school?
John Cole:
“You are truly magnificent at divining intent. How about an easy test? Right now I am holding up my middle finger. What am I thinking?”
I dunno. Are you really still in high school?
Bill: dr ngo, Is Thailand in the Middle East?
No.
Have you spent time there? (Which was my earlier question.) If not, what is the point here?
Do you merely wish to inject the fact that Muslims have committed atrocities there?
Well, so have Christians in Indonesia, FWIW.
Come to think of it, I don’t recall that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim, but I seem to remember he killed a lot of people in the USA, which some consider a Christian nation.
I trust you are sufficiently consistent (paranoid?) to be equally suspicious and contemptuous of all Christians everywhere.
If not, you’re simply a bigot. (Cf. also Bruce Baugh’s comments, immediately below yours.)
Bill: dr ngo, Is Thailand in the Middle East?
No.
Have you spent time there? (Which was my earlier question.) If not, what is the point here?
Do you merely wish to inject the fact that Muslims have committed atrocities there?
Well, so have Christians in Indonesia, FWIW.
Come to think of it, I don’t recall that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim, but I seem to remember he killed a lot of people in the USA, which some consider a Christian nation.
I trust you are sufficiently consistent (paranoid?) to be equally suspicious and contemptuous of all Christians everywhere.
If not, you’re simply a bigot. (Cf. also Bruce Baugh’s comments, immediately below yours.)
Bill: dr ngo, Is Thailand in the Middle East?
No.
Have you spent time there? (Which was my earlier question.) If not, what is the point here?
Do you merely wish to inject the fact that Muslims have committed atrocities there?
Well, so have Christians in Indonesia, FWIW.
Come to think of it, I don’t recall that Timothy McVeigh was Muslim, but I seem to remember he killed a lot of people in the USA, which some consider a Christian nation.
I trust you are sufficiently consistent (paranoid?) to be equally suspicious and contemptuous of all Christians everywhere.
If not, you’re simply a bigot. (Cf. also Bruce Baugh’s comments, immediately below yours.)
KCinDC:
“again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?”
I’m not sure how you got the impression that i thought it was a “dastardly conspiracy.” But the earlier alleged story did not malign the troops. It did not warrant investigation for that reason alone. I must be missing something because it seems obvious to me. I guess if we had not had all the televised decapitations, etc. it would have stood out more and been subject to investigation.
But soldiers playing with the skulls of Iraqi children? Whole different category. I do acknowledge that there is a tendency to not investigate claims of atrocities by the insurgents by bloggers of the right. I also think, however, the insurgents have earned a right to not be investigated every time they allegedly commit an atrocity.
What’s amazing to me, KCinDC, is that so many poster here (you are excluded from this group) lump me in with the right wing bloggers even though I do not see things that black and white. John’s middle finger is a point in fact. I hadn’t thought through the “James Bond” incident. You made me do that. Although it doesn’t completely change my opinion, it does a little. Thanks.
KCinDC:
“again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?”
I’m not sure how you got the impression that i thought it was a “dastardly conspiracy.” But the earlier alleged story did not malign the troops. It did not warrant investigation for that reason alone. I must be missing something because it seems obvious to me. I guess if we had not had all the televised decapitations, etc. it would have stood out more and been subject to investigation.
But soldiers playing with the skulls of Iraqi children? Whole different category. I do acknowledge that there is a tendency to not investigate claims of atrocities by the insurgents by bloggers of the right. I also think, however, the insurgents have earned a right to not be investigated every time they allegedly commit an atrocity.
What’s amazing to me, KCinDC, is that so many poster here (you are excluded from this group) lump me in with the right wing bloggers even though I do not see things that black and white. John’s middle finger is a point in fact. I hadn’t thought through the “James Bond” incident. You made me do that. Although it doesn’t completely change my opinion, it does a little. Thanks.
KCinDC:
“again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?”
I’m not sure how you got the impression that i thought it was a “dastardly conspiracy.” But the earlier alleged story did not malign the troops. It did not warrant investigation for that reason alone. I must be missing something because it seems obvious to me. I guess if we had not had all the televised decapitations, etc. it would have stood out more and been subject to investigation.
But soldiers playing with the skulls of Iraqi children? Whole different category. I do acknowledge that there is a tendency to not investigate claims of atrocities by the insurgents by bloggers of the right. I also think, however, the insurgents have earned a right to not be investigated every time they allegedly commit an atrocity.
What’s amazing to me, KCinDC, is that so many poster here (you are excluded from this group) lump me in with the right wing bloggers even though I do not see things that black and white. John’s middle finger is a point in fact. I hadn’t thought through the “James Bond” incident. You made me do that. Although it doesn’t completely change my opinion, it does a little. Thanks.
KCinDC:
“again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?”
I’m not sure how you got the impression that i thought it was a “dastardly conspiracy.” But the earlier alleged story did not malign the troops. It did not warrant investigation for that reason alone. I must be missing something because it seems obvious to me. I guess if we had not had all the televised decapitations, etc. it would have stood out more and been subject to investigation.
But soldiers playing with the skulls of Iraqi children? Whole different category. I do acknowledge that there is a tendency to not investigate claims of atrocities by the insurgents by bloggers of the right. I also think, however, the insurgents have earned a right to not be investigated every time they allegedly commit an atrocity.
What’s amazing to me, KCinDC, is that so many poster here (you are excluded from this group) lump me in with the right wing bloggers even though I do not see things that black and white. John’s middle finger is a point in fact. I hadn’t thought through the “James Bond” incident. You made me do that. Although it doesn’t completely change my opinion, it does a little. Thanks.
KCinDC:
“again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?”
I’m not sure how you got the impression that i thought it was a “dastardly conspiracy.” But the earlier alleged story did not malign the troops. It did not warrant investigation for that reason alone. I must be missing something because it seems obvious to me. I guess if we had not had all the televised decapitations, etc. it would have stood out more and been subject to investigation.
But soldiers playing with the skulls of Iraqi children? Whole different category. I do acknowledge that there is a tendency to not investigate claims of atrocities by the insurgents by bloggers of the right. I also think, however, the insurgents have earned a right to not be investigated every time they allegedly commit an atrocity.
What’s amazing to me, KCinDC, is that so many poster here (you are excluded from this group) lump me in with the right wing bloggers even though I do not see things that black and white. John’s middle finger is a point in fact. I hadn’t thought through the “James Bond” incident. You made me do that. Although it doesn’t completely change my opinion, it does a little. Thanks.
KCinDC:
“again, can you expand on exactly what the intended effect on public opinion was, and how the earlier insurgent atrocity story fits into the dastardly conspiracy (by a pro-war publication) to smear our troops?”
I’m not sure how you got the impression that i thought it was a “dastardly conspiracy.” But the earlier alleged story did not malign the troops. It did not warrant investigation for that reason alone. I must be missing something because it seems obvious to me. I guess if we had not had all the televised decapitations, etc. it would have stood out more and been subject to investigation.
But soldiers playing with the skulls of Iraqi children? Whole different category. I do acknowledge that there is a tendency to not investigate claims of atrocities by the insurgents by bloggers of the right. I also think, however, the insurgents have earned a right to not be investigated every time they allegedly commit an atrocity.
What’s amazing to me, KCinDC, is that so many poster here (you are excluded from this group) lump me in with the right wing bloggers even though I do not see things that black and white. John’s middle finger is a point in fact. I hadn’t thought through the “James Bond” incident. You made me do that. Although it doesn’t completely change my opinion, it does a little. Thanks.
But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.
But I have absolutely no interest in disproving any such story, which was the entire point of my comment. I don’t flip out and man the battle stations because some random fluff story might be an insidious work of fiction designed to advance a pro-war agenda. And I don’t know any bloggers on the left who are interested in debunking kitten stories.
But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.
But I have absolutely no interest in disproving any such story, which was the entire point of my comment. I don’t flip out and man the battle stations because some random fluff story might be an insidious work of fiction designed to advance a pro-war agenda. And I don’t know any bloggers on the left who are interested in debunking kitten stories.
But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.
But I have absolutely no interest in disproving any such story, which was the entire point of my comment. I don’t flip out and man the battle stations because some random fluff story might be an insidious work of fiction designed to advance a pro-war agenda. And I don’t know any bloggers on the left who are interested in debunking kitten stories.
My point, bc, is that you seem to be saying the Baghdad Diaries were designed to influence public opinion to oppose the troops and the war, but the earlier story doesn’t fit with that motive — if anything, it works against it. Painting Beauchamp as some sort of anti-troop propagandist doesn’t fit the facts.
I’m glad to have helped you, even though I don’t know what the “James Bond” incident is.
My point, bc, is that you seem to be saying the Baghdad Diaries were designed to influence public opinion to oppose the troops and the war, but the earlier story doesn’t fit with that motive — if anything, it works against it. Painting Beauchamp as some sort of anti-troop propagandist doesn’t fit the facts.
I’m glad to have helped you, even though I don’t know what the “James Bond” incident is.
My point, bc, is that you seem to be saying the Baghdad Diaries were designed to influence public opinion to oppose the troops and the war, but the earlier story doesn’t fit with that motive — if anything, it works against it. Painting Beauchamp as some sort of anti-troop propagandist doesn’t fit the facts.
I’m glad to have helped you, even though I don’t know what the “James Bond” incident is.
“So what do you think, they ran in it SUPPORT of the war?”
I’m inclined to guess that they ran it at least largely for the usual reasons: because they thought it was interesting. In the specific case of this stuff, because it seemed to be interesting color. That Beauchamp’s wife was a TNR fact-checker/employee almost certainly was also a factor.
However accurate or inaccurate — and at least a couple of inaccuracies seem to have occurred — I’m at a loss as to how anything Beauchamp wrote, that has been brought to my attention, reflected particularly on the Army in general, or this war in general. At worst, as others here have pointed out, if taken as accurate, it was reflective of the simple fact that young people in war sometimes engage in black humor, do brutal things, use harsh language, and so on. It’s not exactly an accusation of My Lai. The goings on about what a grave insult it is to every soldier, etc., is just silly huffing and puffing.
The fact is, even occasional atrocities in a war are or would prove nothing particular, absent a specific pattern of larger implication, save that in every war that goes on for a while, statistically there are going to be some atrocities. It’s only if they start to seem systematic, or indicative of larger policies at fault, or the like, that they become meaningfully suggestive of something more than that.
But Beauchamp didn’t even allege some atrocities, even minor or trivial ones. No one died in his stories. No one was even seriously injured.
It’s just allegations of dog-killing and, omg, rudeness, and bad taste.
I feel a faint coming on at the news that anyone in any military might be guilty of such unprecedented, utterly shocking, behavior.
Beauchamp’s stuff was trivia, unnoticed by anyone until your camp did its usual job of unearthing someone no one has heard of to fuel the weekly Two-Minute Hate.
But if you like to imagine hordes of leftist anti-war folks saying “oh, noes, it’s possible that Scott Beauchamp and Franklin Foer may have misled us about whether an anecdote took place in Iraq or Kuwait, and been inaccurate in other details! I must reconsider whether political progress is being made by the Iraqi government!,” then, hey, enjoy.
bc: “I hadn’t thought through the ‘James Bond’ incident.”
What are you referring to there?
“So what do you think, they ran in it SUPPORT of the war?”
I’m inclined to guess that they ran it at least largely for the usual reasons: because they thought it was interesting. In the specific case of this stuff, because it seemed to be interesting color. That Beauchamp’s wife was a TNR fact-checker/employee almost certainly was also a factor.
However accurate or inaccurate — and at least a couple of inaccuracies seem to have occurred — I’m at a loss as to how anything Beauchamp wrote, that has been brought to my attention, reflected particularly on the Army in general, or this war in general. At worst, as others here have pointed out, if taken as accurate, it was reflective of the simple fact that young people in war sometimes engage in black humor, do brutal things, use harsh language, and so on. It’s not exactly an accusation of My Lai. The goings on about what a grave insult it is to every soldier, etc., is just silly huffing and puffing.
The fact is, even occasional atrocities in a war are or would prove nothing particular, absent a specific pattern of larger implication, save that in every war that goes on for a while, statistically there are going to be some atrocities. It’s only if they start to seem systematic, or indicative of larger policies at fault, or the like, that they become meaningfully suggestive of something more than that.
But Beauchamp didn’t even allege some atrocities, even minor or trivial ones. No one died in his stories. No one was even seriously injured.
It’s just allegations of dog-killing and, omg, rudeness, and bad taste.
I feel a faint coming on at the news that anyone in any military might be guilty of such unprecedented, utterly shocking, behavior.
Beauchamp’s stuff was trivia, unnoticed by anyone until your camp did its usual job of unearthing someone no one has heard of to fuel the weekly Two-Minute Hate.
But if you like to imagine hordes of leftist anti-war folks saying “oh, noes, it’s possible that Scott Beauchamp and Franklin Foer may have misled us about whether an anecdote took place in Iraq or Kuwait, and been inaccurate in other details! I must reconsider whether political progress is being made by the Iraqi government!,” then, hey, enjoy.
bc: “I hadn’t thought through the ‘James Bond’ incident.”
What are you referring to there?
“So what do you think, they ran in it SUPPORT of the war?”
I’m inclined to guess that they ran it at least largely for the usual reasons: because they thought it was interesting. In the specific case of this stuff, because it seemed to be interesting color. That Beauchamp’s wife was a TNR fact-checker/employee almost certainly was also a factor.
However accurate or inaccurate — and at least a couple of inaccuracies seem to have occurred — I’m at a loss as to how anything Beauchamp wrote, that has been brought to my attention, reflected particularly on the Army in general, or this war in general. At worst, as others here have pointed out, if taken as accurate, it was reflective of the simple fact that young people in war sometimes engage in black humor, do brutal things, use harsh language, and so on. It’s not exactly an accusation of My Lai. The goings on about what a grave insult it is to every soldier, etc., is just silly huffing and puffing.
The fact is, even occasional atrocities in a war are or would prove nothing particular, absent a specific pattern of larger implication, save that in every war that goes on for a while, statistically there are going to be some atrocities. It’s only if they start to seem systematic, or indicative of larger policies at fault, or the like, that they become meaningfully suggestive of something more than that.
But Beauchamp didn’t even allege some atrocities, even minor or trivial ones. No one died in his stories. No one was even seriously injured.
It’s just allegations of dog-killing and, omg, rudeness, and bad taste.
I feel a faint coming on at the news that anyone in any military might be guilty of such unprecedented, utterly shocking, behavior.
Beauchamp’s stuff was trivia, unnoticed by anyone until your camp did its usual job of unearthing someone no one has heard of to fuel the weekly Two-Minute Hate.
But if you like to imagine hordes of leftist anti-war folks saying “oh, noes, it’s possible that Scott Beauchamp and Franklin Foer may have misled us about whether an anecdote took place in Iraq or Kuwait, and been inaccurate in other details! I must reconsider whether political progress is being made by the Iraqi government!,” then, hey, enjoy.
bc: “I hadn’t thought through the ‘James Bond’ incident.”
What are you referring to there?
Steve:
“I don’t flip out and man the battle stations because some random fluff story might be an insidious work of fiction designed to advance a pro-war agenda.”
Just as I would not flip out and man the battle stations if there were some human interest story on, say, Cindy Sheehan.
“And I don’t know any bloggers on the left who are interested in debunking kitten stories”
But this was no kitten story and the subject being denigrated was the men and women in uniform in a time of war. It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale. I would mostly agree with you if this were a post on a different subject having no bearing on those men and women. It crossed the line.
While the frenzy was perhaps overwrought and continues to be, that is an assessment that can be pointed at both sides. While Milblogs and Malkin went to DefCon one, Lady Liberal protesteth too much.
Steve:
“I don’t flip out and man the battle stations because some random fluff story might be an insidious work of fiction designed to advance a pro-war agenda.”
Just as I would not flip out and man the battle stations if there were some human interest story on, say, Cindy Sheehan.
“And I don’t know any bloggers on the left who are interested in debunking kitten stories”
But this was no kitten story and the subject being denigrated was the men and women in uniform in a time of war. It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale. I would mostly agree with you if this were a post on a different subject having no bearing on those men and women. It crossed the line.
While the frenzy was perhaps overwrought and continues to be, that is an assessment that can be pointed at both sides. While Milblogs and Malkin went to DefCon one, Lady Liberal protesteth too much.
Steve:
“I don’t flip out and man the battle stations because some random fluff story might be an insidious work of fiction designed to advance a pro-war agenda.”
Just as I would not flip out and man the battle stations if there were some human interest story on, say, Cindy Sheehan.
“And I don’t know any bloggers on the left who are interested in debunking kitten stories”
But this was no kitten story and the subject being denigrated was the men and women in uniform in a time of war. It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale. I would mostly agree with you if this were a post on a different subject having no bearing on those men and women. It crossed the line.
While the frenzy was perhaps overwrought and continues to be, that is an assessment that can be pointed at both sides. While Milblogs and Malkin went to DefCon one, Lady Liberal protesteth too much.
bc, note that John Cole is a well-known conservative blogger (and former soldier), notwithstanding his current mission of tearing down the Bushian elements of his party. And a very infrequent commenter here.
bc, note that John Cole is a well-known conservative blogger (and former soldier), notwithstanding his current mission of tearing down the Bushian elements of his party. And a very infrequent commenter here.
bc, note that John Cole is a well-known conservative blogger (and former soldier), notwithstanding his current mission of tearing down the Bushian elements of his party. And a very infrequent commenter here.
KCinDC:
Didn’t the kid say he was called “James Bond?” Other than there was a Beauchamp post about a kid getting his tongue cut off by insurgents, that was the only thing I could remember off the top of my head. Maybe I’m getting that mixed up.
But that incident wasn’t so pro-military as to take any of the sting from his later posts, especially the “children’s skulls” post. Again, I’m not saying conspiracy. But publishing unverified (or not well verified) anti-military drivel is a problem.
KCinDC:
Didn’t the kid say he was called “James Bond?” Other than there was a Beauchamp post about a kid getting his tongue cut off by insurgents, that was the only thing I could remember off the top of my head. Maybe I’m getting that mixed up.
But that incident wasn’t so pro-military as to take any of the sting from his later posts, especially the “children’s skulls” post. Again, I’m not saying conspiracy. But publishing unverified (or not well verified) anti-military drivel is a problem.
KCinDC:
Didn’t the kid say he was called “James Bond?” Other than there was a Beauchamp post about a kid getting his tongue cut off by insurgents, that was the only thing I could remember off the top of my head. Maybe I’m getting that mixed up.
But that incident wasn’t so pro-military as to take any of the sting from his later posts, especially the “children’s skulls” post. Again, I’m not saying conspiracy. But publishing unverified (or not well verified) anti-military drivel is a problem.
“It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
Umm, what?
And compared to the impact of Abu Ghraib? The body armor and armored vehicle revelations? The slow-motion Blackwater catastrophe? The claims that Baghdad is as safe as Indiana? The argument by some conservatives that the troops have failed Bush?
And for that matter, what about the effect of the above post on morale?
“It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
Umm, what?
And compared to the impact of Abu Ghraib? The body armor and armored vehicle revelations? The slow-motion Blackwater catastrophe? The claims that Baghdad is as safe as Indiana? The argument by some conservatives that the troops have failed Bush?
And for that matter, what about the effect of the above post on morale?
“It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
Umm, what?
And compared to the impact of Abu Ghraib? The body armor and armored vehicle revelations? The slow-motion Blackwater catastrophe? The claims that Baghdad is as safe as Indiana? The argument by some conservatives that the troops have failed Bush?
And for that matter, what about the effect of the above post on morale?
“It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
Your evidence for this remarkable assertion is?
“But this was no kitten story and the subject being denigrated was the men and women in uniform in a time of war.”
Just out of curiosity, which years since 1941 would you say were years that were not a “time of war” for “the men and women in uniform” of the United States armed forces?
“It crossed the line.”
For the sake of clarity, could you please state and define the line, and its source, so we can discuss the specifics of this line?
“Lady Liberal protesteth too much”
Who is “Lady Liberal”?
And, tell me, if people didn’t disagree over the grave threat to America’s military effort Scott Beauchamp has been, would you have not said that it proves that the charges are unanswerable, too shameful to be denied, etc.?
“It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
Your evidence for this remarkable assertion is?
“But this was no kitten story and the subject being denigrated was the men and women in uniform in a time of war.”
Just out of curiosity, which years since 1941 would you say were years that were not a “time of war” for “the men and women in uniform” of the United States armed forces?
“It crossed the line.”
For the sake of clarity, could you please state and define the line, and its source, so we can discuss the specifics of this line?
“Lady Liberal protesteth too much”
Who is “Lady Liberal”?
And, tell me, if people didn’t disagree over the grave threat to America’s military effort Scott Beauchamp has been, would you have not said that it proves that the charges are unanswerable, too shameful to be denied, etc.?
“It had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
Your evidence for this remarkable assertion is?
“But this was no kitten story and the subject being denigrated was the men and women in uniform in a time of war.”
Just out of curiosity, which years since 1941 would you say were years that were not a “time of war” for “the men and women in uniform” of the United States armed forces?
“It crossed the line.”
For the sake of clarity, could you please state and define the line, and its source, so we can discuss the specifics of this line?
“Lady Liberal protesteth too much”
Who is “Lady Liberal”?
And, tell me, if people didn’t disagree over the grave threat to America’s military effort Scott Beauchamp has been, would you have not said that it proves that the charges are unanswerable, too shameful to be denied, etc.?
Rilkefan:
Thanks for the info. I generally give former soldiers at least two opportunities to call me a complete and utter idiot and give me the finger before responding.
John: I retract my earlier comment. Seriously. I thought I was in part defending the honor of those that serve and have served. Give me the other finger so I can talk at you again. 🙂
Rilkefan:
Thanks for the info. I generally give former soldiers at least two opportunities to call me a complete and utter idiot and give me the finger before responding.
John: I retract my earlier comment. Seriously. I thought I was in part defending the honor of those that serve and have served. Give me the other finger so I can talk at you again. 🙂
Rilkefan:
Thanks for the info. I generally give former soldiers at least two opportunities to call me a complete and utter idiot and give me the finger before responding.
John: I retract my earlier comment. Seriously. I thought I was in part defending the honor of those that serve and have served. Give me the other finger so I can talk at you again. 🙂
Gary:
Lady Liberal: Just a bad Shakespeare-sort-of-quote. Hamlet. I should have added the “methinks.”
Times of War: You keep bringing this up. I don’t consider the all of the years between 1941 and today to be “years of war” in this sense. I mean men and women posted overseas in danger.
The line: It is Johnny Cash’s line that he walks while dressed in black. It’s just my opinion. What am i supposed to say? It’s the Rose Line meridian? The steel metre bar in France?
rilkefan:
I’m too new here to take a swing at the above post itself and I really don’t have an inclination to. Dogs and children’s skulls are two different things in my book (only my opinion-please no one ask me for empirical evidence!)Abu Ghraib is a point well taken. The armor and other points are apples and oranges but certainly impacted morale.
G’Kar says that he found the actions patently offensive. So I would assume that accusations against his unit would offend him at least. Which goes to the morale point questioned by Gary.
Gary:
Lady Liberal: Just a bad Shakespeare-sort-of-quote. Hamlet. I should have added the “methinks.”
Times of War: You keep bringing this up. I don’t consider the all of the years between 1941 and today to be “years of war” in this sense. I mean men and women posted overseas in danger.
The line: It is Johnny Cash’s line that he walks while dressed in black. It’s just my opinion. What am i supposed to say? It’s the Rose Line meridian? The steel metre bar in France?
rilkefan:
I’m too new here to take a swing at the above post itself and I really don’t have an inclination to. Dogs and children’s skulls are two different things in my book (only my opinion-please no one ask me for empirical evidence!)Abu Ghraib is a point well taken. The armor and other points are apples and oranges but certainly impacted morale.
G’Kar says that he found the actions patently offensive. So I would assume that accusations against his unit would offend him at least. Which goes to the morale point questioned by Gary.
Gary:
Lady Liberal: Just a bad Shakespeare-sort-of-quote. Hamlet. I should have added the “methinks.”
Times of War: You keep bringing this up. I don’t consider the all of the years between 1941 and today to be “years of war” in this sense. I mean men and women posted overseas in danger.
The line: It is Johnny Cash’s line that he walks while dressed in black. It’s just my opinion. What am i supposed to say? It’s the Rose Line meridian? The steel metre bar in France?
rilkefan:
I’m too new here to take a swing at the above post itself and I really don’t have an inclination to. Dogs and children’s skulls are two different things in my book (only my opinion-please no one ask me for empirical evidence!)Abu Ghraib is a point well taken. The armor and other points are apples and oranges but certainly impacted morale.
G’Kar says that he found the actions patently offensive. So I would assume that accusations against his unit would offend him at least. Which goes to the morale point questioned by Gary.
Whenever someone utters the banal phrase “in a time of war,” it’s a good bet they are about to argue that an utterly trivial matter must be treated with the Utmost Solemnity.
Apparently, you would not believe the delicate flowers we send off to defend our freedoms “in a time of war.” Oh, the flagging morale!
Whenever someone utters the banal phrase “in a time of war,” it’s a good bet they are about to argue that an utterly trivial matter must be treated with the Utmost Solemnity.
Apparently, you would not believe the delicate flowers we send off to defend our freedoms “in a time of war.” Oh, the flagging morale!
Whenever someone utters the banal phrase “in a time of war,” it’s a good bet they are about to argue that an utterly trivial matter must be treated with the Utmost Solemnity.
Apparently, you would not believe the delicate flowers we send off to defend our freedoms “in a time of war.” Oh, the flagging morale!
“Times of War: You keep bringing this up. I don’t consider the all of the years between 1941 and today to be ‘years of war’ in this sense. I mean men and women posted overseas in danger.”
Yes. Which years, please, wasn’t this the case?
It’s not a complicated question.
“The line: It is Johnny Cash’s line that he walks while dressed in black. It’s just my opinion. What am i supposed to say? It’s the Rose Line meridian? The steel metre bar in France?”
Ah. I took you to be referring to some sort of objective line, and to be making some sort of criticism beyond “I think that’s wrong.”
Naturally, what you think is or isn’t wrong isn’t arguable.
(Unlike, say, if you had made a factual assertion prefaced by “I think.”)
Does your silence indicate you have none? Is this, too, “just [your] opinion”?
“Times of War: You keep bringing this up. I don’t consider the all of the years between 1941 and today to be ‘years of war’ in this sense. I mean men and women posted overseas in danger.”
Yes. Which years, please, wasn’t this the case?
It’s not a complicated question.
“The line: It is Johnny Cash’s line that he walks while dressed in black. It’s just my opinion. What am i supposed to say? It’s the Rose Line meridian? The steel metre bar in France?”
Ah. I took you to be referring to some sort of objective line, and to be making some sort of criticism beyond “I think that’s wrong.”
Naturally, what you think is or isn’t wrong isn’t arguable.
(Unlike, say, if you had made a factual assertion prefaced by “I think.”)
Does your silence indicate you have none? Is this, too, “just [your] opinion”?
“Times of War: You keep bringing this up. I don’t consider the all of the years between 1941 and today to be ‘years of war’ in this sense. I mean men and women posted overseas in danger.”
Yes. Which years, please, wasn’t this the case?
It’s not a complicated question.
“The line: It is Johnny Cash’s line that he walks while dressed in black. It’s just my opinion. What am i supposed to say? It’s the Rose Line meridian? The steel metre bar in France?”
Ah. I took you to be referring to some sort of objective line, and to be making some sort of criticism beyond “I think that’s wrong.”
Naturally, what you think is or isn’t wrong isn’t arguable.
(Unlike, say, if you had made a factual assertion prefaced by “I think.”)
Does your silence indicate you have none? Is this, too, “just [your] opinion”?
Steve and Gary:
“Whenever someone utters the banal phrase “in a time of war,” it’s a good bet they are about to argue that an utterly trivial matter must be treated with the Utmost Solemnity.”
I don’t consider criticizing the troops in Iraq an utterly trivial matter.
“Which years, please, wasn’t this the case?”
I simply think we should be careful how we criticize troops especially when they are in harm’s way. Why is everyone picking this apart? Is it really too much to ask? And yes, Gary, without my ready reference guide to the U.S. at war since 1941, I recognize that there have always been troops posted overseas. I understand your point. I wouldn’t have the same problem with criticizing troops stationed at Ft. Benning as I would troops stationed near the DMZ in Korea.
The line: O.K. Gary, I draw the line at alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true. I’m sure your line has a longitude and latitude.
In terms of morale, that’s too obvious to bother to comment.
Steve and Gary:
“Whenever someone utters the banal phrase “in a time of war,” it’s a good bet they are about to argue that an utterly trivial matter must be treated with the Utmost Solemnity.”
I don’t consider criticizing the troops in Iraq an utterly trivial matter.
“Which years, please, wasn’t this the case?”
I simply think we should be careful how we criticize troops especially when they are in harm’s way. Why is everyone picking this apart? Is it really too much to ask? And yes, Gary, without my ready reference guide to the U.S. at war since 1941, I recognize that there have always been troops posted overseas. I understand your point. I wouldn’t have the same problem with criticizing troops stationed at Ft. Benning as I would troops stationed near the DMZ in Korea.
The line: O.K. Gary, I draw the line at alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true. I’m sure your line has a longitude and latitude.
In terms of morale, that’s too obvious to bother to comment.
Steve and Gary:
“Whenever someone utters the banal phrase “in a time of war,” it’s a good bet they are about to argue that an utterly trivial matter must be treated with the Utmost Solemnity.”
I don’t consider criticizing the troops in Iraq an utterly trivial matter.
“Which years, please, wasn’t this the case?”
I simply think we should be careful how we criticize troops especially when they are in harm’s way. Why is everyone picking this apart? Is it really too much to ask? And yes, Gary, without my ready reference guide to the U.S. at war since 1941, I recognize that there have always been troops posted overseas. I understand your point. I wouldn’t have the same problem with criticizing troops stationed at Ft. Benning as I would troops stationed near the DMZ in Korea.
The line: O.K. Gary, I draw the line at alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true. I’m sure your line has a longitude and latitude.
In terms of morale, that’s too obvious to bother to comment.
bc: I give you credit for not side-stepping the issue completely. The gratuitous comments on other lying aside
Gratuitous? You brought the subject of Bush’s desertion and lies about it to the table.
at least we can agree that what Beauchamp allegedly did was unseemly
I suppose so, if your argument is that it’s unseemly to permit soldiers to say anything while they’re on active service. But the behavior Beauchamp described went far beyond unseemly.
bc: I simply think we should be careful how we criticize troops especially when they are in harm’s way. Why is everyone picking this apart? Is it really too much to ask?
Well, from Rush Limbaugh it is: he thinks it’s OK to call soldiers currently on active service “phony soldiers”. I take it you’ve joined the campaign to have advertisers withdraw from Rush Limbaugh’s show, and to have Limbaugh taken off the radio channel for the services, since that’s a far more serious criticism, far more carelessly expressed?
On to serious matters:
The Republicans representing the party in the Houses think it’s okay to keep soldiers in Iraq on active service without any real break: they voted down an Act that would have required National Guard soldiers to have at least a year’s break if they were in Iraq for a year. This has many results, most of them IMO far more serious than the specific issue of “Is a soldier currently serving in Iraq allowed to criticize the behavior of other soldiers serving in Iraq?” but in the situation that the Republicans have set up, if it’s argued that a soldier currently serving mustn’t be publicly criticized (except, of course, by Rush Limbaugh) then when, exactly, can foul behavior of the kind Beauchamp describes be criticized?
bc: I give you credit for not side-stepping the issue completely. The gratuitous comments on other lying aside
Gratuitous? You brought the subject of Bush’s desertion and lies about it to the table.
at least we can agree that what Beauchamp allegedly did was unseemly
I suppose so, if your argument is that it’s unseemly to permit soldiers to say anything while they’re on active service. But the behavior Beauchamp described went far beyond unseemly.
bc: I simply think we should be careful how we criticize troops especially when they are in harm’s way. Why is everyone picking this apart? Is it really too much to ask?
Well, from Rush Limbaugh it is: he thinks it’s OK to call soldiers currently on active service “phony soldiers”. I take it you’ve joined the campaign to have advertisers withdraw from Rush Limbaugh’s show, and to have Limbaugh taken off the radio channel for the services, since that’s a far more serious criticism, far more carelessly expressed?
On to serious matters:
The Republicans representing the party in the Houses think it’s okay to keep soldiers in Iraq on active service without any real break: they voted down an Act that would have required National Guard soldiers to have at least a year’s break if they were in Iraq for a year. This has many results, most of them IMO far more serious than the specific issue of “Is a soldier currently serving in Iraq allowed to criticize the behavior of other soldiers serving in Iraq?” but in the situation that the Republicans have set up, if it’s argued that a soldier currently serving mustn’t be publicly criticized (except, of course, by Rush Limbaugh) then when, exactly, can foul behavior of the kind Beauchamp describes be criticized?
bc: I give you credit for not side-stepping the issue completely. The gratuitous comments on other lying aside
Gratuitous? You brought the subject of Bush’s desertion and lies about it to the table.
at least we can agree that what Beauchamp allegedly did was unseemly
I suppose so, if your argument is that it’s unseemly to permit soldiers to say anything while they’re on active service. But the behavior Beauchamp described went far beyond unseemly.
bc: I simply think we should be careful how we criticize troops especially when they are in harm’s way. Why is everyone picking this apart? Is it really too much to ask?
Well, from Rush Limbaugh it is: he thinks it’s OK to call soldiers currently on active service “phony soldiers”. I take it you’ve joined the campaign to have advertisers withdraw from Rush Limbaugh’s show, and to have Limbaugh taken off the radio channel for the services, since that’s a far more serious criticism, far more carelessly expressed?
On to serious matters:
The Republicans representing the party in the Houses think it’s okay to keep soldiers in Iraq on active service without any real break: they voted down an Act that would have required National Guard soldiers to have at least a year’s break if they were in Iraq for a year. This has many results, most of them IMO far more serious than the specific issue of “Is a soldier currently serving in Iraq allowed to criticize the behavior of other soldiers serving in Iraq?” but in the situation that the Republicans have set up, if it’s argued that a soldier currently serving mustn’t be publicly criticized (except, of course, by Rush Limbaugh) then when, exactly, can foul behavior of the kind Beauchamp describes be criticized?
“And yes, Gary, without my ready reference guide to the U.S. at war since 1941, I recognize that there have always been troops posted overseas. I understand your point.”
No, you don’t, since it’s as regards our forces fighting overseas.
And are you seriously admitting that you have no idea which years since 1941 the U.S. has had significant forces fighting? It’s elementary recent history. You can’t say off the top of your head? But you feel “in a time of war” is a useful piece of information to emphasize? But you don’t know when that time has and hasn’t been in people’s current lifetime?
Ok.
“I don’t consider criticizing the troops in Iraq an utterly trivial matter.”
Which piece of text “criticizing the troops” do you have in mind?
You previously wrote:
Now:
I note the non-sequitur response to a perfectly simple question.
I “keep bringing this up “only in response to your repeatedly bringing it up by your repeatedly using the term, to explain this frighteningly complex and confusing mystery that so puzzles you.
That tends to be how conversation works, you know: one person says something, the other person asks about it.
Repetition is prevented by that person answering the question.
If, instead, they ignore the question, and repeat the phrase, yes, the question may be asked of them again.
As a rule, a response of “why do you keep asking me that?” isn’t inappropriately answered with “because you keep not answering.”
You’ld have been welcome to break this cyle by answering the question, but you seem to genuinely not know the answer, which does explain your emphasis on the point.
“The line: O.K. Gary, I draw the line at alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true.”
You “draw the line,” which you’ve now defined as “just [your] opinion,” so, hey, since all you’re saying is “I disaprove of alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true,” and I’ll go way out there and confess that, I too, disaprove of that. And of lying in general.
And if Beauchamp lied about that, well, shame on Beauchamp.
Controversial, that is not.
“In terms of morale, that’s too obvious to bother to comment.”
Ah, yes, you can’t answer a simple question again, and can’t support your simplest assertions, which is to say, “[Beauchamp] had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
If it’s true, you can give some, you know, evidence that it’s true.
Maybe in your circles, an airy “that’s too obvious to bother to comment” passes for support for an argument, but if that’s what you want to leave as your support for your assertion, fine, let that speak for you.
“And yes, Gary, without my ready reference guide to the U.S. at war since 1941, I recognize that there have always been troops posted overseas. I understand your point.”
No, you don’t, since it’s as regards our forces fighting overseas.
And are you seriously admitting that you have no idea which years since 1941 the U.S. has had significant forces fighting? It’s elementary recent history. You can’t say off the top of your head? But you feel “in a time of war” is a useful piece of information to emphasize? But you don’t know when that time has and hasn’t been in people’s current lifetime?
Ok.
“I don’t consider criticizing the troops in Iraq an utterly trivial matter.”
Which piece of text “criticizing the troops” do you have in mind?
You previously wrote:
Now:
I note the non-sequitur response to a perfectly simple question.
I “keep bringing this up “only in response to your repeatedly bringing it up by your repeatedly using the term, to explain this frighteningly complex and confusing mystery that so puzzles you.
That tends to be how conversation works, you know: one person says something, the other person asks about it.
Repetition is prevented by that person answering the question.
If, instead, they ignore the question, and repeat the phrase, yes, the question may be asked of them again.
As a rule, a response of “why do you keep asking me that?” isn’t inappropriately answered with “because you keep not answering.”
You’ld have been welcome to break this cyle by answering the question, but you seem to genuinely not know the answer, which does explain your emphasis on the point.
“The line: O.K. Gary, I draw the line at alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true.”
You “draw the line,” which you’ve now defined as “just [your] opinion,” so, hey, since all you’re saying is “I disaprove of alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true,” and I’ll go way out there and confess that, I too, disaprove of that. And of lying in general.
And if Beauchamp lied about that, well, shame on Beauchamp.
Controversial, that is not.
“In terms of morale, that’s too obvious to bother to comment.”
Ah, yes, you can’t answer a simple question again, and can’t support your simplest assertions, which is to say, “[Beauchamp] had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
If it’s true, you can give some, you know, evidence that it’s true.
Maybe in your circles, an airy “that’s too obvious to bother to comment” passes for support for an argument, but if that’s what you want to leave as your support for your assertion, fine, let that speak for you.
“And yes, Gary, without my ready reference guide to the U.S. at war since 1941, I recognize that there have always been troops posted overseas. I understand your point.”
No, you don’t, since it’s as regards our forces fighting overseas.
And are you seriously admitting that you have no idea which years since 1941 the U.S. has had significant forces fighting? It’s elementary recent history. You can’t say off the top of your head? But you feel “in a time of war” is a useful piece of information to emphasize? But you don’t know when that time has and hasn’t been in people’s current lifetime?
Ok.
“I don’t consider criticizing the troops in Iraq an utterly trivial matter.”
Which piece of text “criticizing the troops” do you have in mind?
You previously wrote:
Now:
I note the non-sequitur response to a perfectly simple question.
I “keep bringing this up “only in response to your repeatedly bringing it up by your repeatedly using the term, to explain this frighteningly complex and confusing mystery that so puzzles you.
That tends to be how conversation works, you know: one person says something, the other person asks about it.
Repetition is prevented by that person answering the question.
If, instead, they ignore the question, and repeat the phrase, yes, the question may be asked of them again.
As a rule, a response of “why do you keep asking me that?” isn’t inappropriately answered with “because you keep not answering.”
You’ld have been welcome to break this cyle by answering the question, but you seem to genuinely not know the answer, which does explain your emphasis on the point.
“The line: O.K. Gary, I draw the line at alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true.”
You “draw the line,” which you’ve now defined as “just [your] opinion,” so, hey, since all you’re saying is “I disaprove of alleging troops played soccer with the skull of a dead civilian when it is not true,” and I’ll go way out there and confess that, I too, disaprove of that. And of lying in general.
And if Beauchamp lied about that, well, shame on Beauchamp.
Controversial, that is not.
“In terms of morale, that’s too obvious to bother to comment.”
Ah, yes, you can’t answer a simple question again, and can’t support your simplest assertions, which is to say, “[Beauchamp] had a real impact on those men and women in terms of morale.”
If it’s true, you can give some, you know, evidence that it’s true.
Maybe in your circles, an airy “that’s too obvious to bother to comment” passes for support for an argument, but if that’s what you want to leave as your support for your assertion, fine, let that speak for you.
could we shift the debate a bit here?
i want to ask: what so bad about the dolchstosslegende?
that it’s hard to spell? nah–lots of hard words name good things.
that it’s german? nah–oktoberfest! hefeweizen!
that the nazi’s ran with it? nah–too much like “hitler was a vegetarian”. after you show the nazis did something, you still have to show it was wrong, apart from that.
so what’s wrong with it, in the end?
two things come to my mind,
but i’d really like hilz or pubs or someone to do a front-pager on it, because it is worth thinking about more generally. so this is just to get the ball rolling.
1) it furthers a destructive culture-war that is left over from the sixties and has little relevance to the problems america faces.
the sixties were a bad time, kiddies, and the misbehavior of some parts of the left were real, even if exaggerated in reports. there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
it’s hard to believe, because seems so stoopid, but i was there, and i can vouch for it.
it’s also hard to believe because nobody thinks that way anymore. no one on the left, certainly in left blogistan or the left wing of the democratic party, feels that way any longer. you’d have to travel to the left of the left of the wacked-out weirdistan to find that sort of reflex troop-hatred any longer.
and yet it is that caricature of leftists as troop-haters, left over from a time when most troops and most bloggers were not even alive, that is still corrupting this debate. time to get over it, folks, and the stab-in-the-back myth isn’t helping.
2) accountability.
the worst thing about the stab-in-the-back myth is that it blinds people to who caused what. it shifts responsibility from the real actors to a bunch of non-actors. and so it exculpates people who really are guilty, and should be held to account.
if you want to find sixties-era draft-dodgers at work betraying our troops, look no further than bush and cheney. they are the ones who ignored the advice of military experts–shinseki, for instance–and sent our troops overseas without enough manpower or equipment. they left vital ammunition dumps unguarded in the early months of the war so that the insurgent looters could get a near limitless supply of raw materials for ieds.
they controlled every phase of this war. they dreamed it up and planned it. they got a blank check from the american people, the left included. no one stood in their way, denied them anything they asked for, or made their jobs harder.
and they made a giant catastrophe out of it.
now, they would like to dodge the responsibility for the disaster they created. and back-stabbers like bob owens, yon, and bc are helping to grant amnesty to these people.
the stab-in-the-back myth is wrong because it places blame where blame should not go, and indeed cannot go: on people who had no control over the events, and no influence on them.
and it is wrong because it gives a free pass to the people who should be held accountable, and does the dirty political work of letting them off the hook.
could we shift the debate a bit here?
i want to ask: what so bad about the dolchstosslegende?
that it’s hard to spell? nah–lots of hard words name good things.
that it’s german? nah–oktoberfest! hefeweizen!
that the nazi’s ran with it? nah–too much like “hitler was a vegetarian”. after you show the nazis did something, you still have to show it was wrong, apart from that.
so what’s wrong with it, in the end?
two things come to my mind,
but i’d really like hilz or pubs or someone to do a front-pager on it, because it is worth thinking about more generally. so this is just to get the ball rolling.
1) it furthers a destructive culture-war that is left over from the sixties and has little relevance to the problems america faces.
the sixties were a bad time, kiddies, and the misbehavior of some parts of the left were real, even if exaggerated in reports. there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
it’s hard to believe, because seems so stoopid, but i was there, and i can vouch for it.
it’s also hard to believe because nobody thinks that way anymore. no one on the left, certainly in left blogistan or the left wing of the democratic party, feels that way any longer. you’d have to travel to the left of the left of the wacked-out weirdistan to find that sort of reflex troop-hatred any longer.
and yet it is that caricature of leftists as troop-haters, left over from a time when most troops and most bloggers were not even alive, that is still corrupting this debate. time to get over it, folks, and the stab-in-the-back myth isn’t helping.
2) accountability.
the worst thing about the stab-in-the-back myth is that it blinds people to who caused what. it shifts responsibility from the real actors to a bunch of non-actors. and so it exculpates people who really are guilty, and should be held to account.
if you want to find sixties-era draft-dodgers at work betraying our troops, look no further than bush and cheney. they are the ones who ignored the advice of military experts–shinseki, for instance–and sent our troops overseas without enough manpower or equipment. they left vital ammunition dumps unguarded in the early months of the war so that the insurgent looters could get a near limitless supply of raw materials for ieds.
they controlled every phase of this war. they dreamed it up and planned it. they got a blank check from the american people, the left included. no one stood in their way, denied them anything they asked for, or made their jobs harder.
and they made a giant catastrophe out of it.
now, they would like to dodge the responsibility for the disaster they created. and back-stabbers like bob owens, yon, and bc are helping to grant amnesty to these people.
the stab-in-the-back myth is wrong because it places blame where blame should not go, and indeed cannot go: on people who had no control over the events, and no influence on them.
and it is wrong because it gives a free pass to the people who should be held accountable, and does the dirty political work of letting them off the hook.
could we shift the debate a bit here?
i want to ask: what so bad about the dolchstosslegende?
that it’s hard to spell? nah–lots of hard words name good things.
that it’s german? nah–oktoberfest! hefeweizen!
that the nazi’s ran with it? nah–too much like “hitler was a vegetarian”. after you show the nazis did something, you still have to show it was wrong, apart from that.
so what’s wrong with it, in the end?
two things come to my mind,
but i’d really like hilz or pubs or someone to do a front-pager on it, because it is worth thinking about more generally. so this is just to get the ball rolling.
1) it furthers a destructive culture-war that is left over from the sixties and has little relevance to the problems america faces.
the sixties were a bad time, kiddies, and the misbehavior of some parts of the left were real, even if exaggerated in reports. there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
it’s hard to believe, because seems so stoopid, but i was there, and i can vouch for it.
it’s also hard to believe because nobody thinks that way anymore. no one on the left, certainly in left blogistan or the left wing of the democratic party, feels that way any longer. you’d have to travel to the left of the left of the wacked-out weirdistan to find that sort of reflex troop-hatred any longer.
and yet it is that caricature of leftists as troop-haters, left over from a time when most troops and most bloggers were not even alive, that is still corrupting this debate. time to get over it, folks, and the stab-in-the-back myth isn’t helping.
2) accountability.
the worst thing about the stab-in-the-back myth is that it blinds people to who caused what. it shifts responsibility from the real actors to a bunch of non-actors. and so it exculpates people who really are guilty, and should be held to account.
if you want to find sixties-era draft-dodgers at work betraying our troops, look no further than bush and cheney. they are the ones who ignored the advice of military experts–shinseki, for instance–and sent our troops overseas without enough manpower or equipment. they left vital ammunition dumps unguarded in the early months of the war so that the insurgent looters could get a near limitless supply of raw materials for ieds.
they controlled every phase of this war. they dreamed it up and planned it. they got a blank check from the american people, the left included. no one stood in their way, denied them anything they asked for, or made their jobs harder.
and they made a giant catastrophe out of it.
now, they would like to dodge the responsibility for the disaster they created. and back-stabbers like bob owens, yon, and bc are helping to grant amnesty to these people.
the stab-in-the-back myth is wrong because it places blame where blame should not go, and indeed cannot go: on people who had no control over the events, and no influence on them.
and it is wrong because it gives a free pass to the people who should be held accountable, and does the dirty political work of letting them off the hook.
could we shift the debate a bit here?
i want to ask: what so bad about the dolchstosslegende?
that it’s hard to spell? nah–lots of hard words name good things.
that it’s german? nah–oktoberfest! hefeweizen!
that the nazi’s ran with it? nah–too much like “hitler was a vegetarian”. after you show the nazis did something, you still have to show it was wrong, apart from that.
so what’s wrong with it, in the end?
two things come to my mind,
but i’d really like hilz or pubs or someone to do a front-pager on it, because it is worth thinking about more generally. so this is just to get the ball rolling.
1) it furthers a destructive culture-war that is left over from the sixties and has little relevance to the problems america faces.
the sixties were a bad time, kiddies, and the misbehavior of some parts of the left were real, even if exaggerated in reports. there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
it’s hard to believe, because seems so stoopid, but i was there, and i can vouch for it.
it’s also hard to believe because nobody thinks that way anymore. no one on the left, certainly in left blogistan or the left wing of the democratic party, feels that way any longer. you’d have to travel to the left of the left of the wacked-out weirdistan to find that sort of reflex troop-hatred any longer.
and yet it is that caricature of leftists as troop-haters, left over from a time when most troops and most bloggers were not even alive, that is still corrupting this debate. time to get over it, folks, and the stab-in-the-back myth isn’t helping.
2) accountability.
the worst thing about the stab-in-the-back myth is that it blinds people to who caused what. it shifts responsibility from the real actors to a bunch of non-actors. and so it exculpates people who really are guilty, and should be held to account.
if you want to find sixties-era draft-dodgers at work betraying our troops, look no further than bush and cheney. they are the ones who ignored the advice of military experts–shinseki, for instance–and sent our troops overseas without enough manpower or equipment. they left vital ammunition dumps unguarded in the early months of the war so that the insurgent looters could get a near limitless supply of raw materials for ieds.
they controlled every phase of this war. they dreamed it up and planned it. they got a blank check from the american people, the left included. no one stood in their way, denied them anything they asked for, or made their jobs harder.
and they made a giant catastrophe out of it.
now, they would like to dodge the responsibility for the disaster they created. and back-stabbers like bob owens, yon, and bc are helping to grant amnesty to these people.
the stab-in-the-back myth is wrong because it places blame where blame should not go, and indeed cannot go: on people who had no control over the events, and no influence on them.
and it is wrong because it gives a free pass to the people who should be held accountable, and does the dirty political work of letting them off the hook.
could we shift the debate a bit here?
i want to ask: what so bad about the dolchstosslegende?
that it’s hard to spell? nah–lots of hard words name good things.
that it’s german? nah–oktoberfest! hefeweizen!
that the nazi’s ran with it? nah–too much like “hitler was a vegetarian”. after you show the nazis did something, you still have to show it was wrong, apart from that.
so what’s wrong with it, in the end?
two things come to my mind,
but i’d really like hilz or pubs or someone to do a front-pager on it, because it is worth thinking about more generally. so this is just to get the ball rolling.
1) it furthers a destructive culture-war that is left over from the sixties and has little relevance to the problems america faces.
the sixties were a bad time, kiddies, and the misbehavior of some parts of the left were real, even if exaggerated in reports. there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
it’s hard to believe, because seems so stoopid, but i was there, and i can vouch for it.
it’s also hard to believe because nobody thinks that way anymore. no one on the left, certainly in left blogistan or the left wing of the democratic party, feels that way any longer. you’d have to travel to the left of the left of the wacked-out weirdistan to find that sort of reflex troop-hatred any longer.
and yet it is that caricature of leftists as troop-haters, left over from a time when most troops and most bloggers were not even alive, that is still corrupting this debate. time to get over it, folks, and the stab-in-the-back myth isn’t helping.
2) accountability.
the worst thing about the stab-in-the-back myth is that it blinds people to who caused what. it shifts responsibility from the real actors to a bunch of non-actors. and so it exculpates people who really are guilty, and should be held to account.
if you want to find sixties-era draft-dodgers at work betraying our troops, look no further than bush and cheney. they are the ones who ignored the advice of military experts–shinseki, for instance–and sent our troops overseas without enough manpower or equipment. they left vital ammunition dumps unguarded in the early months of the war so that the insurgent looters could get a near limitless supply of raw materials for ieds.
they controlled every phase of this war. they dreamed it up and planned it. they got a blank check from the american people, the left included. no one stood in their way, denied them anything they asked for, or made their jobs harder.
and they made a giant catastrophe out of it.
now, they would like to dodge the responsibility for the disaster they created. and back-stabbers like bob owens, yon, and bc are helping to grant amnesty to these people.
the stab-in-the-back myth is wrong because it places blame where blame should not go, and indeed cannot go: on people who had no control over the events, and no influence on them.
and it is wrong because it gives a free pass to the people who should be held accountable, and does the dirty political work of letting them off the hook.
could we shift the debate a bit here?
i want to ask: what so bad about the dolchstosslegende?
that it’s hard to spell? nah–lots of hard words name good things.
that it’s german? nah–oktoberfest! hefeweizen!
that the nazi’s ran with it? nah–too much like “hitler was a vegetarian”. after you show the nazis did something, you still have to show it was wrong, apart from that.
so what’s wrong with it, in the end?
two things come to my mind,
but i’d really like hilz or pubs or someone to do a front-pager on it, because it is worth thinking about more generally. so this is just to get the ball rolling.
1) it furthers a destructive culture-war that is left over from the sixties and has little relevance to the problems america faces.
the sixties were a bad time, kiddies, and the misbehavior of some parts of the left were real, even if exaggerated in reports. there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
it’s hard to believe, because seems so stoopid, but i was there, and i can vouch for it.
it’s also hard to believe because nobody thinks that way anymore. no one on the left, certainly in left blogistan or the left wing of the democratic party, feels that way any longer. you’d have to travel to the left of the left of the wacked-out weirdistan to find that sort of reflex troop-hatred any longer.
and yet it is that caricature of leftists as troop-haters, left over from a time when most troops and most bloggers were not even alive, that is still corrupting this debate. time to get over it, folks, and the stab-in-the-back myth isn’t helping.
2) accountability.
the worst thing about the stab-in-the-back myth is that it blinds people to who caused what. it shifts responsibility from the real actors to a bunch of non-actors. and so it exculpates people who really are guilty, and should be held to account.
if you want to find sixties-era draft-dodgers at work betraying our troops, look no further than bush and cheney. they are the ones who ignored the advice of military experts–shinseki, for instance–and sent our troops overseas without enough manpower or equipment. they left vital ammunition dumps unguarded in the early months of the war so that the insurgent looters could get a near limitless supply of raw materials for ieds.
they controlled every phase of this war. they dreamed it up and planned it. they got a blank check from the american people, the left included. no one stood in their way, denied them anything they asked for, or made their jobs harder.
and they made a giant catastrophe out of it.
now, they would like to dodge the responsibility for the disaster they created. and back-stabbers like bob owens, yon, and bc are helping to grant amnesty to these people.
the stab-in-the-back myth is wrong because it places blame where blame should not go, and indeed cannot go: on people who had no control over the events, and no influence on them.
and it is wrong because it gives a free pass to the people who should be held accountable, and does the dirty political work of letting them off the hook.
and if i don’t see a good front-pager on this, i’ll post it again, dammit!
(i.e., sorry for the double post, please delete one.)
and if i don’t see a good front-pager on this, i’ll post it again, dammit!
(i.e., sorry for the double post, please delete one.)
and if i don’t see a good front-pager on this, i’ll post it again, dammit!
(i.e., sorry for the double post, please delete one.)
kid: there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
Can you vouch for it because you were there, part of the anti-war movement, hearing your fellow anti-war protesters saying these things, or because you were there, reading in the papers that anti-war protesters (“leftists”) were saying these things?
kid: there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
Can you vouch for it because you were there, part of the anti-war movement, hearing your fellow anti-war protesters saying these things, or because you were there, reading in the papers that anti-war protesters (“leftists”) were saying these things?
kid: there really were leftists back then who hated and despised american troops without thinking, who made no distinction between war crimes and honorable military conduct, who did not think that there was any role for a professional military in our country.
Can you vouch for it because you were there, part of the anti-war movement, hearing your fellow anti-war protesters saying these things, or because you were there, reading in the papers that anti-war protesters (“leftists”) were saying these things?
Donald Johnson,
“BTW, bc, the reason the New Republic isn’t regarded as leftwing by lefties is because of the positions they’ve taken over the years. Pro-contra, for instance. Pro Iraq war. The phrase “even the liberal New Republic” started out as an argument and ended up as a joke.”
I would add to that list Martin Peretz’s choices of editors (Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly are few people’s idea of left-wingers), as well as domestic positions they have taken (praising The Bell Curve, or doing a hit piece on the Clinton Health Plan, both under Sullivan).
Donald Johnson,
“BTW, bc, the reason the New Republic isn’t regarded as leftwing by lefties is because of the positions they’ve taken over the years. Pro-contra, for instance. Pro Iraq war. The phrase “even the liberal New Republic” started out as an argument and ended up as a joke.”
I would add to that list Martin Peretz’s choices of editors (Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly are few people’s idea of left-wingers), as well as domestic positions they have taken (praising The Bell Curve, or doing a hit piece on the Clinton Health Plan, both under Sullivan).
Donald Johnson,
“BTW, bc, the reason the New Republic isn’t regarded as leftwing by lefties is because of the positions they’ve taken over the years. Pro-contra, for instance. Pro Iraq war. The phrase “even the liberal New Republic” started out as an argument and ended up as a joke.”
I would add to that list Martin Peretz’s choices of editors (Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly are few people’s idea of left-wingers), as well as domestic positions they have taken (praising The Bell Curve, or doing a hit piece on the Clinton Health Plan, both under Sullivan).
Thanks dantheman. I actually thought of mentioning the same two examples–sympathetic treatment of the Bell Curve and the hit piece on the Clinton health plan–but my memory of the details is foggy. Gary also supplied a list of links that show why lefties don’t consider TNR leftist, and bc’s reaction didn’t demonstrate that he’d paid any attention to the arguments.
Thanks dantheman. I actually thought of mentioning the same two examples–sympathetic treatment of the Bell Curve and the hit piece on the Clinton health plan–but my memory of the details is foggy. Gary also supplied a list of links that show why lefties don’t consider TNR leftist, and bc’s reaction didn’t demonstrate that he’d paid any attention to the arguments.
Thanks dantheman. I actually thought of mentioning the same two examples–sympathetic treatment of the Bell Curve and the hit piece on the Clinton health plan–but my memory of the details is foggy. Gary also supplied a list of links that show why lefties don’t consider TNR leftist, and bc’s reaction didn’t demonstrate that he’d paid any attention to the arguments.
DJ,
I know, but both you and Gary focused on foreign policy matters, especially Iran. If TNR were otherwise reliably liberal but supported the war, the “Even the liberal TNR” meme would have some merit. As the record shows, this meme is about as accurate as most conservative complaints about the SCLM — not very.
DJ,
I know, but both you and Gary focused on foreign policy matters, especially Iran. If TNR were otherwise reliably liberal but supported the war, the “Even the liberal TNR” meme would have some merit. As the record shows, this meme is about as accurate as most conservative complaints about the SCLM — not very.
DJ,
I know, but both you and Gary focused on foreign policy matters, especially Iran. If TNR were otherwise reliably liberal but supported the war, the “Even the liberal TNR” meme would have some merit. As the record shows, this meme is about as accurate as most conservative complaints about the SCLM — not very.
“Can you vouch for it because you were there, part of the anti-war movement, hearing your fellow anti-war protesters saying these things, or because you were there, reading in the papers that anti-war protesters (“leftists”) were saying these things?”
Please try to keep up. We established way up-thread that “journalists” (or authors of pieces in well-known magazines) have no responsibility to offer any evidence for their assertions. Certainly commenters can be held to the same (low) standard.
“Can you vouch for it because you were there, part of the anti-war movement, hearing your fellow anti-war protesters saying these things, or because you were there, reading in the papers that anti-war protesters (“leftists”) were saying these things?”
Please try to keep up. We established way up-thread that “journalists” (or authors of pieces in well-known magazines) have no responsibility to offer any evidence for their assertions. Certainly commenters can be held to the same (low) standard.
“Can you vouch for it because you were there, part of the anti-war movement, hearing your fellow anti-war protesters saying these things, or because you were there, reading in the papers that anti-war protesters (“leftists”) were saying these things?”
Please try to keep up. We established way up-thread that “journalists” (or authors of pieces in well-known magazines) have no responsibility to offer any evidence for their assertions. Certainly commenters can be held to the same (low) standard.
Of two options, Crimso, I wondered which. (Or a third option that hasn’t occurred to me.) Kid themself claimed “i was there, and i can vouch for it”: I would like to know which “I was there” they meant.
Of two options, Crimso, I wondered which. (Or a third option that hasn’t occurred to me.) Kid themself claimed “i was there, and i can vouch for it”: I would like to know which “I was there” they meant.
Of two options, Crimso, I wondered which. (Or a third option that hasn’t occurred to me.) Kid themself claimed “i was there, and i can vouch for it”: I would like to know which “I was there” they meant.
We established way up-thread that “journalists” (or authors of pieces in well-known magazines) have no responsibility to offer any evidence for their assertions.
what was established (asserted, rather) was that magazines don’t have any obligation to give up their sources to whiny-ass rightwing bloggers just to prevent said bloggers from stomping their little feet and crying “Treason!” till they nearly burst their lungs.
We established way up-thread that “journalists” (or authors of pieces in well-known magazines) have no responsibility to offer any evidence for their assertions.
what was established (asserted, rather) was that magazines don’t have any obligation to give up their sources to whiny-ass rightwing bloggers just to prevent said bloggers from stomping their little feet and crying “Treason!” till they nearly burst their lungs.
We established way up-thread that “journalists” (or authors of pieces in well-known magazines) have no responsibility to offer any evidence for their assertions.
what was established (asserted, rather) was that magazines don’t have any obligation to give up their sources to whiny-ass rightwing bloggers just to prevent said bloggers from stomping their little feet and crying “Treason!” till they nearly burst their lungs.
“Scott Beauchamp was not an investigative reporter doing hard-hitting pieces on very important issues, writing articles after weeks and months of research and interviews. He was not Woodward and Bernstein, he was not “reporting” on issues of grave importance, and as such, the fact-checking process for his diaries was not something you would dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think this is all no big deal. Tell me(or don’t, because I won’t be back for a good-faith response as I know now one will not be forthcoming; instead, just ask yourself quietly and honestly) what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime? Would you believe the burden is not on him to support his assertions? Or would you sue his ass off (along with his “editors”) and demand in court he prove his assertions?
“Scott Beauchamp was not an investigative reporter doing hard-hitting pieces on very important issues, writing articles after weeks and months of research and interviews. He was not Woodward and Bernstein, he was not “reporting” on issues of grave importance, and as such, the fact-checking process for his diaries was not something you would dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think this is all no big deal. Tell me(or don’t, because I won’t be back for a good-faith response as I know now one will not be forthcoming; instead, just ask yourself quietly and honestly) what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime? Would you believe the burden is not on him to support his assertions? Or would you sue his ass off (along with his “editors”) and demand in court he prove his assertions?
“Scott Beauchamp was not an investigative reporter doing hard-hitting pieces on very important issues, writing articles after weeks and months of research and interviews. He was not Woodward and Bernstein, he was not “reporting” on issues of grave importance, and as such, the fact-checking process for his diaries was not something you would dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think this is all no big deal. Tell me(or don’t, because I won’t be back for a good-faith response as I know now one will not be forthcoming; instead, just ask yourself quietly and honestly) what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime? Would you believe the burden is not on him to support his assertions? Or would you sue his ass off (along with his “editors”) and demand in court he prove his assertions?
Feral dogs are not pets. Over reaction to these stories by all parties just floors me. Go out into the countryside anywhere in the world and pet some of these lovely little pups. enjoy the rabies rounds and stitches afterward.
The “realities” people express are incredible. The longer I surf this worl wide inner tube, the more I am resigned to the impending failure of the human race. specialization and continual living with blinders to the “realities” of nature are going to be the end of us. We do not control the forces of nature. They control us -eventually.
Feral dogs are not pets. Over reaction to these stories by all parties just floors me. Go out into the countryside anywhere in the world and pet some of these lovely little pups. enjoy the rabies rounds and stitches afterward.
The “realities” people express are incredible. The longer I surf this worl wide inner tube, the more I am resigned to the impending failure of the human race. specialization and continual living with blinders to the “realities” of nature are going to be the end of us. We do not control the forces of nature. They control us -eventually.
Feral dogs are not pets. Over reaction to these stories by all parties just floors me. Go out into the countryside anywhere in the world and pet some of these lovely little pups. enjoy the rabies rounds and stitches afterward.
The “realities” people express are incredible. The longer I surf this worl wide inner tube, the more I am resigned to the impending failure of the human race. specialization and continual living with blinders to the “realities” of nature are going to be the end of us. We do not control the forces of nature. They control us -eventually.
Tell me(or don’t, because I won’t be back for a good-faith response as I know now one will not be forthcoming; instead, just ask yourself quietly and honestly) what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime?
First we had soldiers behaving badly comparable to alien abductions, now its comparable to child molestation. Welcome to Crimso’s world.
Tell me(or don’t, because I won’t be back for a good-faith response as I know now one will not be forthcoming; instead, just ask yourself quietly and honestly) what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime?
First we had soldiers behaving badly comparable to alien abductions, now its comparable to child molestation. Welcome to Crimso’s world.
Tell me(or don’t, because I won’t be back for a good-faith response as I know now one will not be forthcoming; instead, just ask yourself quietly and honestly) what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime?
First we had soldiers behaving badly comparable to alien abductions, now its comparable to child molestation. Welcome to Crimso’s world.
Crimso: what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime?
What would you do, Crimso, if Beauchamp had written a “diary” in which he alleged that there exist men living in the same city as you, who molest children, complete with graphic details of the crimes – but without naming a single person as definitively guilty, or even giving enough detail for people who didn’t know who was meant already to be able to guess? Would you feel obliged to dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with the allegation that some men in your city have done bad things to children? Somehow I think not.
A direct specific allegation of criminal behavior against a named person is potentially libellous, if it can’t be proved, and may cause difficulties when the accused comes to trial, if it can. Scott Beauchamp’s account of bad things he’d seen US soldiers do, and done himself, did not fall into that zone, and it’s really stupid of you to claim that they did.
Crimso: what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime?
What would you do, Crimso, if Beauchamp had written a “diary” in which he alleged that there exist men living in the same city as you, who molest children, complete with graphic details of the crimes – but without naming a single person as definitively guilty, or even giving enough detail for people who didn’t know who was meant already to be able to guess? Would you feel obliged to dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with the allegation that some men in your city have done bad things to children? Somehow I think not.
A direct specific allegation of criminal behavior against a named person is potentially libellous, if it can’t be proved, and may cause difficulties when the accused comes to trial, if it can. Scott Beauchamp’s account of bad things he’d seen US soldiers do, and done himself, did not fall into that zone, and it’s really stupid of you to claim that they did.
Crimso: what would you do if Beauchamp had written a “diary” wherein he accused you, John Cole, of child molestation, complete with graphic details of your alleged crime?
What would you do, Crimso, if Beauchamp had written a “diary” in which he alleged that there exist men living in the same city as you, who molest children, complete with graphic details of the crimes – but without naming a single person as definitively guilty, or even giving enough detail for people who didn’t know who was meant already to be able to guess? Would you feel obliged to dedicate a legion of fact-checkers to deal with the allegation that some men in your city have done bad things to children? Somehow I think not.
A direct specific allegation of criminal behavior against a named person is potentially libellous, if it can’t be proved, and may cause difficulties when the accused comes to trial, if it can. Scott Beauchamp’s account of bad things he’d seen US soldiers do, and done himself, did not fall into that zone, and it’s really stupid of you to claim that they did.
Sigh.
It seems to me that you’re arguing from an arm-chair warrior’s perspective, with not a lot of experience in the military. You’re not very well informed, you’re arguing with people who’ve been in the field in the military and you’re arguing with people who’ve faced enemy fire.
Why should we take your comments seriously?
Sigh.
It seems to me that you’re arguing from an arm-chair warrior’s perspective, with not a lot of experience in the military. You’re not very well informed, you’re arguing with people who’ve been in the field in the military and you’re arguing with people who’ve faced enemy fire.
Why should we take your comments seriously?
Sigh.
It seems to me that you’re arguing from an arm-chair warrior’s perspective, with not a lot of experience in the military. You’re not very well informed, you’re arguing with people who’ve been in the field in the military and you’re arguing with people who’ve faced enemy fire.
Why should we take your comments seriously?
It also appears to me that Crimso isn’t particuarly imaginative has a fairly impoverished ability to make reasonable projections.
It also appears to me that Crimso isn’t particuarly imaginative has a fairly impoverished ability to make reasonable projections.
It also appears to me that Crimso isn’t particuarly imaginative has a fairly impoverished ability to make reasonable projections.
Gary:
I’m not sure why you choose to engage in rhetoric against obvious opinion by pointing out it’s opinion and then disparaging it for lack of “evidence.” Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale? If what you are saying is I don’t have evidence that it had a huge impact, fine. I don’t, other than the milbloggers took it seriously as did the military itself by going after Beauchamp. Isn’t that evidence enough?
As for the date issue, I’m not sure why you are on this kick. I’ll concede that there have been troops continuously deployed and at least a small number in harm’s way.
Since you feel I have been avoiding the question, here is my off the top of my head response (since I am not a total historical illiterate and actually enjoy history) with the caveat that my two-year-old was up all night with the flu (meaning I was too):
Korean War: 1950-53 or 54
Vietnam: 1965-75 (I’m a little fuzzy on the beginning date because we had advisors there earlier, but I think that was when we starting sending large numbers of troops)
Grenada: 1983 or 4.
Panama: 1988?
Gulf I:1990 or 91, don’t know how long we were actually there in large numbers but enforcing the no-fly zone went clear up to the present war.
Haiti: 94 or 95; lasted I think less than a year.
Bosnia/Kosovo: 1995-99 or so.
Gulf II: 2003- present
If you want all the interstitial stuff, like the troops posted in Lebanon, the operation to rescue the Iranian hostages, Somalia, the Libyan air strike (F-111 from Britain), etc. etc. etc. I would need more time.
You made your point, I conceded it and would now rephrase my original point to say that there have been times of relative peace and acknowledge that we have been continuously deployed. Point taken. Now can we get off this kick? Have I passed your test? Are you done demeaning my intelligence? It’s not like I get WWI and II confused like most Americans under 30.
Gary:
I’m not sure why you choose to engage in rhetoric against obvious opinion by pointing out it’s opinion and then disparaging it for lack of “evidence.” Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale? If what you are saying is I don’t have evidence that it had a huge impact, fine. I don’t, other than the milbloggers took it seriously as did the military itself by going after Beauchamp. Isn’t that evidence enough?
As for the date issue, I’m not sure why you are on this kick. I’ll concede that there have been troops continuously deployed and at least a small number in harm’s way.
Since you feel I have been avoiding the question, here is my off the top of my head response (since I am not a total historical illiterate and actually enjoy history) with the caveat that my two-year-old was up all night with the flu (meaning I was too):
Korean War: 1950-53 or 54
Vietnam: 1965-75 (I’m a little fuzzy on the beginning date because we had advisors there earlier, but I think that was when we starting sending large numbers of troops)
Grenada: 1983 or 4.
Panama: 1988?
Gulf I:1990 or 91, don’t know how long we were actually there in large numbers but enforcing the no-fly zone went clear up to the present war.
Haiti: 94 or 95; lasted I think less than a year.
Bosnia/Kosovo: 1995-99 or so.
Gulf II: 2003- present
If you want all the interstitial stuff, like the troops posted in Lebanon, the operation to rescue the Iranian hostages, Somalia, the Libyan air strike (F-111 from Britain), etc. etc. etc. I would need more time.
You made your point, I conceded it and would now rephrase my original point to say that there have been times of relative peace and acknowledge that we have been continuously deployed. Point taken. Now can we get off this kick? Have I passed your test? Are you done demeaning my intelligence? It’s not like I get WWI and II confused like most Americans under 30.
Gary:
I’m not sure why you choose to engage in rhetoric against obvious opinion by pointing out it’s opinion and then disparaging it for lack of “evidence.” Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale? If what you are saying is I don’t have evidence that it had a huge impact, fine. I don’t, other than the milbloggers took it seriously as did the military itself by going after Beauchamp. Isn’t that evidence enough?
As for the date issue, I’m not sure why you are on this kick. I’ll concede that there have been troops continuously deployed and at least a small number in harm’s way.
Since you feel I have been avoiding the question, here is my off the top of my head response (since I am not a total historical illiterate and actually enjoy history) with the caveat that my two-year-old was up all night with the flu (meaning I was too):
Korean War: 1950-53 or 54
Vietnam: 1965-75 (I’m a little fuzzy on the beginning date because we had advisors there earlier, but I think that was when we starting sending large numbers of troops)
Grenada: 1983 or 4.
Panama: 1988?
Gulf I:1990 or 91, don’t know how long we were actually there in large numbers but enforcing the no-fly zone went clear up to the present war.
Haiti: 94 or 95; lasted I think less than a year.
Bosnia/Kosovo: 1995-99 or so.
Gulf II: 2003- present
If you want all the interstitial stuff, like the troops posted in Lebanon, the operation to rescue the Iranian hostages, Somalia, the Libyan air strike (F-111 from Britain), etc. etc. etc. I would need more time.
You made your point, I conceded it and would now rephrase my original point to say that there have been times of relative peace and acknowledge that we have been continuously deployed. Point taken. Now can we get off this kick? Have I passed your test? Are you done demeaning my intelligence? It’s not like I get WWI and II confused like most Americans under 30.
Jesurgislac:
I think our disagreement is over whether his claims are true. If true, Beauchamp should be able to criticize up his chain of command and further if need be. I don’t think they are true. He isn’t standing by them.
As for the bill, I agree the troops need more time at home if at all possible and that that issue is at least as important although i do not pretend to know the solution (or at least how to get there).
Jesurgislac:
I think our disagreement is over whether his claims are true. If true, Beauchamp should be able to criticize up his chain of command and further if need be. I don’t think they are true. He isn’t standing by them.
As for the bill, I agree the troops need more time at home if at all possible and that that issue is at least as important although i do not pretend to know the solution (or at least how to get there).
Jesurgislac:
I think our disagreement is over whether his claims are true. If true, Beauchamp should be able to criticize up his chain of command and further if need be. I don’t think they are true. He isn’t standing by them.
As for the bill, I agree the troops need more time at home if at all possible and that that issue is at least as important although i do not pretend to know the solution (or at least how to get there).
bc: Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?
You certainly need to show evidence that it is worse for morale to have soldiers in a war zone allowed to do vile things without discipline or criticism, than it is for a serving soldier to say publicly that he is ashamed of the vile things that he and other soldiers have been doing.
Not that I’ve ever been a soldier, but speaking from the point of view of a childminder, I’m rather familiar with the claim that it’s really, really bad for a kid to be told s/he’s doing bad things and has got to stop – and I come down squarely on the side of “Nope, you tell the kid in a loving but firm way that s/he’s doing something hurtful and is stopping that now.” Because frankly, you sound like the epitome of Worst Parent Ever, “Oh, little Bobbi is so sensitive, I hope you don’t believe in discipline. We think children should be let to express themselves freely!”
bc: Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?
You certainly need to show evidence that it is worse for morale to have soldiers in a war zone allowed to do vile things without discipline or criticism, than it is for a serving soldier to say publicly that he is ashamed of the vile things that he and other soldiers have been doing.
Not that I’ve ever been a soldier, but speaking from the point of view of a childminder, I’m rather familiar with the claim that it’s really, really bad for a kid to be told s/he’s doing bad things and has got to stop – and I come down squarely on the side of “Nope, you tell the kid in a loving but firm way that s/he’s doing something hurtful and is stopping that now.” Because frankly, you sound like the epitome of Worst Parent Ever, “Oh, little Bobbi is so sensitive, I hope you don’t believe in discipline. We think children should be let to express themselves freely!”
bc: Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?
You certainly need to show evidence that it is worse for morale to have soldiers in a war zone allowed to do vile things without discipline or criticism, than it is for a serving soldier to say publicly that he is ashamed of the vile things that he and other soldiers have been doing.
Not that I’ve ever been a soldier, but speaking from the point of view of a childminder, I’m rather familiar with the claim that it’s really, really bad for a kid to be told s/he’s doing bad things and has got to stop – and I come down squarely on the side of “Nope, you tell the kid in a loving but firm way that s/he’s doing something hurtful and is stopping that now.” Because frankly, you sound like the epitome of Worst Parent Ever, “Oh, little Bobbi is so sensitive, I hope you don’t believe in discipline. We think children should be let to express themselves freely!”
bc: I think our disagreement is over whether his claims are true.
If your position is that his claims are not true, where is your evidence to show that none of the events he described could have happened? And if you have no such evidence, but are just claiming he’s lying, where is your evidence to show he’s a liar?
If true, Beauchamp should be able to criticize up his chain of command and further if need be.
Not according to everything I’ve ever heard about chain-of-command complaints, from both soldiers and ex-soldiers.
Besides, not relevant. The question is not whether or not Beauchamp should have reported up the chain of command that his comrades were using military vehicles to kill dogs in the road: the question is whether Beauchamp had the right to write about their doing this in the media.
As for the bill, I agree the troops need more time at home if at all possible and that that issue is at least as important although i do not pretend to know the solution (or at least how to get there).
Solution’s obvious: begin to set up a timetable for withdrawal of the US occupation from Iraq. Everyone knows that.
bc: I think our disagreement is over whether his claims are true.
If your position is that his claims are not true, where is your evidence to show that none of the events he described could have happened? And if you have no such evidence, but are just claiming he’s lying, where is your evidence to show he’s a liar?
If true, Beauchamp should be able to criticize up his chain of command and further if need be.
Not according to everything I’ve ever heard about chain-of-command complaints, from both soldiers and ex-soldiers.
Besides, not relevant. The question is not whether or not Beauchamp should have reported up the chain of command that his comrades were using military vehicles to kill dogs in the road: the question is whether Beauchamp had the right to write about their doing this in the media.
As for the bill, I agree the troops need more time at home if at all possible and that that issue is at least as important although i do not pretend to know the solution (or at least how to get there).
Solution’s obvious: begin to set up a timetable for withdrawal of the US occupation from Iraq. Everyone knows that.
bc: I think our disagreement is over whether his claims are true.
If your position is that his claims are not true, where is your evidence to show that none of the events he described could have happened? And if you have no such evidence, but are just claiming he’s lying, where is your evidence to show he’s a liar?
If true, Beauchamp should be able to criticize up his chain of command and further if need be.
Not according to everything I’ve ever heard about chain-of-command complaints, from both soldiers and ex-soldiers.
Besides, not relevant. The question is not whether or not Beauchamp should have reported up the chain of command that his comrades were using military vehicles to kill dogs in the road: the question is whether Beauchamp had the right to write about their doing this in the media.
As for the bill, I agree the troops need more time at home if at all possible and that that issue is at least as important although i do not pretend to know the solution (or at least how to get there).
Solution’s obvious: begin to set up a timetable for withdrawal of the US occupation from Iraq. Everyone knows that.
Little Bobbi’s just an excitable boy.
Little Bobbi’s just an excitable boy.
Little Bobbi’s just an excitable boy.
“I know, but both you and Gary focused on foreign policy matters, especially Iran.”
Not in my links, no. I’ll therefore again link to this and this, for instance, and encourage people to read them.
bc: “I’m not sure why you choose to engage in rhetoric against obvious opinion by pointing out it’s opinion and then disparaging it for lack of ‘evidence.'”
Because you weren’t previously stating “obvious opinion,” but were making claims of fact.
You’re not shy about asking for proof, and pointing out distractions: “But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.”
Facts, and that which is objectively provable, are worth debating, because questions can be easily settled, and which people are and aren’t interested in finding truth, and which people are and aren’t interested in honest debate, is made quickly clear.
Opinions, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen, unprovable, undebatable, and unconnected to facts, uninteresting.
“You made your point, I conceded it and would now rephrase my original point to say that there have been times of relative peace and acknowledge that we have been continuously deployed. Point taken. Now can we get off this kick?”
Sure, if this means that you acknowledge that using “in a time of war” to refer to our present time is pretty well meaningless, and you’ll quit using it as thoughtless rhetoric to make a meaningless point, you betcha. Happy to help, now that we’ve cleared that up.
“It’s not like I get WWI and II confused like most Americans under 30.”
No, no, you’re just so fuzzy on when we have and haven’t been in war in current lifetimes that you have trouble naming the years, despite your contantly wanting to emphasize that this, unlike other times, is a time of war; if you wish to congratulate yourself on your wealth of knowledge in not confusing WWI and WWII, by all means, take as much comfort as you like in that.
“I don’t think they are true.”
And, yet, why should any of us care what the other person is imagining?
It can’t be debated. Why is it of interest what you “think,” or what anyone “thinks,” which is to say, since you’re not laying out any reasoning or evididence, what you imagine?
Either what he wrote is true, or isn’t. It can be proven true, or it can’t.
The facts would settle the facts. Until such time as the facts are known, the case can’t be settled. End of story. Imagine all you like, and fantasize all you like. Why you’d expect that to convince anyone, or even remotely interest someone, I have absolutely no idea.
People who imagine that what they think is relevant to debate over facts would make me wonder why they imagine that, except that the question answers itself.
“He isn’t standing by them.”
And he isn’t disavowing them. He said he wasn’t talking about them. There are plenty of possible reasons for that, including possibilities where he was telling the truth about various details.
But what I, you, or anyone imagines might be the truth isn’t relevant, isn’t proof, and isn’t even remotely interesting.
This is a point you seem confused about. Opinion and fantasy as regards fact is worthless. Evidence as regards fact is what’s useful.
You’re more than welcome to try using it.
“I know, but both you and Gary focused on foreign policy matters, especially Iran.”
Not in my links, no. I’ll therefore again link to this and this, for instance, and encourage people to read them.
bc: “I’m not sure why you choose to engage in rhetoric against obvious opinion by pointing out it’s opinion and then disparaging it for lack of ‘evidence.'”
Because you weren’t previously stating “obvious opinion,” but were making claims of fact.
You’re not shy about asking for proof, and pointing out distractions: “But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.”
Facts, and that which is objectively provable, are worth debating, because questions can be easily settled, and which people are and aren’t interested in finding truth, and which people are and aren’t interested in honest debate, is made quickly clear.
Opinions, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen, unprovable, undebatable, and unconnected to facts, uninteresting.
“You made your point, I conceded it and would now rephrase my original point to say that there have been times of relative peace and acknowledge that we have been continuously deployed. Point taken. Now can we get off this kick?”
Sure, if this means that you acknowledge that using “in a time of war” to refer to our present time is pretty well meaningless, and you’ll quit using it as thoughtless rhetoric to make a meaningless point, you betcha. Happy to help, now that we’ve cleared that up.
“It’s not like I get WWI and II confused like most Americans under 30.”
No, no, you’re just so fuzzy on when we have and haven’t been in war in current lifetimes that you have trouble naming the years, despite your contantly wanting to emphasize that this, unlike other times, is a time of war; if you wish to congratulate yourself on your wealth of knowledge in not confusing WWI and WWII, by all means, take as much comfort as you like in that.
“I don’t think they are true.”
And, yet, why should any of us care what the other person is imagining?
It can’t be debated. Why is it of interest what you “think,” or what anyone “thinks,” which is to say, since you’re not laying out any reasoning or evididence, what you imagine?
Either what he wrote is true, or isn’t. It can be proven true, or it can’t.
The facts would settle the facts. Until such time as the facts are known, the case can’t be settled. End of story. Imagine all you like, and fantasize all you like. Why you’d expect that to convince anyone, or even remotely interest someone, I have absolutely no idea.
People who imagine that what they think is relevant to debate over facts would make me wonder why they imagine that, except that the question answers itself.
“He isn’t standing by them.”
And he isn’t disavowing them. He said he wasn’t talking about them. There are plenty of possible reasons for that, including possibilities where he was telling the truth about various details.
But what I, you, or anyone imagines might be the truth isn’t relevant, isn’t proof, and isn’t even remotely interesting.
This is a point you seem confused about. Opinion and fantasy as regards fact is worthless. Evidence as regards fact is what’s useful.
You’re more than welcome to try using it.
“I know, but both you and Gary focused on foreign policy matters, especially Iran.”
Not in my links, no. I’ll therefore again link to this and this, for instance, and encourage people to read them.
bc: “I’m not sure why you choose to engage in rhetoric against obvious opinion by pointing out it’s opinion and then disparaging it for lack of ‘evidence.'”
Because you weren’t previously stating “obvious opinion,” but were making claims of fact.
You’re not shy about asking for proof, and pointing out distractions: “But, if you must, Steve, go ahead and prove some of the kitten stories wrong. A complete red herring IMHO to the issue at hand.”
Facts, and that which is objectively provable, are worth debating, because questions can be easily settled, and which people are and aren’t interested in finding truth, and which people are and aren’t interested in honest debate, is made quickly clear.
Opinions, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen, unprovable, undebatable, and unconnected to facts, uninteresting.
“You made your point, I conceded it and would now rephrase my original point to say that there have been times of relative peace and acknowledge that we have been continuously deployed. Point taken. Now can we get off this kick?”
Sure, if this means that you acknowledge that using “in a time of war” to refer to our present time is pretty well meaningless, and you’ll quit using it as thoughtless rhetoric to make a meaningless point, you betcha. Happy to help, now that we’ve cleared that up.
“It’s not like I get WWI and II confused like most Americans under 30.”
No, no, you’re just so fuzzy on when we have and haven’t been in war in current lifetimes that you have trouble naming the years, despite your contantly wanting to emphasize that this, unlike other times, is a time of war; if you wish to congratulate yourself on your wealth of knowledge in not confusing WWI and WWII, by all means, take as much comfort as you like in that.
“I don’t think they are true.”
And, yet, why should any of us care what the other person is imagining?
It can’t be debated. Why is it of interest what you “think,” or what anyone “thinks,” which is to say, since you’re not laying out any reasoning or evididence, what you imagine?
Either what he wrote is true, or isn’t. It can be proven true, or it can’t.
The facts would settle the facts. Until such time as the facts are known, the case can’t be settled. End of story. Imagine all you like, and fantasize all you like. Why you’d expect that to convince anyone, or even remotely interest someone, I have absolutely no idea.
People who imagine that what they think is relevant to debate over facts would make me wonder why they imagine that, except that the question answers itself.
“He isn’t standing by them.”
And he isn’t disavowing them. He said he wasn’t talking about them. There are plenty of possible reasons for that, including possibilities where he was telling the truth about various details.
But what I, you, or anyone imagines might be the truth isn’t relevant, isn’t proof, and isn’t even remotely interesting.
This is a point you seem confused about. Opinion and fantasy as regards fact is worthless. Evidence as regards fact is what’s useful.
You’re more than welcome to try using it.
bc: “He isn’t standing by them.”
That’s incorrect.. TNR has the testimony of five members of his company confirming the incidents he relates. Unless the army has some super-convincing secret info they’re hiding, this is in all likelihood a case of some pro-war bloggers badly fooling themselves.
bc: “He isn’t standing by them.”
That’s incorrect.. TNR has the testimony of five members of his company confirming the incidents he relates. Unless the army has some super-convincing secret info they’re hiding, this is in all likelihood a case of some pro-war bloggers badly fooling themselves.
bc: “He isn’t standing by them.”
That’s incorrect.. TNR has the testimony of five members of his company confirming the incidents he relates. Unless the army has some super-convincing secret info they’re hiding, this is in all likelihood a case of some pro-war bloggers badly fooling themselves.
Gary, from my above link:
“The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted.”
Gary, from my above link:
“The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted.”
Gary, from my above link:
“The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted.”
Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?
This is one of the most dishonest shell games out there. Saying that a couple unnamed soldiers in your unit did something naughty is not criticizing “the troops,” any more than criticizing General Petraeus – a single indiviudal, last I checked – is equivalent to criticizing “our men and women in uniform.”
I don’t think our tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq suddenly find their morale flagging every time someone, somewhere, says something bad about a couple of individual soldiers. It doesn’t work that way. Rhetoric of this sort is an attempt to immunize every single person in uniform against any negative statements whatsoever.
But in the real world, if you say “man, this guy I served with in Iraq was a real ass,” it doesn’t magically undermine the war effort.
Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?
This is one of the most dishonest shell games out there. Saying that a couple unnamed soldiers in your unit did something naughty is not criticizing “the troops,” any more than criticizing General Petraeus – a single indiviudal, last I checked – is equivalent to criticizing “our men and women in uniform.”
I don’t think our tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq suddenly find their morale flagging every time someone, somewhere, says something bad about a couple of individual soldiers. It doesn’t work that way. Rhetoric of this sort is an attempt to immunize every single person in uniform against any negative statements whatsoever.
But in the real world, if you say “man, this guy I served with in Iraq was a real ass,” it doesn’t magically undermine the war effort.
Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?
This is one of the most dishonest shell games out there. Saying that a couple unnamed soldiers in your unit did something naughty is not criticizing “the troops,” any more than criticizing General Petraeus – a single indiviudal, last I checked – is equivalent to criticizing “our men and women in uniform.”
I don’t think our tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq suddenly find their morale flagging every time someone, somewhere, says something bad about a couple of individual soldiers. It doesn’t work that way. Rhetoric of this sort is an attempt to immunize every single person in uniform against any negative statements whatsoever.
But in the real world, if you say “man, this guy I served with in Iraq was a real ass,” it doesn’t magically undermine the war effort.
“Gary, from my above link”
I cited that here the other day to OCSteve, and asked what he thought, but he’d already quit talking about it.
“Gary, from my above link”
I cited that here the other day to OCSteve, and asked what he thought, but he’d already quit talking about it.
“Gary, from my above link”
I cited that here the other day to OCSteve, and asked what he thought, but he’d already quit talking about it.
Gary:
I have to get back to work and can only offer a limited response:
Can we get rid of the condescension? And opinions do matter. You clearly don’t value mine. Fine.
“Time of War” certainly has meaning. The cost of the small engagements is nowhere near the cost of full-scale war. My point (before taken off on a tangent) was that the MIC makes plenty of money even when not in full-scale war. Do you dispute that? And how do you think I am fuzzy on dates (now you’re going to make me look them up)? And why does it really matter vis a vis my main point?
How about reciting the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble for me so I can see if you are “worthy” to talk to me, Gary? How about sending me your resume? (NOT! I don’t care) I’d appreciate it if you’d get off your high horse.
And there is such a thing as inference and circumstantial evidence. It is often as close as we can get to “facts.” Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me. Although I acknowledge the possibility he was telling some version of “truth,” based on the facts as we know them the reasonable inference is that he was lying.
Gary:
I have to get back to work and can only offer a limited response:
Can we get rid of the condescension? And opinions do matter. You clearly don’t value mine. Fine.
“Time of War” certainly has meaning. The cost of the small engagements is nowhere near the cost of full-scale war. My point (before taken off on a tangent) was that the MIC makes plenty of money even when not in full-scale war. Do you dispute that? And how do you think I am fuzzy on dates (now you’re going to make me look them up)? And why does it really matter vis a vis my main point?
How about reciting the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble for me so I can see if you are “worthy” to talk to me, Gary? How about sending me your resume? (NOT! I don’t care) I’d appreciate it if you’d get off your high horse.
And there is such a thing as inference and circumstantial evidence. It is often as close as we can get to “facts.” Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me. Although I acknowledge the possibility he was telling some version of “truth,” based on the facts as we know them the reasonable inference is that he was lying.
Gary:
I have to get back to work and can only offer a limited response:
Can we get rid of the condescension? And opinions do matter. You clearly don’t value mine. Fine.
“Time of War” certainly has meaning. The cost of the small engagements is nowhere near the cost of full-scale war. My point (before taken off on a tangent) was that the MIC makes plenty of money even when not in full-scale war. Do you dispute that? And how do you think I am fuzzy on dates (now you’re going to make me look them up)? And why does it really matter vis a vis my main point?
How about reciting the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble for me so I can see if you are “worthy” to talk to me, Gary? How about sending me your resume? (NOT! I don’t care) I’d appreciate it if you’d get off your high horse.
And there is such a thing as inference and circumstantial evidence. It is often as close as we can get to “facts.” Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me. Although I acknowledge the possibility he was telling some version of “truth,” based on the facts as we know them the reasonable inference is that he was lying.
“Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?”
Simpler answer: yes.
“Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?”
Simpler answer: yes.
“Do I really need evidence to show that criticizing the troops is bad for morale?”
Simpler answer: yes.
“And opinions do matter. You clearly don’t value mine. Fine.”
No, I believe that opinions are meaningless as regards questions of fact. And questions of fact are pretty much all I’m interested in discussing, because of that.
I don’t rate your opinion as any more meaningless, absent relation to fact, than anyone else’s, including my own.
You seem to have a basic category confusion between opinion and fact, though, if you think opinions carry any weight as evidence towards what is or isn’t fact, or that in a discussion of what’s fact, weighing in with opinion as a substitute for evidence is relevant.
“The cost of the small engagements is nowhere near the cost of full-scale war.”
Ah: your assertion is that we are presently in a “full-scale war,” then, is it? Do I have that right?
“Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me.”
Thank you for clarifying what you consider sufficient evidence of a fact. It’s edifying.
“And opinions do matter. You clearly don’t value mine. Fine.”
No, I believe that opinions are meaningless as regards questions of fact. And questions of fact are pretty much all I’m interested in discussing, because of that.
I don’t rate your opinion as any more meaningless, absent relation to fact, than anyone else’s, including my own.
You seem to have a basic category confusion between opinion and fact, though, if you think opinions carry any weight as evidence towards what is or isn’t fact, or that in a discussion of what’s fact, weighing in with opinion as a substitute for evidence is relevant.
“The cost of the small engagements is nowhere near the cost of full-scale war.”
Ah: your assertion is that we are presently in a “full-scale war,” then, is it? Do I have that right?
“Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me.”
Thank you for clarifying what you consider sufficient evidence of a fact. It’s edifying.
“And opinions do matter. You clearly don’t value mine. Fine.”
No, I believe that opinions are meaningless as regards questions of fact. And questions of fact are pretty much all I’m interested in discussing, because of that.
I don’t rate your opinion as any more meaningless, absent relation to fact, than anyone else’s, including my own.
You seem to have a basic category confusion between opinion and fact, though, if you think opinions carry any weight as evidence towards what is or isn’t fact, or that in a discussion of what’s fact, weighing in with opinion as a substitute for evidence is relevant.
“The cost of the small engagements is nowhere near the cost of full-scale war.”
Ah: your assertion is that we are presently in a “full-scale war,” then, is it? Do I have that right?
“Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me.”
Thank you for clarifying what you consider sufficient evidence of a fact. It’s edifying.
bc: Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me. Although I acknowledge the possibility he was telling some version of “truth,” based on the facts as we know them the reasonable inference is that he was lying.
The reasonable inference for me is that because he reupped, he’s not about to say anything more to the press. That’s only sensible. He doesn’t have to “confirm his story” to anyone: as noted above, we have his word for it and the word of five other people in his unit. You think they’re all lying, and the best reason you can come up with is “because Beauchamp reupped, all six of them are lying”?
bc: Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me. Although I acknowledge the possibility he was telling some version of “truth,” based on the facts as we know them the reasonable inference is that he was lying.
The reasonable inference for me is that because he reupped, he’s not about to say anything more to the press. That’s only sensible. He doesn’t have to “confirm his story” to anyone: as noted above, we have his word for it and the word of five other people in his unit. You think they’re all lying, and the best reason you can come up with is “because Beauchamp reupped, all six of them are lying”?
bc: Beauchamp reupped and is not confirming his story. That’s enough for me. Although I acknowledge the possibility he was telling some version of “truth,” based on the facts as we know them the reasonable inference is that he was lying.
The reasonable inference for me is that because he reupped, he’s not about to say anything more to the press. That’s only sensible. He doesn’t have to “confirm his story” to anyone: as noted above, we have his word for it and the word of five other people in his unit. You think they’re all lying, and the best reason you can come up with is “because Beauchamp reupped, all six of them are lying”?
bc:
Sorry, I don’t understand the reasoning here at all. Why would any of that imply that Beauchamp fabricated anything? Maybe he’s not confirming because he reupped? Because the initial story caused an enormous shitstorm for himself and his unit, and he doesn’t feel like going through it again while he’s still in uniform? Could you maybe explain just what it is about this that causes you to infer that he’s lying?
bc:
Sorry, I don’t understand the reasoning here at all. Why would any of that imply that Beauchamp fabricated anything? Maybe he’s not confirming because he reupped? Because the initial story caused an enormous shitstorm for himself and his unit, and he doesn’t feel like going through it again while he’s still in uniform? Could you maybe explain just what it is about this that causes you to infer that he’s lying?
bc:
Sorry, I don’t understand the reasoning here at all. Why would any of that imply that Beauchamp fabricated anything? Maybe he’s not confirming because he reupped? Because the initial story caused an enormous shitstorm for himself and his unit, and he doesn’t feel like going through it again while he’s still in uniform? Could you maybe explain just what it is about this that causes you to infer that he’s lying?
Save the poor puppies! Glenn needs them for his blender!
Save the poor puppies! Glenn needs them for his blender!
Save the poor puppies! Glenn needs them for his blender!
“It seems to me that you’re arguing from an arm-chair warrior’s perspective, with not a lot of experience in the military. You’re not very well informed, you’re arguing with people who’ve been in the field in the military and you’re arguing with people who’ve faced enemy fire.
Why should we take your comments seriously?”
Because I can spot a strawman argument, and you can’t (not even as you’re making them). I challenge anyone to find anything in what I have posted in this thread that has anything to do with the military (other than the fact that some of the individuals involved are serving). For those of you who are more than semi-literate, it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar. This was immediately followed by the truly idiotic assertions that it was up to everyone else to prove he’s lying. The assumption that I view this as some sort of attack on the military, that I am a right-winger, and that I know nothing of the military are all quite false (though unlike some, I won’t lie and claim I served when I didn’t). The fact remains that none of those false beliefs are germane to the points I raised. In short, you receive a failing grade for your efforts. Next time try to argue on topic. Fake but accurate indeed…
“It seems to me that you’re arguing from an arm-chair warrior’s perspective, with not a lot of experience in the military. You’re not very well informed, you’re arguing with people who’ve been in the field in the military and you’re arguing with people who’ve faced enemy fire.
Why should we take your comments seriously?”
Because I can spot a strawman argument, and you can’t (not even as you’re making them). I challenge anyone to find anything in what I have posted in this thread that has anything to do with the military (other than the fact that some of the individuals involved are serving). For those of you who are more than semi-literate, it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar. This was immediately followed by the truly idiotic assertions that it was up to everyone else to prove he’s lying. The assumption that I view this as some sort of attack on the military, that I am a right-winger, and that I know nothing of the military are all quite false (though unlike some, I won’t lie and claim I served when I didn’t). The fact remains that none of those false beliefs are germane to the points I raised. In short, you receive a failing grade for your efforts. Next time try to argue on topic. Fake but accurate indeed…
“It seems to me that you’re arguing from an arm-chair warrior’s perspective, with not a lot of experience in the military. You’re not very well informed, you’re arguing with people who’ve been in the field in the military and you’re arguing with people who’ve faced enemy fire.
Why should we take your comments seriously?”
Because I can spot a strawman argument, and you can’t (not even as you’re making them). I challenge anyone to find anything in what I have posted in this thread that has anything to do with the military (other than the fact that some of the individuals involved are serving). For those of you who are more than semi-literate, it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar. This was immediately followed by the truly idiotic assertions that it was up to everyone else to prove he’s lying. The assumption that I view this as some sort of attack on the military, that I am a right-winger, and that I know nothing of the military are all quite false (though unlike some, I won’t lie and claim I served when I didn’t). The fact remains that none of those false beliefs are germane to the points I raised. In short, you receive a failing grade for your efforts. Next time try to argue on topic. Fake but accurate indeed…
And by the way, guys. How is that effort to disprove Saddam had WMD’s going? Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread), rather than expecting those who made the assertion to back it up. Now do you begin to see the foolishness of that logic?
And by the way, guys. How is that effort to disprove Saddam had WMD’s going? Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread), rather than expecting those who made the assertion to back it up. Now do you begin to see the foolishness of that logic?
And by the way, guys. How is that effort to disprove Saddam had WMD’s going? Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread), rather than expecting those who made the assertion to back it up. Now do you begin to see the foolishness of that logic?
Crimso: it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.
You will doubtless go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
Crimso: it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.
You will doubtless go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
Crimso: it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.
You will doubtless go on believing anything anyone tells you, as long as it squares with your preconceived notions.
Completely missed the point.
The point is that what Beauchamp talked about is not remarkable in a combat zone. You have, by your discussion, are treating it like it is, and moreover, are treating his behavior like a mortal sin, as opposed to the venality it is.
THAT is the relevent point. THAT is the topic here.
Next time, YOU try to keep on topic.
Completely missed the point.
The point is that what Beauchamp talked about is not remarkable in a combat zone. You have, by your discussion, are treating it like it is, and moreover, are treating his behavior like a mortal sin, as opposed to the venality it is.
THAT is the relevent point. THAT is the topic here.
Next time, YOU try to keep on topic.
Completely missed the point.
The point is that what Beauchamp talked about is not remarkable in a combat zone. You have, by your discussion, are treating it like it is, and moreover, are treating his behavior like a mortal sin, as opposed to the venality it is.
THAT is the relevent point. THAT is the topic here.
Next time, YOU try to keep on topic.
crimso: “though unlike some, I won’t lie and claim I served when I didn’t”
By all means, do be specific, and not coy, as to whom you are accusing. That’s a very serious charge, and one that shouldn’t be made other than seriously and clearly.
“and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread)”
Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.
crimso: “though unlike some, I won’t lie and claim I served when I didn’t”
By all means, do be specific, and not coy, as to whom you are accusing. That’s a very serious charge, and one that shouldn’t be made other than seriously and clearly.
“and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread)”
Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.
crimso: “though unlike some, I won’t lie and claim I served when I didn’t”
By all means, do be specific, and not coy, as to whom you are accusing. That’s a very serious charge, and one that shouldn’t be made other than seriously and clearly.
“and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread)”
Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.
“Completely missed the point.
The point is that what Beauchamp talked about is not remarkable in a combat zone.”
Fake but accurate…
“Completely missed the point.
The point is that what Beauchamp talked about is not remarkable in a combat zone.”
Fake but accurate…
“Completely missed the point.
The point is that what Beauchamp talked about is not remarkable in a combat zone.”
Fake but accurate…
Given that presence of WMDs would leave certain trace evidence, which were not found, I don’t think the foolishness is where you think it is.
Moreover, in trying to apply that analogy to this situation, I’m less than convinced you understand how evidence fits into hypothesis testing and confirmation.
Given that presence of WMDs would leave certain trace evidence, which were not found, I don’t think the foolishness is where you think it is.
Moreover, in trying to apply that analogy to this situation, I’m less than convinced you understand how evidence fits into hypothesis testing and confirmation.
Given that presence of WMDs would leave certain trace evidence, which were not found, I don’t think the foolishness is where you think it is.
Moreover, in trying to apply that analogy to this situation, I’m less than convinced you understand how evidence fits into hypothesis testing and confirmation.
Crimso: Fake but accurate…
It beats me why wingnuts keep going back to the Kilian memos, but there you go.
Crimso: Fake but accurate…
It beats me why wingnuts keep going back to the Kilian memos, but there you go.
Crimso: Fake but accurate…
It beats me why wingnuts keep going back to the Kilian memos, but there you go.
And still missing the point, I see.
Blowhards are dime a dozen. Not worth the effort that’s being marhsalled here.
(Though what would you say about the other members of his company that confirmed his statements, I don’t know)…
And still missing the point, I see.
Blowhards are dime a dozen. Not worth the effort that’s being marhsalled here.
(Though what would you say about the other members of his company that confirmed his statements, I don’t know)…
And still missing the point, I see.
Blowhards are dime a dozen. Not worth the effort that’s being marhsalled here.
(Though what would you say about the other members of his company that confirmed his statements, I don’t know)…
By all means, do be specific, and not coy, as to whom you are accusing.
Any of a number of people (both on the left and right, and for various reasons). I did not accuse anyone here of doing so, insofar as I know nothing about any of you, nor is it germane to my original point.
“Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.”
Scroll up and indict away:
Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true? Or are we now supposed to take all war stories as false until proven otherwise by right-wing blogs?
Posted by: Doug H. | October 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM
The burden is on him to prove his
assertions.
Says who? And how would he go about doing that?
Posted by: Davebo | October 29, 2007 at 12:38 PM
By all means, do be specific, and not coy, as to whom you are accusing.
Any of a number of people (both on the left and right, and for various reasons). I did not accuse anyone here of doing so, insofar as I know nothing about any of you, nor is it germane to my original point.
“Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.”
Scroll up and indict away:
Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true? Or are we now supposed to take all war stories as false until proven otherwise by right-wing blogs?
Posted by: Doug H. | October 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM
The burden is on him to prove his
assertions.
Says who? And how would he go about doing that?
Posted by: Davebo | October 29, 2007 at 12:38 PM
By all means, do be specific, and not coy, as to whom you are accusing.
Any of a number of people (both on the left and right, and for various reasons). I did not accuse anyone here of doing so, insofar as I know nothing about any of you, nor is it germane to my original point.
“Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.”
Scroll up and indict away:
Why? He was there, he was a witness. Why is the burden on him to prove his stories true? Or are we now supposed to take all war stories as false until proven otherwise by right-wing blogs?
Posted by: Doug H. | October 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM
The burden is on him to prove his
assertions.
Says who? And how would he go about doing that?
Posted by: Davebo | October 29, 2007 at 12:38 PM
The point, Crismo, is that you’re simply assuming the “fake” part, when that’s simply not determinable at this time.
Let’ say that I wrote a piece for TNR and mentioned in it that I had seen a particularly beautiful rainbow outside my house on Tuesday. Some unhinged person, after reading this, posted on their blog that this was impossible, that there hadn’t been measurable rainfall within a hundred-mile radius of my house on that date, and that furthermore he had done simulations with a garden hose and a spotlight that proved that a rainbow wouldn’t have been visible from my house even if it had rained. TNR checks with my neighbors and finds several who also saw a rainbow on that day. Under those circumstances, you believe that it’s reasonable to assume that I’m lying unless I can produce a date-stamped picture of the rainbow, maybe with my house number in the corner of the picture?
The point, Crismo, is that you’re simply assuming the “fake” part, when that’s simply not determinable at this time.
Let’ say that I wrote a piece for TNR and mentioned in it that I had seen a particularly beautiful rainbow outside my house on Tuesday. Some unhinged person, after reading this, posted on their blog that this was impossible, that there hadn’t been measurable rainfall within a hundred-mile radius of my house on that date, and that furthermore he had done simulations with a garden hose and a spotlight that proved that a rainbow wouldn’t have been visible from my house even if it had rained. TNR checks with my neighbors and finds several who also saw a rainbow on that day. Under those circumstances, you believe that it’s reasonable to assume that I’m lying unless I can produce a date-stamped picture of the rainbow, maybe with my house number in the corner of the picture?
The point, Crismo, is that you’re simply assuming the “fake” part, when that’s simply not determinable at this time.
Let’ say that I wrote a piece for TNR and mentioned in it that I had seen a particularly beautiful rainbow outside my house on Tuesday. Some unhinged person, after reading this, posted on their blog that this was impossible, that there hadn’t been measurable rainfall within a hundred-mile radius of my house on that date, and that furthermore he had done simulations with a garden hose and a spotlight that proved that a rainbow wouldn’t have been visible from my house even if it had rained. TNR checks with my neighbors and finds several who also saw a rainbow on that day. Under those circumstances, you believe that it’s reasonable to assume that I’m lying unless I can produce a date-stamped picture of the rainbow, maybe with my house number in the corner of the picture?
If you did take a picture, someone in the blogosphere would call upon an expert who would confirm that it was obviously photoshopped. The blogger would then provide a Williams-Sonoma catalog number for your obviously gold-plated house numbers.
If you did take a picture, someone in the blogosphere would call upon an expert who would confirm that it was obviously photoshopped. The blogger would then provide a Williams-Sonoma catalog number for your obviously gold-plated house numbers.
If you did take a picture, someone in the blogosphere would call upon an expert who would confirm that it was obviously photoshopped. The blogger would then provide a Williams-Sonoma catalog number for your obviously gold-plated house numbers.
“I’m less than convinced you understand how evidence fits into hypothesis testing and confirmation.”
Having published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, having peer-reviewed both manuscript submissions to such journals and grant applications, and having had grant applications funded after peer-review, I think you are incorrect. But I guess it would be up to me to prove that to you since I could be lying.
As for the Killian memos, please show me where they have been proven genuine.
Let me write slowly and using small words. No one with any shred of integrity and/or knowledge (I know, those were big words) believes that the burden of proof rests with those who don’t believe the published assertions. If I claim to have conducted an experiment which demonstrates that such-and-such is true, then it is up to me to supply such evidence. Period. It is no wonder so many people will believe virtually anything they’re told (as long as it is consistent with their beliefs).
“I’m less than convinced you understand how evidence fits into hypothesis testing and confirmation.”
Having published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, having peer-reviewed both manuscript submissions to such journals and grant applications, and having had grant applications funded after peer-review, I think you are incorrect. But I guess it would be up to me to prove that to you since I could be lying.
As for the Killian memos, please show me where they have been proven genuine.
Let me write slowly and using small words. No one with any shred of integrity and/or knowledge (I know, those were big words) believes that the burden of proof rests with those who don’t believe the published assertions. If I claim to have conducted an experiment which demonstrates that such-and-such is true, then it is up to me to supply such evidence. Period. It is no wonder so many people will believe virtually anything they’re told (as long as it is consistent with their beliefs).
“I’m less than convinced you understand how evidence fits into hypothesis testing and confirmation.”
Having published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, having peer-reviewed both manuscript submissions to such journals and grant applications, and having had grant applications funded after peer-review, I think you are incorrect. But I guess it would be up to me to prove that to you since I could be lying.
As for the Killian memos, please show me where they have been proven genuine.
Let me write slowly and using small words. No one with any shred of integrity and/or knowledge (I know, those were big words) believes that the burden of proof rests with those who don’t believe the published assertions. If I claim to have conducted an experiment which demonstrates that such-and-such is true, then it is up to me to supply such evidence. Period. It is no wonder so many people will believe virtually anything they’re told (as long as it is consistent with their beliefs).
I did not accuse anyone here of doing so
you just decided you’d attack a position nobody here was taking.
I did not accuse anyone here of doing so
you just decided you’d attack a position nobody here was taking.
I did not accuse anyone here of doing so
you just decided you’d attack a position nobody here was taking.
Crimso: “and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread)”
Me: “Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.”
Crimso, apparently finding linking too complicated to manage, nonetheless cites Doug H. as saying:
I thank Crimso, and note that, agree or disagree with Doug H., his words do not, indeed, constitute asserting that “we must believe such assertions until disproven,” as all can see.
Instead, Doug H. asked about the burden of proof, and made no affirmative claims at all.
Either Crimso is unable to understand the distinction, or is presenting as evidence something that clearly does not support the claim; either way, it’s useful information.
Crimso repeats the same inability to understand English, or suffers what the problem is again, with the other offered cite:
Similarly, there is no statement of any kind here as to what anyone “must believe,” let alone any generalized ukases that “we must believe such assertions until disproven.”
If you have any other cites to offer to support your assertion, Crimso, please put them forward. Otherwise, your claim is clearly not supported, and your assertion would seem to have been false.
Incidentally, while you’re lecturing people for being “semi-literate,” I’d like to introduce you to my friends, the quotation marks: “”.
They’re terribly useful in indicating when you are quoting something, may I suggest? Alternatively,
one step at a time.
Crimso: “and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread)”
Me: “Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.”
Crimso, apparently finding linking too complicated to manage, nonetheless cites Doug H. as saying:
I thank Crimso, and note that, agree or disagree with Doug H., his words do not, indeed, constitute asserting that “we must believe such assertions until disproven,” as all can see.
Instead, Doug H. asked about the burden of proof, and made no affirmative claims at all.
Either Crimso is unable to understand the distinction, or is presenting as evidence something that clearly does not support the claim; either way, it’s useful information.
Crimso repeats the same inability to understand English, or suffers what the problem is again, with the other offered cite:
Similarly, there is no statement of any kind here as to what anyone “must believe,” let alone any generalized ukases that “we must believe such assertions until disproven.”
If you have any other cites to offer to support your assertion, Crimso, please put them forward. Otherwise, your claim is clearly not supported, and your assertion would seem to have been false.
Incidentally, while you’re lecturing people for being “semi-literate,” I’d like to introduce you to my friends, the quotation marks: “”.
They’re terribly useful in indicating when you are quoting something, may I suggest? Alternatively,
one step at a time.
Crimso: “and also remember we must believe such assertions until disproven (as some have argued on this very thread)”
Me: “Please link to and quote the comments in which people have done this, so we may all indict the malefactors.”
Crimso, apparently finding linking too complicated to manage, nonetheless cites Doug H. as saying:
I thank Crimso, and note that, agree or disagree with Doug H., his words do not, indeed, constitute asserting that “we must believe such assertions until disproven,” as all can see.
Instead, Doug H. asked about the burden of proof, and made no affirmative claims at all.
Either Crimso is unable to understand the distinction, or is presenting as evidence something that clearly does not support the claim; either way, it’s useful information.
Crimso repeats the same inability to understand English, or suffers what the problem is again, with the other offered cite:
Similarly, there is no statement of any kind here as to what anyone “must believe,” let alone any generalized ukases that “we must believe such assertions until disproven.”
If you have any other cites to offer to support your assertion, Crimso, please put them forward. Otherwise, your claim is clearly not supported, and your assertion would seem to have been false.
Incidentally, while you’re lecturing people for being “semi-literate,” I’d like to introduce you to my friends, the quotation marks: “”.
They’re terribly useful in indicating when you are quoting something, may I suggest? Alternatively,
one step at a time.
“The point, Crismo, is that you’re simply assuming the “fake” part, when that’s simply not determinable at this time.”
It should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise. Sort of like innocent until proven guilty but in reverse. I can’t publish assertions without backing them up, and neither should Beauchamp. At this point, I really don’t care if he’s telling the truth or lying. It just really sets me off to see people claim that he doesn’t have to prove anything. If you write it, you stand by it. And if you stand by it, you’d better be able to back it up.
“The point, Crismo, is that you’re simply assuming the “fake” part, when that’s simply not determinable at this time.”
It should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise. Sort of like innocent until proven guilty but in reverse. I can’t publish assertions without backing them up, and neither should Beauchamp. At this point, I really don’t care if he’s telling the truth or lying. It just really sets me off to see people claim that he doesn’t have to prove anything. If you write it, you stand by it. And if you stand by it, you’d better be able to back it up.
“The point, Crismo, is that you’re simply assuming the “fake” part, when that’s simply not determinable at this time.”
It should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise. Sort of like innocent until proven guilty but in reverse. I can’t publish assertions without backing them up, and neither should Beauchamp. At this point, I really don’t care if he’s telling the truth or lying. It just really sets me off to see people claim that he doesn’t have to prove anything. If you write it, you stand by it. And if you stand by it, you’d better be able to back it up.
Having published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, having peer-reviewed both manuscript submissions to such journals and grant applications, and having had grant applications funded after peer-review
Ordinarily, unless there was some reason to suppose you lying, I would take your word for this series of statements.
However, since you yourself have asserted that unless a statement can be proved true the person asserting it must be assumed to be a liar, I fear I’ll have to assume you’re a liar.
Unless you’re prepared to provide your real name and a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you claim to have been published, with a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals, I think we should assume that every comment you make is a lie; that you are an outrageous fantasist: and therefore, that we should ignore everything a liar like you has to say – since that is what your own standards require.
Having published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, having peer-reviewed both manuscript submissions to such journals and grant applications, and having had grant applications funded after peer-review
Ordinarily, unless there was some reason to suppose you lying, I would take your word for this series of statements.
However, since you yourself have asserted that unless a statement can be proved true the person asserting it must be assumed to be a liar, I fear I’ll have to assume you’re a liar.
Unless you’re prepared to provide your real name and a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you claim to have been published, with a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals, I think we should assume that every comment you make is a lie; that you are an outrageous fantasist: and therefore, that we should ignore everything a liar like you has to say – since that is what your own standards require.
Having published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, having peer-reviewed both manuscript submissions to such journals and grant applications, and having had grant applications funded after peer-review
Ordinarily, unless there was some reason to suppose you lying, I would take your word for this series of statements.
However, since you yourself have asserted that unless a statement can be proved true the person asserting it must be assumed to be a liar, I fear I’ll have to assume you’re a liar.
Unless you’re prepared to provide your real name and a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you claim to have been published, with a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals, I think we should assume that every comment you make is a lie; that you are an outrageous fantasist: and therefore, that we should ignore everything a liar like you has to say – since that is what your own standards require.
For those of you who are more than semi-literate, it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.
Look, chanting “liar, liar pants on fire!” without more is not an argument requiring a response.
For those of you who are more than semi-literate, it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.
Look, chanting “liar, liar pants on fire!” without more is not an argument requiring a response.
For those of you who are more than semi-literate, it should be clear that I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.
Look, chanting “liar, liar pants on fire!” without more is not an argument requiring a response.
Unless you’re prepared to provide your real name and a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you claim to have been published, with a list of the grant applications funded after peer-review
Oops. And I did use Preview.
Unless you’re prepared to provide your real name and a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you claim to have been published, with a list of the grant applications funded after peer-review
Oops. And I did use Preview.
Unless you’re prepared to provide your real name and a list of the peer-reviewed scientific journals in which you claim to have been published, with a list of the grant applications funded after peer-review
Oops. And I did use Preview.
Crimso: “I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.”
Could you please acknowledge TNR’s claim to have accounts from five members of Beauchamp’s company verifying what he says?
Crimso: “I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.”
Could you please acknowledge TNR’s claim to have accounts from five members of Beauchamp’s company verifying what he says?
Crimso: “I entered this discussion by asserting that Beauchamp had to prove his stories true or he should be assumed a liar.”
Could you please acknowledge TNR’s claim to have accounts from five members of Beauchamp’s company verifying what he says?
Silly me. You are all correct, and I am all wrong. No need to try anymore. Back to my copy of “The Hitler Diaries” so you can have your adult discussion. You know, this book is full of so many fascinating facts that I never knew…
Silly me. You are all correct, and I am all wrong. No need to try anymore. Back to my copy of “The Hitler Diaries” so you can have your adult discussion. You know, this book is full of so many fascinating facts that I never knew…
Silly me. You are all correct, and I am all wrong. No need to try anymore. Back to my copy of “The Hitler Diaries” so you can have your adult discussion. You know, this book is full of so many fascinating facts that I never knew…
“If you write it, you stand by it. And if you stand by it, you’d better be able to back it up.”
Generally speaking, I agree, and I don’t believe this is a terribly controversial sentiment.
But you seem to be extracting and extrapolating and deducing a lot of opinions that either don’t exist, or exist in relatively small measure, around here, and then denouncing them vehemently, making it appear that in fact you’re angry at a lot of people elsewhere, and you’re taking your anger out on people here inappropriately, as stand-ins for your outrage at those people who hold those opinions.
Unfortunately, substituting the voices in your head for the people here, or trying to cram what they say into those boxes in your head, doesn’t tend to result in productive conversation.
“If you write it, you stand by it. And if you stand by it, you’d better be able to back it up.”
Generally speaking, I agree, and I don’t believe this is a terribly controversial sentiment.
But you seem to be extracting and extrapolating and deducing a lot of opinions that either don’t exist, or exist in relatively small measure, around here, and then denouncing them vehemently, making it appear that in fact you’re angry at a lot of people elsewhere, and you’re taking your anger out on people here inappropriately, as stand-ins for your outrage at those people who hold those opinions.
Unfortunately, substituting the voices in your head for the people here, or trying to cram what they say into those boxes in your head, doesn’t tend to result in productive conversation.
“If you write it, you stand by it. And if you stand by it, you’d better be able to back it up.”
Generally speaking, I agree, and I don’t believe this is a terribly controversial sentiment.
But you seem to be extracting and extrapolating and deducing a lot of opinions that either don’t exist, or exist in relatively small measure, around here, and then denouncing them vehemently, making it appear that in fact you’re angry at a lot of people elsewhere, and you’re taking your anger out on people here inappropriately, as stand-ins for your outrage at those people who hold those opinions.
Unfortunately, substituting the voices in your head for the people here, or trying to cram what they say into those boxes in your head, doesn’t tend to result in productive conversation.
“Silly me.”
Indeed. Content-free creebing persuades no one of anything, other than that you’ve run out of substantial things to say.
“You are all correct….”
Do you often have the feeling that a bunch of strangers, individuals, of a multitude of views, are all conspiring against you?
Given how much disagreement goes on here without you, a claim that everyone is a clone is quite hilariously nonsensical, and the archives of almost every post proves you wrong.
This is a reversion back to the “you people” brand of lunacy, which is again suggestive of someone arguing with voices in their head.
“Silly me.”
Indeed. Content-free creebing persuades no one of anything, other than that you’ve run out of substantial things to say.
“You are all correct….”
Do you often have the feeling that a bunch of strangers, individuals, of a multitude of views, are all conspiring against you?
Given how much disagreement goes on here without you, a claim that everyone is a clone is quite hilariously nonsensical, and the archives of almost every post proves you wrong.
This is a reversion back to the “you people” brand of lunacy, which is again suggestive of someone arguing with voices in their head.
“Silly me.”
Indeed. Content-free creebing persuades no one of anything, other than that you’ve run out of substantial things to say.
“You are all correct….”
Do you often have the feeling that a bunch of strangers, individuals, of a multitude of views, are all conspiring against you?
Given how much disagreement goes on here without you, a claim that everyone is a clone is quite hilariously nonsensical, and the archives of almost every post proves you wrong.
This is a reversion back to the “you people” brand of lunacy, which is again suggestive of someone arguing with voices in their head.
Crimso,
It should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise.
So then, you’re in agreement with those questioning the rainbow?
If you’re a scientist, you should be aware of the skeptic’s maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The corollary, of course, is that less extraordinary claims require less extraodinary evidence, and banal claims little evidence at all. This is where I think the Beauchamp doubters founder. They argue that he is making shocking, almost unbelievable claims, and thus must be required to provide rock-solid evidence of his crazy accusations. But in fact these are not extraordinary assertions at all. They may not be quite banal, but they aren’t far off. Soldiers killing dogs and other domestic animals for sport is hardly uncommon in war zones. Soldiers taking pride in a sort of black humor regarding death and human remains is also not uncommon (see the numerous photos on the web of soldiers in Iraq posing with dead bodies). Do you contest this? TNR’s investigation found several of Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers who backed him up, which seems to be an appropriate level of support for the sort of things Beauchamp wrote about. Where do you disagree?
Crimso,
It should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise.
So then, you’re in agreement with those questioning the rainbow?
If you’re a scientist, you should be aware of the skeptic’s maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The corollary, of course, is that less extraordinary claims require less extraodinary evidence, and banal claims little evidence at all. This is where I think the Beauchamp doubters founder. They argue that he is making shocking, almost unbelievable claims, and thus must be required to provide rock-solid evidence of his crazy accusations. But in fact these are not extraordinary assertions at all. They may not be quite banal, but they aren’t far off. Soldiers killing dogs and other domestic animals for sport is hardly uncommon in war zones. Soldiers taking pride in a sort of black humor regarding death and human remains is also not uncommon (see the numerous photos on the web of soldiers in Iraq posing with dead bodies). Do you contest this? TNR’s investigation found several of Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers who backed him up, which seems to be an appropriate level of support for the sort of things Beauchamp wrote about. Where do you disagree?
Crimso,
It should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise.
So then, you’re in agreement with those questioning the rainbow?
If you’re a scientist, you should be aware of the skeptic’s maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The corollary, of course, is that less extraordinary claims require less extraodinary evidence, and banal claims little evidence at all. This is where I think the Beauchamp doubters founder. They argue that he is making shocking, almost unbelievable claims, and thus must be required to provide rock-solid evidence of his crazy accusations. But in fact these are not extraordinary assertions at all. They may not be quite banal, but they aren’t far off. Soldiers killing dogs and other domestic animals for sport is hardly uncommon in war zones. Soldiers taking pride in a sort of black humor regarding death and human remains is also not uncommon (see the numerous photos on the web of soldiers in Iraq posing with dead bodies). Do you contest this? TNR’s investigation found several of Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers who backed him up, which seems to be an appropriate level of support for the sort of things Beauchamp wrote about. Where do you disagree?
Gary: “suggestive of someone arguing with voices in their head”
[Insert my standard request that we avoid psychoanalyzing each other.]
Gary: “suggestive of someone arguing with voices in their head”
[Insert my standard request that we avoid psychoanalyzing each other.]
Gary: “suggestive of someone arguing with voices in their head”
[Insert my standard request that we avoid psychoanalyzing each other.]
“At this point, I really don’t care if he’s telling the truth or lying. It just really sets me off to see people claim that he doesn’t have to prove anything.”
I should add, for the sake of clarity, that of course that’s not all you’ve been claiming. You’ve been insisting that “some have argued on this very thread,” that “we must believe such assertions [of Beauchamp’s] until disproven,” whereas, in fact, no one is saying or has said that Beauchamp has written anything anyone “must believe.”
No one has said anything of the kind, so far as I’m aware, and you’ve failed to identify anyone as saying anything of the kind.
An unkind person might suggest that you were simply making it all up, and that therefore everything you say should be regarded as false until proven otherwise, but I find it entirely plausible that you’re simply confused, and over-impassioned with your rhetoric.
However, confusing people saying that they don’t have to pass judgment on Beauchamp’s veracity until more facts are in with saying that everyone or anyone must believe him is an interesting spectacle, but it’s not an argument.
You assert that “[i]t should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise,” whereas the view that there’s no necessity to pass judgment without more information is perfectly legitimate, if less satisfying for the purpose of a good Two-Minute Hate.
And, again, even if it turns out that every single thing Beauchamp ever wrote was made up while he was dozing on his cot, saying that there’s plenty of ambiguity remaining, and that there is no reason for those not personally dealing with Beauchamp to pass judgment on him at this time, isn’t at all the same as claiming that everyone must believe him.
“At this point, I really don’t care if he’s telling the truth or lying. It just really sets me off to see people claim that he doesn’t have to prove anything.”
I should add, for the sake of clarity, that of course that’s not all you’ve been claiming. You’ve been insisting that “some have argued on this very thread,” that “we must believe such assertions [of Beauchamp’s] until disproven,” whereas, in fact, no one is saying or has said that Beauchamp has written anything anyone “must believe.”
No one has said anything of the kind, so far as I’m aware, and you’ve failed to identify anyone as saying anything of the kind.
An unkind person might suggest that you were simply making it all up, and that therefore everything you say should be regarded as false until proven otherwise, but I find it entirely plausible that you’re simply confused, and over-impassioned with your rhetoric.
However, confusing people saying that they don’t have to pass judgment on Beauchamp’s veracity until more facts are in with saying that everyone or anyone must believe him is an interesting spectacle, but it’s not an argument.
You assert that “[i]t should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise,” whereas the view that there’s no necessity to pass judgment without more information is perfectly legitimate, if less satisfying for the purpose of a good Two-Minute Hate.
And, again, even if it turns out that every single thing Beauchamp ever wrote was made up while he was dozing on his cot, saying that there’s plenty of ambiguity remaining, and that there is no reason for those not personally dealing with Beauchamp to pass judgment on him at this time, isn’t at all the same as claiming that everyone must believe him.
“At this point, I really don’t care if he’s telling the truth or lying. It just really sets me off to see people claim that he doesn’t have to prove anything.”
I should add, for the sake of clarity, that of course that’s not all you’ve been claiming. You’ve been insisting that “some have argued on this very thread,” that “we must believe such assertions [of Beauchamp’s] until disproven,” whereas, in fact, no one is saying or has said that Beauchamp has written anything anyone “must believe.”
No one has said anything of the kind, so far as I’m aware, and you’ve failed to identify anyone as saying anything of the kind.
An unkind person might suggest that you were simply making it all up, and that therefore everything you say should be regarded as false until proven otherwise, but I find it entirely plausible that you’re simply confused, and over-impassioned with your rhetoric.
However, confusing people saying that they don’t have to pass judgment on Beauchamp’s veracity until more facts are in with saying that everyone or anyone must believe him is an interesting spectacle, but it’s not an argument.
You assert that “[i]t should be assumed fake until demonstrated otherwise,” whereas the view that there’s no necessity to pass judgment without more information is perfectly legitimate, if less satisfying for the purpose of a good Two-Minute Hate.
And, again, even if it turns out that every single thing Beauchamp ever wrote was made up while he was dozing on his cot, saying that there’s plenty of ambiguity remaining, and that there is no reason for those not personally dealing with Beauchamp to pass judgment on him at this time, isn’t at all the same as claiming that everyone must believe him.
Perhaps RF’s request could be incorporated into the posting rules. We could call it the Krauthammer Clause.
Perhaps RF’s request could be incorporated into the posting rules. We could call it the Krauthammer Clause.
Perhaps RF’s request could be incorporated into the posting rules. We could call it the Krauthammer Clause.
I don’t have time to read up on this whole thread since I last commented, but have we now dived so deep into the silly that some are comparing the fact-checking needed before publishing this kid’s war stories with the type of sourcing and fact-checking needed and demanded of peer-reviewed scientific articles, and further claiming they should be in any way comparable?
Because if that is the case, my former comrades on the right have reached new depths of dumb.
I don’t have time to read up on this whole thread since I last commented, but have we now dived so deep into the silly that some are comparing the fact-checking needed before publishing this kid’s war stories with the type of sourcing and fact-checking needed and demanded of peer-reviewed scientific articles, and further claiming they should be in any way comparable?
Because if that is the case, my former comrades on the right have reached new depths of dumb.
I don’t have time to read up on this whole thread since I last commented, but have we now dived so deep into the silly that some are comparing the fact-checking needed before publishing this kid’s war stories with the type of sourcing and fact-checking needed and demanded of peer-reviewed scientific articles, and further claiming they should be in any way comparable?
Because if that is the case, my former comrades on the right have reached new depths of dumb.
I wouldn’t say that for the Right, in general.
But for the less rational members, some of whom are quite prominent and well known, that’s been the case for quite some time.
I wouldn’t say that for the Right, in general.
But for the less rational members, some of whom are quite prominent and well known, that’s been the case for quite some time.
I wouldn’t say that for the Right, in general.
But for the less rational members, some of whom are quite prominent and well known, that’s been the case for quite some time.
Jesurgislac:
“The reasonable inference for me is that because he reupped, he’s not about to say anything more to the press. That’s only sensible. He doesn’t have to “confirm his story” to anyone: as noted above, we have his word for it and the word of five other people in his unit.”
We have the word of TNR that they have the word of five other anonymous, yet to be identified people. And we have the word of the military investigators that interviewed his unit including his company. I think I read only 12 weren’t available. That would be about 90%? of his company? And none could verify?
Have I missed something about these five in the past week or so?
Jesurgislac:
“The reasonable inference for me is that because he reupped, he’s not about to say anything more to the press. That’s only sensible. He doesn’t have to “confirm his story” to anyone: as noted above, we have his word for it and the word of five other people in his unit.”
We have the word of TNR that they have the word of five other anonymous, yet to be identified people. And we have the word of the military investigators that interviewed his unit including his company. I think I read only 12 weren’t available. That would be about 90%? of his company? And none could verify?
Have I missed something about these five in the past week or so?
Jesurgislac:
“The reasonable inference for me is that because he reupped, he’s not about to say anything more to the press. That’s only sensible. He doesn’t have to “confirm his story” to anyone: as noted above, we have his word for it and the word of five other people in his unit.”
We have the word of TNR that they have the word of five other anonymous, yet to be identified people. And we have the word of the military investigators that interviewed his unit including his company. I think I read only 12 weren’t available. That would be about 90%? of his company? And none could verify?
Have I missed something about these five in the past week or so?
Good lord, are we still debating whether those memos were fake?
For the billionth time, they were fake. The inter-character spacing displayed in the published memos is exactly the same as Microsoft Word’s default font and settings. As the TrueType pseudo-kerning that results in such spacing was not invented until the late 1980s by Microsoft, the memos could not have been produced earlier than that, assuming that no one owns a time machine.
Moving on, I hope …
Good lord, are we still debating whether those memos were fake?
For the billionth time, they were fake. The inter-character spacing displayed in the published memos is exactly the same as Microsoft Word’s default font and settings. As the TrueType pseudo-kerning that results in such spacing was not invented until the late 1980s by Microsoft, the memos could not have been produced earlier than that, assuming that no one owns a time machine.
Moving on, I hope …
Good lord, are we still debating whether those memos were fake?
For the billionth time, they were fake. The inter-character spacing displayed in the published memos is exactly the same as Microsoft Word’s default font and settings. As the TrueType pseudo-kerning that results in such spacing was not invented until the late 1980s by Microsoft, the memos could not have been produced earlier than that, assuming that no one owns a time machine.
Moving on, I hope …
Larv’s 4:10 is right on.
if Beauchamp had made claims about the presence of WMD, or that he’d capture OBL, or solved Sam Loyd’s 14-15 puzzle, we’d expect detailed, vigorous, verifiable proof. but that’s not the kind of story he wrote. he wrote something that most people didn’t even bother telling anyone else about – nobody would’ve known about Beauchamp at all if CY didn’t make such a big deal out of it. and now that people do know, the typical (ie. non-wingnut) reaction isn’t “OMG! Send investigators!” it’s more like “err… so what? that’s the kind of stuff bored soldiers have always done. old news.” true or not, who cares ? nothing changes either way.
the only really interesting bit of this whole thing is the right’s frantic exasperated overreaction. a boycott ? that’s awesome. too bad they couldn’t be bothered investigating all the questionable things in Bush’s foreign policy.
Larv’s 4:10 is right on.
if Beauchamp had made claims about the presence of WMD, or that he’d capture OBL, or solved Sam Loyd’s 14-15 puzzle, we’d expect detailed, vigorous, verifiable proof. but that’s not the kind of story he wrote. he wrote something that most people didn’t even bother telling anyone else about – nobody would’ve known about Beauchamp at all if CY didn’t make such a big deal out of it. and now that people do know, the typical (ie. non-wingnut) reaction isn’t “OMG! Send investigators!” it’s more like “err… so what? that’s the kind of stuff bored soldiers have always done. old news.” true or not, who cares ? nothing changes either way.
the only really interesting bit of this whole thing is the right’s frantic exasperated overreaction. a boycott ? that’s awesome. too bad they couldn’t be bothered investigating all the questionable things in Bush’s foreign policy.
Larv’s 4:10 is right on.
if Beauchamp had made claims about the presence of WMD, or that he’d capture OBL, or solved Sam Loyd’s 14-15 puzzle, we’d expect detailed, vigorous, verifiable proof. but that’s not the kind of story he wrote. he wrote something that most people didn’t even bother telling anyone else about – nobody would’ve known about Beauchamp at all if CY didn’t make such a big deal out of it. and now that people do know, the typical (ie. non-wingnut) reaction isn’t “OMG! Send investigators!” it’s more like “err… so what? that’s the kind of stuff bored soldiers have always done. old news.” true or not, who cares ? nothing changes either way.
the only really interesting bit of this whole thing is the right’s frantic exasperated overreaction. a boycott ? that’s awesome. too bad they couldn’t be bothered investigating all the questionable things in Bush’s foreign policy.
Subsequent comments were fair enough. I sometimes get angry, and have been here. I may have made a mountain out of a molehill, but I see it as a symptom of a much larger problem in our society. One of the worst things you can do in my profession is lie, and so I tend to view it passionately even when it happens outside of science. Holding TNR to the same standard as a scientific paper is harsh, but I felt that some were suggesting that there should be no standard at all (note the word “suggesting”). If I was offensive, I do apologize. Perhaps I will come back again some time and butt heads over something else.
Subsequent comments were fair enough. I sometimes get angry, and have been here. I may have made a mountain out of a molehill, but I see it as a symptom of a much larger problem in our society. One of the worst things you can do in my profession is lie, and so I tend to view it passionately even when it happens outside of science. Holding TNR to the same standard as a scientific paper is harsh, but I felt that some were suggesting that there should be no standard at all (note the word “suggesting”). If I was offensive, I do apologize. Perhaps I will come back again some time and butt heads over something else.
Subsequent comments were fair enough. I sometimes get angry, and have been here. I may have made a mountain out of a molehill, but I see it as a symptom of a much larger problem in our society. One of the worst things you can do in my profession is lie, and so I tend to view it passionately even when it happens outside of science. Holding TNR to the same standard as a scientific paper is harsh, but I felt that some were suggesting that there should be no standard at all (note the word “suggesting”). If I was offensive, I do apologize. Perhaps I will come back again some time and butt heads over something else.
My work here is done.
My work here is done.
My work here is done.
Gary – Good, because Bill is waiting for you on the Obama thread.
Gary – Good, because Bill is waiting for you on the Obama thread.
Gary – Good, because Bill is waiting for you on the Obama thread.
Crimso: “Perhaps I will come back again some time and butt heads over something else.”
Please do. Note that you entered a conversation here where people have been discussing similar issues for several years or more and it’s not always obvious what methods and data commenters are basing their claims on – what they’re dismissing out of hand because of long-settled arguments, what possible sins they dismiss as venal at worst because it is established that those protesting are ignoring mortal sins. We strive to be reality-based, but don’t always clearly go over old trodden-to-death ground.
Crimso: “Perhaps I will come back again some time and butt heads over something else.”
Please do. Note that you entered a conversation here where people have been discussing similar issues for several years or more and it’s not always obvious what methods and data commenters are basing their claims on – what they’re dismissing out of hand because of long-settled arguments, what possible sins they dismiss as venal at worst because it is established that those protesting are ignoring mortal sins. We strive to be reality-based, but don’t always clearly go over old trodden-to-death ground.
Crimso: “Perhaps I will come back again some time and butt heads over something else.”
Please do. Note that you entered a conversation here where people have been discussing similar issues for several years or more and it’s not always obvious what methods and data commenters are basing their claims on – what they’re dismissing out of hand because of long-settled arguments, what possible sins they dismiss as venal at worst because it is established that those protesting are ignoring mortal sins. We strive to be reality-based, but don’t always clearly go over old trodden-to-death ground.
Also, we hate America.
Also, we hate America.
Also, we hate America.
double plus: Good lord, are we still debating whether those memos were fake?
Yes, because people are still repeating as if factual the nonsensical claims that Microsoft “invented” the Times New Roman font and kerning that had been available since the 1930s, and was certainly available on commercial typewriters in the 1960s for the Kilian memos. This wingnut assertion was debunked thoroughly over three years ago. So yes, d-p-u-g – it appears we do have to “keep arguing it”: we can’t move on from it so long as people are still clinging to the idea that they can prove a fake by pointing out that they themselves can mimic a 1970s typewriter in Microsoft Word. Duh. Of course you can. That doesn’t prove that anyone did.
double plus: Good lord, are we still debating whether those memos were fake?
Yes, because people are still repeating as if factual the nonsensical claims that Microsoft “invented” the Times New Roman font and kerning that had been available since the 1930s, and was certainly available on commercial typewriters in the 1960s for the Kilian memos. This wingnut assertion was debunked thoroughly over three years ago. So yes, d-p-u-g – it appears we do have to “keep arguing it”: we can’t move on from it so long as people are still clinging to the idea that they can prove a fake by pointing out that they themselves can mimic a 1970s typewriter in Microsoft Word. Duh. Of course you can. That doesn’t prove that anyone did.
double plus: Good lord, are we still debating whether those memos were fake?
Yes, because people are still repeating as if factual the nonsensical claims that Microsoft “invented” the Times New Roman font and kerning that had been available since the 1930s, and was certainly available on commercial typewriters in the 1960s for the Kilian memos. This wingnut assertion was debunked thoroughly over three years ago. So yes, d-p-u-g – it appears we do have to “keep arguing it”: we can’t move on from it so long as people are still clinging to the idea that they can prove a fake by pointing out that they themselves can mimic a 1970s typewriter in Microsoft Word. Duh. Of course you can. That doesn’t prove that anyone did.
America bad.
Group hug, fellow America haters.
America bad.
Group hug, fellow America haters.
America bad.
Group hug, fellow America haters.
Regarding the TANG documents, wasn’t one of the points that a document referred to some general who had actually retired a year previously? It wasn’t entirely about the kerning, as I recall.
Regarding the TANG documents, wasn’t one of the points that a document referred to some general who had actually retired a year previously? It wasn’t entirely about the kerning, as I recall.
Regarding the TANG documents, wasn’t one of the points that a document referred to some general who had actually retired a year previously? It wasn’t entirely about the kerning, as I recall.
Yes, because people are still repeating as if factual the nonsensical claims that Microsoft “invented” the Times New Roman font and kerning that had been available since the 1930s, and was certainly available on commercial typewriters in the 1960s for the Kilian memos.
This indicates a lack of understanding of fonts. Times Roman is a style, not a hard specification, Jes. Times Roman on an Apple is not identical to Times Roman on Windows, much less on a Times Roman font on a forty year old typewriter. And even if the faces were completely identical (which they aren’t), the spacing between the individual characters is propitiatory technology. Patented, even. A typewriter, a typesetter, or a different computer could not produce that document without using Microsoft’s TrueType fonts. I encourage you to try.
Regarding that “debunking” by Hunter on Kos — Hunter spent an evening reading up on typewriters on the web. Personally, I have decades of print and typography experience, yet I would only consider myself a neophyte in the technology. Hunter was saying that his own evening’s worth of web browsing outweighed industry experts. It was an embarrassment. I usually expect self-appointed instant experts to be coming from the other side of the ideological fence.
Yes, because people are still repeating as if factual the nonsensical claims that Microsoft “invented” the Times New Roman font and kerning that had been available since the 1930s, and was certainly available on commercial typewriters in the 1960s for the Kilian memos.
This indicates a lack of understanding of fonts. Times Roman is a style, not a hard specification, Jes. Times Roman on an Apple is not identical to Times Roman on Windows, much less on a Times Roman font on a forty year old typewriter. And even if the faces were completely identical (which they aren’t), the spacing between the individual characters is propitiatory technology. Patented, even. A typewriter, a typesetter, or a different computer could not produce that document without using Microsoft’s TrueType fonts. I encourage you to try.
Regarding that “debunking” by Hunter on Kos — Hunter spent an evening reading up on typewriters on the web. Personally, I have decades of print and typography experience, yet I would only consider myself a neophyte in the technology. Hunter was saying that his own evening’s worth of web browsing outweighed industry experts. It was an embarrassment. I usually expect self-appointed instant experts to be coming from the other side of the ideological fence.
Yes, because people are still repeating as if factual the nonsensical claims that Microsoft “invented” the Times New Roman font and kerning that had been available since the 1930s, and was certainly available on commercial typewriters in the 1960s for the Kilian memos.
This indicates a lack of understanding of fonts. Times Roman is a style, not a hard specification, Jes. Times Roman on an Apple is not identical to Times Roman on Windows, much less on a Times Roman font on a forty year old typewriter. And even if the faces were completely identical (which they aren’t), the spacing between the individual characters is propitiatory technology. Patented, even. A typewriter, a typesetter, or a different computer could not produce that document without using Microsoft’s TrueType fonts. I encourage you to try.
Regarding that “debunking” by Hunter on Kos — Hunter spent an evening reading up on typewriters on the web. Personally, I have decades of print and typography experience, yet I would only consider myself a neophyte in the technology. Hunter was saying that his own evening’s worth of web browsing outweighed industry experts. It was an embarrassment. I usually expect self-appointed instant experts to be coming from the other side of the ideological fence.
Me: …the spacing between the individual characters is propitiatory technology.
…or possibly proprietary. Oops.
Me: …the spacing between the individual characters is propitiatory technology.
…or possibly proprietary. Oops.
Me: …the spacing between the individual characters is propitiatory technology.
…or possibly proprietary. Oops.
propitiatory …
i done learned a new word.
propitiatory …
i done learned a new word.
propitiatory …
i done learned a new word.
“Regarding that ‘debunking’ by Hunter on Kos — Hunter spent an evening reading up on typewriters on the web. Personally, I have decades of print and typography experience, yet I would only consider myself a neophyte in the technology. Hunter was saying that his own evening’s worth of web browsing outweighed industry experts. It was an embarrassment.”
I agree. And I say this not to get at Jes, who is as right about facts somewhat more often as she is wrong. But in this case it’s a matter of having prior knowlege sufficient to give one context enough to judge what’s relevant to debunking and what is not.
I further say this as someone who was mildly prominent in the original discussion.
I first debunked the initial claims that the documents were forgeries here, in what may be the most linked and viewed post I’ve ever written, which was linked to by Atrios, and people all over; until sometime in the last year, a link to that post was my only link from Wikipedia, from their article on the controversy, but it vanished for some reason at some point in mid-2007.
I followed that post with this one, in which I still defended the possibility that the documents weren’t forged, until the evidence convinced me that they were. So many people wrote up the final details at the time that I didn’t bother, so I’ll leave that to d-p-u (note his presence then).
But I didn’t come to the forgery conclusion eagerly, to say the least.
“Regarding that ‘debunking’ by Hunter on Kos — Hunter spent an evening reading up on typewriters on the web. Personally, I have decades of print and typography experience, yet I would only consider myself a neophyte in the technology. Hunter was saying that his own evening’s worth of web browsing outweighed industry experts. It was an embarrassment.”
I agree. And I say this not to get at Jes, who is as right about facts somewhat more often as she is wrong. But in this case it’s a matter of having prior knowlege sufficient to give one context enough to judge what’s relevant to debunking and what is not.
I further say this as someone who was mildly prominent in the original discussion.
I first debunked the initial claims that the documents were forgeries here, in what may be the most linked and viewed post I’ve ever written, which was linked to by Atrios, and people all over; until sometime in the last year, a link to that post was my only link from Wikipedia, from their article on the controversy, but it vanished for some reason at some point in mid-2007.
I followed that post with this one, in which I still defended the possibility that the documents weren’t forged, until the evidence convinced me that they were. So many people wrote up the final details at the time that I didn’t bother, so I’ll leave that to d-p-u (note his presence then).
But I didn’t come to the forgery conclusion eagerly, to say the least.
“Regarding that ‘debunking’ by Hunter on Kos — Hunter spent an evening reading up on typewriters on the web. Personally, I have decades of print and typography experience, yet I would only consider myself a neophyte in the technology. Hunter was saying that his own evening’s worth of web browsing outweighed industry experts. It was an embarrassment.”
I agree. And I say this not to get at Jes, who is as right about facts somewhat more often as she is wrong. But in this case it’s a matter of having prior knowlege sufficient to give one context enough to judge what’s relevant to debunking and what is not.
I further say this as someone who was mildly prominent in the original discussion.
I first debunked the initial claims that the documents were forgeries here, in what may be the most linked and viewed post I’ve ever written, which was linked to by Atrios, and people all over; until sometime in the last year, a link to that post was my only link from Wikipedia, from their article on the controversy, but it vanished for some reason at some point in mid-2007.
I followed that post with this one, in which I still defended the possibility that the documents weren’t forged, until the evidence convinced me that they were. So many people wrote up the final details at the time that I didn’t bother, so I’ll leave that to d-p-u (note his presence then).
But I didn’t come to the forgery conclusion eagerly, to say the least.
Hopefully Crimso will turn his/her eagle eye for lies to this administration. He/she will have plenty to write about, and most posters here will be cheering him/her on.
Hopefully Crimso will turn his/her eagle eye for lies to this administration. He/she will have plenty to write about, and most posters here will be cheering him/her on.
Hopefully Crimso will turn his/her eagle eye for lies to this administration. He/she will have plenty to write about, and most posters here will be cheering him/her on.
But I didn’t come to the forgery conclusion eagerly, to say the least.
Me either. But to to those with some understanding of the technology, it was like seeing a da Vinci painting done in acrylic. And frustrating to try and explain that acrylic was something fairly new only to have people say that acrylic was just a type of paint, and that paint had been around for centuries, and wasn’t acrylic just based on earlier oil paints anyway? Arrgh.
But I didn’t come to the forgery conclusion eagerly, to say the least.
Me either. But to to those with some understanding of the technology, it was like seeing a da Vinci painting done in acrylic. And frustrating to try and explain that acrylic was something fairly new only to have people say that acrylic was just a type of paint, and that paint had been around for centuries, and wasn’t acrylic just based on earlier oil paints anyway? Arrgh.
But I didn’t come to the forgery conclusion eagerly, to say the least.
Me either. But to to those with some understanding of the technology, it was like seeing a da Vinci painting done in acrylic. And frustrating to try and explain that acrylic was something fairly new only to have people say that acrylic was just a type of paint, and that paint had been around for centuries, and wasn’t acrylic just based on earlier oil paints anyway? Arrgh.
gary–
a fine point of english (of the sort you like):
do you think it is correct to say in your 8:27 that you “debunked” the initial claims that the documents were forgeries, when in the end it turned out that they were?
i guess my ear tells me that “debunk” is like “refute”: you only refute p if you demonstrate that p is false *and p is false*; and you only “debunk” a claim if you show that it is false *and it is false*. to put it differently, i treat “debunk” as a success-word; you can certainly *try* to debunk something that later turns out true, but the fact that it later turned out true means that you never actually debunked it.
any other ears out there with intuitions the same or different?
gary–
a fine point of english (of the sort you like):
do you think it is correct to say in your 8:27 that you “debunked” the initial claims that the documents were forgeries, when in the end it turned out that they were?
i guess my ear tells me that “debunk” is like “refute”: you only refute p if you demonstrate that p is false *and p is false*; and you only “debunk” a claim if you show that it is false *and it is false*. to put it differently, i treat “debunk” as a success-word; you can certainly *try* to debunk something that later turns out true, but the fact that it later turned out true means that you never actually debunked it.
any other ears out there with intuitions the same or different?
gary–
a fine point of english (of the sort you like):
do you think it is correct to say in your 8:27 that you “debunked” the initial claims that the documents were forgeries, when in the end it turned out that they were?
i guess my ear tells me that “debunk” is like “refute”: you only refute p if you demonstrate that p is false *and p is false*; and you only “debunk” a claim if you show that it is false *and it is false*. to put it differently, i treat “debunk” as a success-word; you can certainly *try* to debunk something that later turns out true, but the fact that it later turned out true means that you never actually debunked it.
any other ears out there with intuitions the same or different?
“do you think it is correct to say in your 8:27 that you ‘debunked’ the initial claims that the documents were forgeries, when in the end it turned out that they were?”
Yes, because I specifically said that I debunked the initial claims. Those claims were, in fact, wrong, erroneous, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings. See the post for details.
Later claims turned out, in my judgment, to be correct.
Perfectly fair question, though.
Fun fact!:
“do you think it is correct to say in your 8:27 that you ‘debunked’ the initial claims that the documents were forgeries, when in the end it turned out that they were?”
Yes, because I specifically said that I debunked the initial claims. Those claims were, in fact, wrong, erroneous, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings. See the post for details.
Later claims turned out, in my judgment, to be correct.
Perfectly fair question, though.
Fun fact!:
“do you think it is correct to say in your 8:27 that you ‘debunked’ the initial claims that the documents were forgeries, when in the end it turned out that they were?”
Yes, because I specifically said that I debunked the initial claims. Those claims were, in fact, wrong, erroneous, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings. See the post for details.
Later claims turned out, in my judgment, to be correct.
Perfectly fair question, though.
Fun fact!:
I henceforth will use the term “debunkum”.
I henceforth will use the term “debunkum”.
I henceforth will use the term “debunkum”.
Steve: Regarding the TANG documents, wasn’t one of the points that a document referred to some general who had actually retired a year previously? It wasn’t entirely about the kerning, as I recall.
Actually, that sounds like one of the glaring problems with the Niger yellowcake memos, only it was a minister of some sort and not a general. Could this be what you’re remembering?
Steve: Regarding the TANG documents, wasn’t one of the points that a document referred to some general who had actually retired a year previously? It wasn’t entirely about the kerning, as I recall.
Actually, that sounds like one of the glaring problems with the Niger yellowcake memos, only it was a minister of some sort and not a general. Could this be what you’re remembering?
Steve: Regarding the TANG documents, wasn’t one of the points that a document referred to some general who had actually retired a year previously? It wasn’t entirely about the kerning, as I recall.
Actually, that sounds like one of the glaring problems with the Niger yellowcake memos, only it was a minister of some sort and not a general. Could this be what you’re remembering?
D-p-u-g: So again (as now) the only “evidence” that the Kilian memos were forged that anyone seems to have come up with is that they’re sure you can’t type a document that looks like the Kilian memos.
And as that’s an absurd claim to make (yes, you can) – well, yes, we will still have this discussion, I don’t doubt, unless someone can actually link to me to some positive evidence that they were forged that is not dependent on the claim that you’re sure they don’t look like they were typed.
D-p-u-g: So again (as now) the only “evidence” that the Kilian memos were forged that anyone seems to have come up with is that they’re sure you can’t type a document that looks like the Kilian memos.
And as that’s an absurd claim to make (yes, you can) – well, yes, we will still have this discussion, I don’t doubt, unless someone can actually link to me to some positive evidence that they were forged that is not dependent on the claim that you’re sure they don’t look like they were typed.
D-p-u-g: So again (as now) the only “evidence” that the Kilian memos were forged that anyone seems to have come up with is that they’re sure you can’t type a document that looks like the Kilian memos.
And as that’s an absurd claim to make (yes, you can) – well, yes, we will still have this discussion, I don’t doubt, unless someone can actually link to me to some positive evidence that they were forged that is not dependent on the claim that you’re sure they don’t look like they were typed.
“And as that’s an absurd claim to make (yes, you can)”
I assume you can point to such an example?
“And as that’s an absurd claim to make (yes, you can)”
I assume you can point to such an example?
“And as that’s an absurd claim to make (yes, you can)”
I assume you can point to such an example?
A few points, in no particular order:
1. If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?
2. When someone labels something a diary, you would expect to read a personal and truthful account of a fella’s experiences, especially in a magazine that exclusively publishes non-fiction. The “truthful” part of his diary looks highly suspect, and the military’s conclusions bear that out. TNR had should have called it Baghdad Story, or not done it at all.
3. If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens? TNR was in favor of removing Saddam, true, but Franklin Foer has a different view on the Iraq venture than his predecessors, and he’s more in line with the dKos Left.
4. A single Hummer isn’t a small convoy of BFVs. Running down dogs in those circumstances just one part of his “diary” that hit folks’ plausibility meter.
5. The claimed desecration of the Iraqi gravesite was enough for the military to start an investigation. Anti-American elements could have used such an act for propaganda purposes to incite “insurgents” to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance. I would be pretty offended if a soldier from a foreign country plundered my local cemetery and wore my dead neighbor’s partial skull on his head for whatever sick reason. Such an act may offend me enough to want to detonate some IEDs on those foreign troops. If this really happened, then that’s a pretty despicable thing those troops did, and there could still be some negative ramifications. If Beauchamp lied about it, then he needlessly put his fellow soldiers’ lives in peril by putting out such crap.
A few points, in no particular order:
1. If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?
2. When someone labels something a diary, you would expect to read a personal and truthful account of a fella’s experiences, especially in a magazine that exclusively publishes non-fiction. The “truthful” part of his diary looks highly suspect, and the military’s conclusions bear that out. TNR had should have called it Baghdad Story, or not done it at all.
3. If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens? TNR was in favor of removing Saddam, true, but Franklin Foer has a different view on the Iraq venture than his predecessors, and he’s more in line with the dKos Left.
4. A single Hummer isn’t a small convoy of BFVs. Running down dogs in those circumstances just one part of his “diary” that hit folks’ plausibility meter.
5. The claimed desecration of the Iraqi gravesite was enough for the military to start an investigation. Anti-American elements could have used such an act for propaganda purposes to incite “insurgents” to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance. I would be pretty offended if a soldier from a foreign country plundered my local cemetery and wore my dead neighbor’s partial skull on his head for whatever sick reason. Such an act may offend me enough to want to detonate some IEDs on those foreign troops. If this really happened, then that’s a pretty despicable thing those troops did, and there could still be some negative ramifications. If Beauchamp lied about it, then he needlessly put his fellow soldiers’ lives in peril by putting out such crap.
A few points, in no particular order:
1. If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?
2. When someone labels something a diary, you would expect to read a personal and truthful account of a fella’s experiences, especially in a magazine that exclusively publishes non-fiction. The “truthful” part of his diary looks highly suspect, and the military’s conclusions bear that out. TNR had should have called it Baghdad Story, or not done it at all.
3. If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens? TNR was in favor of removing Saddam, true, but Franklin Foer has a different view on the Iraq venture than his predecessors, and he’s more in line with the dKos Left.
4. A single Hummer isn’t a small convoy of BFVs. Running down dogs in those circumstances just one part of his “diary” that hit folks’ plausibility meter.
5. The claimed desecration of the Iraqi gravesite was enough for the military to start an investigation. Anti-American elements could have used such an act for propaganda purposes to incite “insurgents” to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance. I would be pretty offended if a soldier from a foreign country plundered my local cemetery and wore my dead neighbor’s partial skull on his head for whatever sick reason. Such an act may offend me enough to want to detonate some IEDs on those foreign troops. If this really happened, then that’s a pretty despicable thing those troops did, and there could still be some negative ramifications. If Beauchamp lied about it, then he needlessly put his fellow soldiers’ lives in peril by putting out such crap.
Wow. d-p-u posts a comment which clearly explains that the problem with the Kilian documents lies not in the use of Times New Roman, but in the space between individual characters, a feature which is proprietary to each maker of the font and which happens, in this case, to be identical to that used by Microsoft and not identical to that use by IBM in its late-60s/early-70s typewriters. To which Jes replies, in essence, “Uh-uh.”
He offers decades of experience in typesetting and typography, and she offers . . . nothing.
And I am supposed to believe who, exactly?
Wow. d-p-u posts a comment which clearly explains that the problem with the Kilian documents lies not in the use of Times New Roman, but in the space between individual characters, a feature which is proprietary to each maker of the font and which happens, in this case, to be identical to that used by Microsoft and not identical to that use by IBM in its late-60s/early-70s typewriters. To which Jes replies, in essence, “Uh-uh.”
He offers decades of experience in typesetting and typography, and she offers . . . nothing.
And I am supposed to believe who, exactly?
Wow. d-p-u posts a comment which clearly explains that the problem with the Kilian documents lies not in the use of Times New Roman, but in the space between individual characters, a feature which is proprietary to each maker of the font and which happens, in this case, to be identical to that used by Microsoft and not identical to that use by IBM in its late-60s/early-70s typewriters. To which Jes replies, in essence, “Uh-uh.”
He offers decades of experience in typesetting and typography, and she offers . . . nothing.
And I am supposed to believe who, exactly?
“f the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?”
Because the far right thinks it is monumentally important. Nobody (apparently including the Iraqis or any antiwar blog I ever read) paid the slightest bit of attention to Beauchamp’s stories until the right made a huge issue out of them, because as horrible war stories go, these were awfully tame. The majority of Iraqis support attacks on US forces–it’s doubtful that this is because of Beauchamp.
Now if the Abu Ghraib photos were fake, that would be a huge story.
“f the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?”
Because the far right thinks it is monumentally important. Nobody (apparently including the Iraqis or any antiwar blog I ever read) paid the slightest bit of attention to Beauchamp’s stories until the right made a huge issue out of them, because as horrible war stories go, these were awfully tame. The majority of Iraqis support attacks on US forces–it’s doubtful that this is because of Beauchamp.
Now if the Abu Ghraib photos were fake, that would be a huge story.
“f the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?”
Because the far right thinks it is monumentally important. Nobody (apparently including the Iraqis or any antiwar blog I ever read) paid the slightest bit of attention to Beauchamp’s stories until the right made a huge issue out of them, because as horrible war stories go, these were awfully tame. The majority of Iraqis support attacks on US forces–it’s doubtful that this is because of Beauchamp.
Now if the Abu Ghraib photos were fake, that would be a huge story.
CB, I think no. 1 is pretty easy. This is a minor incident: (a) pseudonymous nobody writes questionable (and not explosive) story in non-influential magazine. (b) RW comes unglued, works overtime to destroy the story and the guy. As part of building a narrative that the war effort is being materially undermined by a fifth column. YMMV, but the second is more newsworthy to me than the first, because how the RW acts in a country I share with them matters more than whether these trivial incidents happened as written.
Lest there be any mistake, I join Brett and others in rejecting (calmly and quietly, as befitting my level of interest in this small story) that which is fake. I cannot join the RW, however, in rejecting that which is accurate. And it says a lot about the howling denizens of the RW that they’d spend so much effort to harm this guy over this kind of trivia, none of it good.
CB, I think no. 1 is pretty easy. This is a minor incident: (a) pseudonymous nobody writes questionable (and not explosive) story in non-influential magazine. (b) RW comes unglued, works overtime to destroy the story and the guy. As part of building a narrative that the war effort is being materially undermined by a fifth column. YMMV, but the second is more newsworthy to me than the first, because how the RW acts in a country I share with them matters more than whether these trivial incidents happened as written.
Lest there be any mistake, I join Brett and others in rejecting (calmly and quietly, as befitting my level of interest in this small story) that which is fake. I cannot join the RW, however, in rejecting that which is accurate. And it says a lot about the howling denizens of the RW that they’d spend so much effort to harm this guy over this kind of trivia, none of it good.
CB, I think no. 1 is pretty easy. This is a minor incident: (a) pseudonymous nobody writes questionable (and not explosive) story in non-influential magazine. (b) RW comes unglued, works overtime to destroy the story and the guy. As part of building a narrative that the war effort is being materially undermined by a fifth column. YMMV, but the second is more newsworthy to me than the first, because how the RW acts in a country I share with them matters more than whether these trivial incidents happened as written.
Lest there be any mistake, I join Brett and others in rejecting (calmly and quietly, as befitting my level of interest in this small story) that which is fake. I cannot join the RW, however, in rejecting that which is accurate. And it says a lot about the howling denizens of the RW that they’d spend so much effort to harm this guy over this kind of trivia, none of it good.
Charles, re your #5, that is the case whether what Beauchamp wrote is true or not, so I don’t see its relevance here. What’s more, I doubt very many Iraqis read TNR. And they have plenty of other reasons to want to attack our soldiers anyway.
Charles, re your #5, that is the case whether what Beauchamp wrote is true or not, so I don’t see its relevance here. What’s more, I doubt very many Iraqis read TNR. And they have plenty of other reasons to want to attack our soldiers anyway.
Charles, re your #5, that is the case whether what Beauchamp wrote is true or not, so I don’t see its relevance here. What’s more, I doubt very many Iraqis read TNR. And they have plenty of other reasons to want to attack our soldiers anyway.
4. One discussion point about the running down of dogs was whether leadership at any level would ever tolerate such a thing. I think I remember OCS commenting to this effect. G’Kar writes of surprise to find that his (and OCS’) understanding of this was mistaken. It doesn’t prove anything other than what we all already knew: all generalizations are false (including this one).
4. One discussion point about the running down of dogs was whether leadership at any level would ever tolerate such a thing. I think I remember OCS commenting to this effect. G’Kar writes of surprise to find that his (and OCS’) understanding of this was mistaken. It doesn’t prove anything other than what we all already knew: all generalizations are false (including this one).
4. One discussion point about the running down of dogs was whether leadership at any level would ever tolerate such a thing. I think I remember OCS commenting to this effect. G’Kar writes of surprise to find that his (and OCS’) understanding of this was mistaken. It doesn’t prove anything other than what we all already knew: all generalizations are false (including this one).
I’ve got no issue with (2), except the implication at the end that at the time it published the story, TNR knew that is wasn’t a ‘dairy’ as CB describes one. Occam on this favors fact-checking to the extent of verifying that the author really is a soldier serving in Iraq, and then taking at face value stuff he says he saw.
I’ve got no issue with (2), except the implication at the end that at the time it published the story, TNR knew that is wasn’t a ‘dairy’ as CB describes one. Occam on this favors fact-checking to the extent of verifying that the author really is a soldier serving in Iraq, and then taking at face value stuff he says he saw.
I’ve got no issue with (2), except the implication at the end that at the time it published the story, TNR knew that is wasn’t a ‘dairy’ as CB describes one. Occam on this favors fact-checking to the extent of verifying that the author really is a soldier serving in Iraq, and then taking at face value stuff he says he saw.
If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?
how many of those are addressing Beauchamp’s story directly, v. how many are talking about the meta-story ?
If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?
how many of those are addressing Beauchamp’s story directly, v. how many are talking about the meta-story ?
If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?
how many of those are addressing Beauchamp’s story directly, v. how many are talking about the meta-story ?
Charles: The “truthful” part of his diary looks highly suspect
So did Abdallah Higazy.
The notion that anyone would take the right-wing blogosphere’s word for what “looks highly suspect” at this point is… well, consider that I think double-plus-ungood is more likely to post me a link convincing me that the Kilian memos are forged*, than any blogger who swallowed unquestioning the propaganda of the Bush administration is going to be able to convince me that they’re skeptical, questioning, suspicious kind of guys with a keen sense for truth.
*And you know, if he can, he can: I don’t rule that out.
Charles: The “truthful” part of his diary looks highly suspect
So did Abdallah Higazy.
The notion that anyone would take the right-wing blogosphere’s word for what “looks highly suspect” at this point is… well, consider that I think double-plus-ungood is more likely to post me a link convincing me that the Kilian memos are forged*, than any blogger who swallowed unquestioning the propaganda of the Bush administration is going to be able to convince me that they’re skeptical, questioning, suspicious kind of guys with a keen sense for truth.
*And you know, if he can, he can: I don’t rule that out.
Charles: The “truthful” part of his diary looks highly suspect
So did Abdallah Higazy.
The notion that anyone would take the right-wing blogosphere’s word for what “looks highly suspect” at this point is… well, consider that I think double-plus-ungood is more likely to post me a link convincing me that the Kilian memos are forged*, than any blogger who swallowed unquestioning the propaganda of the Bush administration is going to be able to convince me that they’re skeptical, questioning, suspicious kind of guys with a keen sense for truth.
*And you know, if he can, he can: I don’t rule that out.
Because the far right thinks it is monumentally important.
Donald, the far right on this thread numbers about two people. On a good day.
I doubt very many Iraqis read TNR.
I doubt many Egyptians read Danish newspapers, Phil, but the cartoons of the Prophet sparked a delayed-reaction international firestorm. At Michael Yon’s site, readers from 100 countries have clicked on his site over a 24-hour period, many of which are Muslim-majority countries. TNR probably does not have that breadth of readership, but at the same time they’re not all coastal, latte-drinking, Prius-driving left-wingers. For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.
Because the far right thinks it is monumentally important.
Donald, the far right on this thread numbers about two people. On a good day.
I doubt very many Iraqis read TNR.
I doubt many Egyptians read Danish newspapers, Phil, but the cartoons of the Prophet sparked a delayed-reaction international firestorm. At Michael Yon’s site, readers from 100 countries have clicked on his site over a 24-hour period, many of which are Muslim-majority countries. TNR probably does not have that breadth of readership, but at the same time they’re not all coastal, latte-drinking, Prius-driving left-wingers. For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.
Because the far right thinks it is monumentally important.
Donald, the far right on this thread numbers about two people. On a good day.
I doubt very many Iraqis read TNR.
I doubt many Egyptians read Danish newspapers, Phil, but the cartoons of the Prophet sparked a delayed-reaction international firestorm. At Michael Yon’s site, readers from 100 countries have clicked on his site over a 24-hour period, many of which are Muslim-majority countries. TNR probably does not have that breadth of readership, but at the same time they’re not all coastal, latte-drinking, Prius-driving left-wingers. For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.
It’s true there aren’t many far righties on this blog, CB, but there were some vocal ones in this thread, and a lot of vocal lefties responding to them, though more on the meta-issue than the issue (which most of us think unimportant.)
It’s true there aren’t many far righties on this blog, CB, but there were some vocal ones in this thread, and a lot of vocal lefties responding to them, though more on the meta-issue than the issue (which most of us think unimportant.)
It’s true there aren’t many far righties on this blog, CB, but there were some vocal ones in this thread, and a lot of vocal lefties responding to them, though more on the meta-issue than the issue (which most of us think unimportant.)
So again (as now) the only “evidence” that the Kilian memos were forged that anyone seems to have come up with is that they’re sure you can’t type a document that looks like the Kilian memos.
I’ll try to explain this in layman terms, although I’m beginning to think it pointless.
Microsoft TrueType fonts contain information about how individual characters fit beside each other. For example, a “w” will tuck slightly under a capital “T”, while other characters will not do that.
This information is computer-based. Before computers, this would be done by hand, and the same text set by different individuals would be slightly different.
Typewriters never did this, even ones with proportional spacing.
The spacing of fonts, even of the same type and same face, will be different on a different computer, like the Mac, if they are not using TrueType fonts. This is because TrueType fonts have proprietary spacing information.
The layout of the alleged memos, supposedly typed some twenty years before the development of these fonts, displays identical spacing. That alone would indicate that they are forgeries.
If you type the text of the memos into Microsoft Word using the default fonts, default line spacing, and the default margins, you get a document with identical spacing. That, too, indicates that it was written with Word, as no-one has been able to do the same with any other program, typesetter, or typewriter.
Lastly, the alleged memos contain centered text that is identical in position and spacing as that produced by Microsoft Word. As centering is something that is highly sensitive to inter-character spacing, and as the centering measurements are extremely precise, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a typewriter in the 1960s would happen to center text with exactly the same positioning as a modern word processor using a proprietary font with algorithmically determined kerning.
So again (as now) the only “evidence” that the Kilian memos were forged that anyone seems to have come up with is that they’re sure you can’t type a document that looks like the Kilian memos.
I’ll try to explain this in layman terms, although I’m beginning to think it pointless.
Microsoft TrueType fonts contain information about how individual characters fit beside each other. For example, a “w” will tuck slightly under a capital “T”, while other characters will not do that.
This information is computer-based. Before computers, this would be done by hand, and the same text set by different individuals would be slightly different.
Typewriters never did this, even ones with proportional spacing.
The spacing of fonts, even of the same type and same face, will be different on a different computer, like the Mac, if they are not using TrueType fonts. This is because TrueType fonts have proprietary spacing information.
The layout of the alleged memos, supposedly typed some twenty years before the development of these fonts, displays identical spacing. That alone would indicate that they are forgeries.
If you type the text of the memos into Microsoft Word using the default fonts, default line spacing, and the default margins, you get a document with identical spacing. That, too, indicates that it was written with Word, as no-one has been able to do the same with any other program, typesetter, or typewriter.
Lastly, the alleged memos contain centered text that is identical in position and spacing as that produced by Microsoft Word. As centering is something that is highly sensitive to inter-character spacing, and as the centering measurements are extremely precise, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a typewriter in the 1960s would happen to center text with exactly the same positioning as a modern word processor using a proprietary font with algorithmically determined kerning.
So again (as now) the only “evidence” that the Kilian memos were forged that anyone seems to have come up with is that they’re sure you can’t type a document that looks like the Kilian memos.
I’ll try to explain this in layman terms, although I’m beginning to think it pointless.
Microsoft TrueType fonts contain information about how individual characters fit beside each other. For example, a “w” will tuck slightly under a capital “T”, while other characters will not do that.
This information is computer-based. Before computers, this would be done by hand, and the same text set by different individuals would be slightly different.
Typewriters never did this, even ones with proportional spacing.
The spacing of fonts, even of the same type and same face, will be different on a different computer, like the Mac, if they are not using TrueType fonts. This is because TrueType fonts have proprietary spacing information.
The layout of the alleged memos, supposedly typed some twenty years before the development of these fonts, displays identical spacing. That alone would indicate that they are forgeries.
If you type the text of the memos into Microsoft Word using the default fonts, default line spacing, and the default margins, you get a document with identical spacing. That, too, indicates that it was written with Word, as no-one has been able to do the same with any other program, typesetter, or typewriter.
Lastly, the alleged memos contain centered text that is identical in position and spacing as that produced by Microsoft Word. As centering is something that is highly sensitive to inter-character spacing, and as the centering measurements are extremely precise, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that a typewriter in the 1960s would happen to center text with exactly the same positioning as a modern word processor using a proprietary font with algorithmically determined kerning.
I dunno about the rest of it — ok, I don’t care enough about the rest of it — but I’ll take a stab at your #3 here Charles:
If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens?
Because he’s slime?
I dunno about the rest of it — ok, I don’t care enough about the rest of it — but I’ll take a stab at your #3 here Charles:
If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens?
Because he’s slime?
I dunno about the rest of it — ok, I don’t care enough about the rest of it — but I’ll take a stab at your #3 here Charles:
If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens?
Because he’s slime?
CC: One discussion point about the running down of dogs was whether leadership at any level would ever tolerate such a thing. I think I remember OCS commenting to this effect. G’Kar writes of surprise to find that his (and OCS’) understanding of this was mistaken.
Oh how I’ve been trying to stay out of this. I still am, but I should clarify this a little.
My argument as to why this was important is that I could not envision officers, NCOs, vehicle commanders etc. allowing/ignoring the kind of behavior described in the various incidents. So if the incidents were true that would represent a breakdown of basic discipline in the unit. That kind of discipline breakdown is what can lead to much worse things occurring. In that light the incidents were well worth investigating.
So yeah, G’Kar’s post surprised and dismayed me, especially as given the source I believe every word without question. The total casualness of the incident with a stranger on board speaks volumes I think. I take it as a sign that the Army is even more broken than I thought.
CC: One discussion point about the running down of dogs was whether leadership at any level would ever tolerate such a thing. I think I remember OCS commenting to this effect. G’Kar writes of surprise to find that his (and OCS’) understanding of this was mistaken.
Oh how I’ve been trying to stay out of this. I still am, but I should clarify this a little.
My argument as to why this was important is that I could not envision officers, NCOs, vehicle commanders etc. allowing/ignoring the kind of behavior described in the various incidents. So if the incidents were true that would represent a breakdown of basic discipline in the unit. That kind of discipline breakdown is what can lead to much worse things occurring. In that light the incidents were well worth investigating.
So yeah, G’Kar’s post surprised and dismayed me, especially as given the source I believe every word without question. The total casualness of the incident with a stranger on board speaks volumes I think. I take it as a sign that the Army is even more broken than I thought.
CC: One discussion point about the running down of dogs was whether leadership at any level would ever tolerate such a thing. I think I remember OCS commenting to this effect. G’Kar writes of surprise to find that his (and OCS’) understanding of this was mistaken.
Oh how I’ve been trying to stay out of this. I still am, but I should clarify this a little.
My argument as to why this was important is that I could not envision officers, NCOs, vehicle commanders etc. allowing/ignoring the kind of behavior described in the various incidents. So if the incidents were true that would represent a breakdown of basic discipline in the unit. That kind of discipline breakdown is what can lead to much worse things occurring. In that light the incidents were well worth investigating.
So yeah, G’Kar’s post surprised and dismayed me, especially as given the source I believe every word without question. The total casualness of the incident with a stranger on board speaks volumes I think. I take it as a sign that the Army is even more broken than I thought.
At Michael Yon’s site, readers from 100 countries have clicked on his site over a 24-hour period, many of which are Muslim-majority countries. TNR probably does not have that breadth of readership, but at the same time they’re not all coastal, latte-drinking, Prius-driving left-wingers. For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.
And what do you suppose folks from Muslim-majority countries think when they click through to Michelle Malkin’s blog, or any of the other far-right blogs which contain incendiary statements about Muslims, torture, and the war?
The far right has surrendered far too much ground in the battle for Muslim hearts and minds to think that they can win it back by debunking some random anecdote from a soldier’s diary.
At Michael Yon’s site, readers from 100 countries have clicked on his site over a 24-hour period, many of which are Muslim-majority countries. TNR probably does not have that breadth of readership, but at the same time they’re not all coastal, latte-drinking, Prius-driving left-wingers. For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.
And what do you suppose folks from Muslim-majority countries think when they click through to Michelle Malkin’s blog, or any of the other far-right blogs which contain incendiary statements about Muslims, torture, and the war?
The far right has surrendered far too much ground in the battle for Muslim hearts and minds to think that they can win it back by debunking some random anecdote from a soldier’s diary.
At Michael Yon’s site, readers from 100 countries have clicked on his site over a 24-hour period, many of which are Muslim-majority countries. TNR probably does not have that breadth of readership, but at the same time they’re not all coastal, latte-drinking, Prius-driving left-wingers. For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.
And what do you suppose folks from Muslim-majority countries think when they click through to Michelle Malkin’s blog, or any of the other far-right blogs which contain incendiary statements about Muslims, torture, and the war?
The far right has surrendered far too much ground in the battle for Muslim hearts and minds to think that they can win it back by debunking some random anecdote from a soldier’s diary.
Here
is a link to a poll commissioned by the BBC and other news organizations in Iraq last March. (PDF file). Note questions 30 and 33–over half support attacks on US forces and in question 33, 44 percent said there had been unnecessary violence against Iraqi civilians by coalition forces “near here”, which was a higher percentage than for any other group.
Which in a nutshell is why I don’t think Beauchamp’s stories have any propaganda importance. Iraqis don’t need to read true or false stories in the American press to know what they think about events in their neighborhood.
Here
is a link to a poll commissioned by the BBC and other news organizations in Iraq last March. (PDF file). Note questions 30 and 33–over half support attacks on US forces and in question 33, 44 percent said there had been unnecessary violence against Iraqi civilians by coalition forces “near here”, which was a higher percentage than for any other group.
Which in a nutshell is why I don’t think Beauchamp’s stories have any propaganda importance. Iraqis don’t need to read true or false stories in the American press to know what they think about events in their neighborhood.
Here
is a link to a poll commissioned by the BBC and other news organizations in Iraq last March. (PDF file). Note questions 30 and 33–over half support attacks on US forces and in question 33, 44 percent said there had been unnecessary violence against Iraqi civilians by coalition forces “near here”, which was a higher percentage than for any other group.
Which in a nutshell is why I don’t think Beauchamp’s stories have any propaganda importance. Iraqis don’t need to read true or false stories in the American press to know what they think about events in their neighborhood.
gary–thanks for clarification.
so it sounds like we agree that “debunk” should be used only as a success-term.
gary–thanks for clarification.
so it sounds like we agree that “debunk” should be used only as a success-term.
gary–thanks for clarification.
so it sounds like we agree that “debunk” should be used only as a success-term.
“1. If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?”
That’s idiotic, Charles. I’m participated in hundreds of threads over the years that have gone over 1000 comments, and plenty have been all about utter trivia.
By all means, go to, say, Unfogged, and tell us how “important” all those hundreds-plus comment thread topics are.
“3. If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens?”
Who the heck is Bob Owens? How does one defend TNR by attacking him? Would that retroactively remove 35 years of writings and editorial decisions? Would it remove Marty Peretz? Retroactively remove Andrew Sullivan, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Larry Kaplan, Elizabeth McCaughy, The Bell Curve, Charles Murray, support for the contras, support for Iraq, Marty Peretz’s calls for bombing Iran, etc., etc., etc., somehow?
“Franklin Foer […i]s more in line with the dKos Left.”
[bursts out laughing]
You have no idea how funny that is, do you?
“Anti-American elements could have used such an act for propaganda purposes to incite ‘insurgents’ to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance.”
I see. So you’re saying that absent writings in tiny-circulation American magazines, al Qaeda will lack excuses for attacks. That an absence of such writings will lessen such attacks.
Sure, that’s plausible. Who doesn’t believe that?
But if only we could test the theory! Say, perhaps we allow such a small magazine to post exactly such inflamnatory things as Charles is concerned about, and see the results, and compare them to our universe, in which such a small magazine didn’t post such things: that would be a controlled experiment.
Wait, what’s that? We’re in that universe, after all? We can actually observe if there were increased attacks by l Qaeda, and if there was an al Qaeda “media cell” incitment of insurgents because of those articles?
This isn’t hypothetical?
We can go check now what the actual results were?!
Wow! Charles is really going to make hay with this, using all the actual evidence of deadly attacks that occurred due to TNR!
I just don’t know how we’ll be able to reply once he points to the actual effects, the attacks on American troops that wouldn’t otherwise have happened, and he can point to the fact that he was absolutely right!
We may just have to sit here in despair, knowing that at any moment Charles will be pointing to the evidence of those devastating insurgent attacks provoked by Beauchamp.
Woe.
“For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.”
Sure, because Iraqis — and we all know that al Qaeda is what we should be mentioning, because they’re the root of all problems in Iraq, and the only people worth mentioning! — trust American Army investigations, and all that has to be done to reassure angry Iraqis is tell them that an American Army investigation says a story is false.
Your grasp of Iraqi psychology is impressive, Charles: who could possibly doubt that that’s how it works?
And, Charles, as others have pointed out, if you’re so alarmed at the notion of Teh Terrorists being upset by things Americans write, how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
“1. If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?”
That’s idiotic, Charles. I’m participated in hundreds of threads over the years that have gone over 1000 comments, and plenty have been all about utter trivia.
By all means, go to, say, Unfogged, and tell us how “important” all those hundreds-plus comment thread topics are.
“3. If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens?”
Who the heck is Bob Owens? How does one defend TNR by attacking him? Would that retroactively remove 35 years of writings and editorial decisions? Would it remove Marty Peretz? Retroactively remove Andrew Sullivan, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Larry Kaplan, Elizabeth McCaughy, The Bell Curve, Charles Murray, support for the contras, support for Iraq, Marty Peretz’s calls for bombing Iran, etc., etc., etc., somehow?
“Franklin Foer […i]s more in line with the dKos Left.”
[bursts out laughing]
You have no idea how funny that is, do you?
“Anti-American elements could have used such an act for propaganda purposes to incite ‘insurgents’ to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance.”
I see. So you’re saying that absent writings in tiny-circulation American magazines, al Qaeda will lack excuses for attacks. That an absence of such writings will lessen such attacks.
Sure, that’s plausible. Who doesn’t believe that?
But if only we could test the theory! Say, perhaps we allow such a small magazine to post exactly such inflamnatory things as Charles is concerned about, and see the results, and compare them to our universe, in which such a small magazine didn’t post such things: that would be a controlled experiment.
Wait, what’s that? We’re in that universe, after all? We can actually observe if there were increased attacks by l Qaeda, and if there was an al Qaeda “media cell” incitment of insurgents because of those articles?
This isn’t hypothetical?
We can go check now what the actual results were?!
Wow! Charles is really going to make hay with this, using all the actual evidence of deadly attacks that occurred due to TNR!
I just don’t know how we’ll be able to reply once he points to the actual effects, the attacks on American troops that wouldn’t otherwise have happened, and he can point to the fact that he was absolutely right!
We may just have to sit here in despair, knowing that at any moment Charles will be pointing to the evidence of those devastating insurgent attacks provoked by Beauchamp.
Woe.
“For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.”
Sure, because Iraqis — and we all know that al Qaeda is what we should be mentioning, because they’re the root of all problems in Iraq, and the only people worth mentioning! — trust American Army investigations, and all that has to be done to reassure angry Iraqis is tell them that an American Army investigation says a story is false.
Your grasp of Iraqi psychology is impressive, Charles: who could possibly doubt that that’s how it works?
And, Charles, as others have pointed out, if you’re so alarmed at the notion of Teh Terrorists being upset by things Americans write, how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
“1. If the issue were so trivial and unimportant, why 258-plus comments?”
That’s idiotic, Charles. I’m participated in hundreds of threads over the years that have gone over 1000 comments, and plenty have been all about utter trivia.
By all means, go to, say, Unfogged, and tell us how “important” all those hundreds-plus comment thread topics are.
“3. If nobody likes TNR here, why are so many folks defending them by attacking the likes of Bob Owens?”
Who the heck is Bob Owens? How does one defend TNR by attacking him? Would that retroactively remove 35 years of writings and editorial decisions? Would it remove Marty Peretz? Retroactively remove Andrew Sullivan, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Larry Kaplan, Elizabeth McCaughy, The Bell Curve, Charles Murray, support for the contras, support for Iraq, Marty Peretz’s calls for bombing Iran, etc., etc., etc., somehow?
“Franklin Foer […i]s more in line with the dKos Left.”
[bursts out laughing]
You have no idea how funny that is, do you?
“Anti-American elements could have used such an act for propaganda purposes to incite ‘insurgents’ to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance.”
I see. So you’re saying that absent writings in tiny-circulation American magazines, al Qaeda will lack excuses for attacks. That an absence of such writings will lessen such attacks.
Sure, that’s plausible. Who doesn’t believe that?
But if only we could test the theory! Say, perhaps we allow such a small magazine to post exactly such inflamnatory things as Charles is concerned about, and see the results, and compare them to our universe, in which such a small magazine didn’t post such things: that would be a controlled experiment.
Wait, what’s that? We’re in that universe, after all? We can actually observe if there were increased attacks by l Qaeda, and if there was an al Qaeda “media cell” incitment of insurgents because of those articles?
This isn’t hypothetical?
We can go check now what the actual results were?!
Wow! Charles is really going to make hay with this, using all the actual evidence of deadly attacks that occurred due to TNR!
I just don’t know how we’ll be able to reply once he points to the actual effects, the attacks on American troops that wouldn’t otherwise have happened, and he can point to the fact that he was absolutely right!
We may just have to sit here in despair, knowing that at any moment Charles will be pointing to the evidence of those devastating insurgent attacks provoked by Beauchamp.
Woe.
“For that reason, I’m glad that Beauchamp’s account of the gravesite desecration crime was challenged, investigated, and found to be full of sh*t.”
Sure, because Iraqis — and we all know that al Qaeda is what we should be mentioning, because they’re the root of all problems in Iraq, and the only people worth mentioning! — trust American Army investigations, and all that has to be done to reassure angry Iraqis is tell them that an American Army investigation says a story is false.
Your grasp of Iraqi psychology is impressive, Charles: who could possibly doubt that that’s how it works?
And, Charles, as others have pointed out, if you’re so alarmed at the notion of Teh Terrorists being upset by things Americans write, how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
Clearly, they are reduced to whimpering, servile toerags by teh awesome force of The Truth.
how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
Clearly, they are reduced to whimpering, servile toerags by teh awesome force of The Truth.
how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
Clearly, they are reduced to whimpering, servile toerags by teh awesome force of The Truth.
…how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
As long as the right-of-center mags and blogs are clear that they’re attacking Islamism and not Islam, I don’t have a problem, Gary.
…how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
As long as the right-of-center mags and blogs are clear that they’re attacking Islamism and not Islam, I don’t have a problem, Gary.
…how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
As long as the right-of-center mags and blogs are clear that they’re attacking Islamism and not Islam, I don’t have a problem, Gary.
“As long as the right-of-center mags and blogs are clear that they’re attacking Islamism and not Islam, I don’t have a problem, Gary.”
That’s fine, Charles, but it would be lovely if you would answer the question, which had nothing to do with your feelings.
Here’s the question again: And, Charles, as others have pointed out, if you’re so alarmed at the notion of Teh Terrorists being upset by things Americans write, how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
Note that at no time does this ask anything about Charles Bird’s problems.
But I’ll give you a bonus question, for extra credit: do you believe that Teh Terrorists distinguish, when they are maddened by what they read in small-circulation political journals and blogs, between attacks on “Islamism” and “Islam”?
Is it your contention that they have conversations along these lines?
Abdullah: “The latest issue of The American Conservative has an attack on Wahabism, but distinguishes Sufi thought as peaceful Islam! Patrick Buchanan is of the Ummah, praise be to Allah!”
Khalid: “Inshallah! But I have just read a translation of Stanley Kaufmann’s latest movie review in The New Republic (Allah preserve Franklin Foer for his work underming the Crusader-Zionists; death to Leon Wieseltier!), and it says that Islam is not a religion of peace! We must go attack an American convoy today, rather than wait until tomorrow, Abdullah!”
“It is the will of Allah, Kahlid! Death to the Americans, and may Allah smite the dog Kaufmann for his blasphemous offense, while preserving Pat Buchanan, who distinguishes Islamism from Islamism!”
KHalid: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet.”
That’s how you think it goes, Charles?
I’m a touch skeptical.
“As long as the right-of-center mags and blogs are clear that they’re attacking Islamism and not Islam, I don’t have a problem, Gary.”
That’s fine, Charles, but it would be lovely if you would answer the question, which had nothing to do with your feelings.
Here’s the question again: And, Charles, as others have pointed out, if you’re so alarmed at the notion of Teh Terrorists being upset by things Americans write, how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
Note that at no time does this ask anything about Charles Bird’s problems.
But I’ll give you a bonus question, for extra credit: do you believe that Teh Terrorists distinguish, when they are maddened by what they read in small-circulation political journals and blogs, between attacks on “Islamism” and “Islam”?
Is it your contention that they have conversations along these lines?
Abdullah: “The latest issue of The American Conservative has an attack on Wahabism, but distinguishes Sufi thought as peaceful Islam! Patrick Buchanan is of the Ummah, praise be to Allah!”
Khalid: “Inshallah! But I have just read a translation of Stanley Kaufmann’s latest movie review in The New Republic (Allah preserve Franklin Foer for his work underming the Crusader-Zionists; death to Leon Wieseltier!), and it says that Islam is not a religion of peace! We must go attack an American convoy today, rather than wait until tomorrow, Abdullah!”
“It is the will of Allah, Kahlid! Death to the Americans, and may Allah smite the dog Kaufmann for his blasphemous offense, while preserving Pat Buchanan, who distinguishes Islamism from Islamism!”
KHalid: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet.”
That’s how you think it goes, Charles?
I’m a touch skeptical.
“As long as the right-of-center mags and blogs are clear that they’re attacking Islamism and not Islam, I don’t have a problem, Gary.”
That’s fine, Charles, but it would be lovely if you would answer the question, which had nothing to do with your feelings.
Here’s the question again: And, Charles, as others have pointed out, if you’re so alarmed at the notion of Teh Terrorists being upset by things Americans write, how do you think they react to rightwing American attacks on Islam, in rightwing American magazines and blogs?
Note that at no time does this ask anything about Charles Bird’s problems.
But I’ll give you a bonus question, for extra credit: do you believe that Teh Terrorists distinguish, when they are maddened by what they read in small-circulation political journals and blogs, between attacks on “Islamism” and “Islam”?
Is it your contention that they have conversations along these lines?
Abdullah: “The latest issue of The American Conservative has an attack on Wahabism, but distinguishes Sufi thought as peaceful Islam! Patrick Buchanan is of the Ummah, praise be to Allah!”
Khalid: “Inshallah! But I have just read a translation of Stanley Kaufmann’s latest movie review in The New Republic (Allah preserve Franklin Foer for his work underming the Crusader-Zionists; death to Leon Wieseltier!), and it says that Islam is not a religion of peace! We must go attack an American convoy today, rather than wait until tomorrow, Abdullah!”
“It is the will of Allah, Kahlid! Death to the Americans, and may Allah smite the dog Kaufmann for his blasphemous offense, while preserving Pat Buchanan, who distinguishes Islamism from Islamism!”
KHalid: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet.”
That’s how you think it goes, Charles?
I’m a touch skeptical.
“…who distinguishes Islam from Islamism!,” that is.
“…who distinguishes Islam from Islamism!,” that is.
“…who distinguishes Islam from Islamism!,” that is.
“gary–thanks for clarification.
so it sounds like we agree that ‘debunk’ should be used only as a success-term.”
Huh. I had a reply to this in an earlier comment, but it seems to have vanished.
Anyway, I’m not 100% sure of that, and would leave an answer to someone with more linguistic expertise than I have, such as the folks at Languagehat or Languagelog.
“gary–thanks for clarification.
so it sounds like we agree that ‘debunk’ should be used only as a success-term.”
Huh. I had a reply to this in an earlier comment, but it seems to have vanished.
Anyway, I’m not 100% sure of that, and would leave an answer to someone with more linguistic expertise than I have, such as the folks at Languagehat or Languagelog.
“gary–thanks for clarification.
so it sounds like we agree that ‘debunk’ should be used only as a success-term.”
Huh. I had a reply to this in an earlier comment, but it seems to have vanished.
Anyway, I’m not 100% sure of that, and would leave an answer to someone with more linguistic expertise than I have, such as the folks at Languagehat or Languagelog.
Something to note about CB‘s position is that he think Beauchamp’s accounts are lies, and he thinks that attacks on Islamism per se are generally accurate and in any case intended to express the truth. It’s reasonable to be unhappy about lies that have bad effects and unconcerned about truths that have bad side effects.
Something to note about CB‘s position is that he think Beauchamp’s accounts are lies, and he thinks that attacks on Islamism per se are generally accurate and in any case intended to express the truth. It’s reasonable to be unhappy about lies that have bad effects and unconcerned about truths that have bad side effects.
Something to note about CB‘s position is that he think Beauchamp’s accounts are lies, and he thinks that attacks on Islamism per se are generally accurate and in any case intended to express the truth. It’s reasonable to be unhappy about lies that have bad effects and unconcerned about truths that have bad side effects.
“Something to note about CB’s position is that he think Beauchamp’s accounts are lies, and he thinks that attacks on Islamism per se are generally accurate and in any case intended to express the truth. It’s reasonable to be unhappy about lies that have bad effects and unconcerned about truths that have bad side effects.”
Charles says: “Anti-American elements could have used” Beauchamp’s stories, stuff appearing in a small-circulation American magazine, behind a subscription barrier, “to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance.”
He says such upsetting text “may offend [jihadists] enough to want to detonate some IEDs on those [American] troops.”
Lastly, Charles says that “[i]f Beauchamp lied about it, then he needlessly put his fellow soldiers’ lives in peril by putting out such crap.”
Taking the last point first, I’m highly unclear how Teh Jihadists would know whether these obscure pieces in a little American political magazine are true or not, and why they would care one way or another about how well fact-checked they were, even assuming that they spend their time read their subscriptions to to little American political magazines, and getting indignant about them, whereas otherwise they wouldn’t be mad at American troops at all for, you know, being in Iraq and shooting at them and their families.
But if the reason this “issue has such importance,” as Charles claims, is that it endangers the lives of American troops, than I fail to see why it would be a good idea to endanger those American lives for the sake of Bravely Speaking The Truth.
Would that be an example of supporting the troops? By enraging jihadists, which we’re told is so easy to do in writing for obscure American political websites and magazines, and which we’re assured will lead to the death of American troops?
I’m really having trouble following the logic here.
“Something to note about CB’s position is that he think Beauchamp’s accounts are lies, and he thinks that attacks on Islamism per se are generally accurate and in any case intended to express the truth. It’s reasonable to be unhappy about lies that have bad effects and unconcerned about truths that have bad side effects.”
Charles says: “Anti-American elements could have used” Beauchamp’s stories, stuff appearing in a small-circulation American magazine, behind a subscription barrier, “to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance.”
He says such upsetting text “may offend [jihadists] enough to want to detonate some IEDs on those [American] troops.”
Lastly, Charles says that “[i]f Beauchamp lied about it, then he needlessly put his fellow soldiers’ lives in peril by putting out such crap.”
Taking the last point first, I’m highly unclear how Teh Jihadists would know whether these obscure pieces in a little American political magazine are true or not, and why they would care one way or another about how well fact-checked they were, even assuming that they spend their time read their subscriptions to to little American political magazines, and getting indignant about them, whereas otherwise they wouldn’t be mad at American troops at all for, you know, being in Iraq and shooting at them and their families.
But if the reason this “issue has such importance,” as Charles claims, is that it endangers the lives of American troops, than I fail to see why it would be a good idea to endanger those American lives for the sake of Bravely Speaking The Truth.
Would that be an example of supporting the troops? By enraging jihadists, which we’re told is so easy to do in writing for obscure American political websites and magazines, and which we’re assured will lead to the death of American troops?
I’m really having trouble following the logic here.
“Something to note about CB’s position is that he think Beauchamp’s accounts are lies, and he thinks that attacks on Islamism per se are generally accurate and in any case intended to express the truth. It’s reasonable to be unhappy about lies that have bad effects and unconcerned about truths that have bad side effects.”
Charles says: “Anti-American elements could have used” Beauchamp’s stories, stuff appearing in a small-circulation American magazine, behind a subscription barrier, “to attack our troops. Al Qaeda does have media cells, after all. That’s a major reason why this issue has importance.”
He says such upsetting text “may offend [jihadists] enough to want to detonate some IEDs on those [American] troops.”
Lastly, Charles says that “[i]f Beauchamp lied about it, then he needlessly put his fellow soldiers’ lives in peril by putting out such crap.”
Taking the last point first, I’m highly unclear how Teh Jihadists would know whether these obscure pieces in a little American political magazine are true or not, and why they would care one way or another about how well fact-checked they were, even assuming that they spend their time read their subscriptions to to little American political magazines, and getting indignant about them, whereas otherwise they wouldn’t be mad at American troops at all for, you know, being in Iraq and shooting at them and their families.
But if the reason this “issue has such importance,” as Charles claims, is that it endangers the lives of American troops, than I fail to see why it would be a good idea to endanger those American lives for the sake of Bravely Speaking The Truth.
Would that be an example of supporting the troops? By enraging jihadists, which we’re told is so easy to do in writing for obscure American political websites and magazines, and which we’re assured will lead to the death of American troops?
I’m really having trouble following the logic here.
Because he’s slime?
Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.
Because he’s slime?
Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.
Because he’s slime?
Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Or even, say, invading an Arab country based on lies.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Or even, say, invading an Arab country based on lies.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Or even, say, invading an Arab country based on lies.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Or suggesting that the bodies of Muslims killed by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan ought to be buried wrapped in pork, which I seem to remember was a meme going round the right-wing blogosphere as a means of quelling resistance to US occupation in 2004 or 2005.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Or suggesting that the bodies of Muslims killed by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan ought to be buried wrapped in pork, which I seem to remember was a meme going round the right-wing blogosphere as a means of quelling resistance to US occupation in 2004 or 2005.
Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.
Or suggesting that the bodies of Muslims killed by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan ought to be buried wrapped in pork, which I seem to remember was a meme going round the right-wing blogosphere as a means of quelling resistance to US occupation in 2004 or 2005.
or posing Iraqi prisoners for happy fun-time torture photos with grinning lunatic soldiers giving the thumbs-up in the foreground.
or turning Iraq into such a hell-hole that millions of its citizens would rather leave their homes and try to make it as a refugee in Syria and Jordan than risk getting killed by any of the parties in Iraq’s civil war.
or posing Iraqi prisoners for happy fun-time torture photos with grinning lunatic soldiers giving the thumbs-up in the foreground.
or turning Iraq into such a hell-hole that millions of its citizens would rather leave their homes and try to make it as a refugee in Syria and Jordan than risk getting killed by any of the parties in Iraq’s civil war.
or posing Iraqi prisoners for happy fun-time torture photos with grinning lunatic soldiers giving the thumbs-up in the foreground.
or turning Iraq into such a hell-hole that millions of its citizens would rather leave their homes and try to make it as a refugee in Syria and Jordan than risk getting killed by any of the parties in Iraq’s civil war.
Gary: “Taking the last point first, I’m highly unclear how Teh Jihadists would know whether these obscure pieces in a little American political magazine are true or not”
This isn’t at all relevant to CB‘s argument.
KCinDC: “Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.”
Sure, but no doubt CB is happy to oppose talk of nuking Mecca, and he gets to oppose what he thinks are lies that endanger the troops despite the existence of worse instances of endangering the troops for no good reason.
CB: “Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.”
Note that he’s here under a pseudonym which isn’t at all familiar to people who don’t read his part of the blogosphere – Anarch was probably unaware of that.
Gary: “Taking the last point first, I’m highly unclear how Teh Jihadists would know whether these obscure pieces in a little American political magazine are true or not”
This isn’t at all relevant to CB‘s argument.
KCinDC: “Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.”
Sure, but no doubt CB is happy to oppose talk of nuking Mecca, and he gets to oppose what he thinks are lies that endanger the troops despite the existence of worse instances of endangering the troops for no good reason.
CB: “Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.”
Note that he’s here under a pseudonym which isn’t at all familiar to people who don’t read his part of the blogosphere – Anarch was probably unaware of that.
Gary: “Taking the last point first, I’m highly unclear how Teh Jihadists would know whether these obscure pieces in a little American political magazine are true or not”
This isn’t at all relevant to CB‘s argument.
KCinDC: “Clearly a story in the mighty TNR about an American soldier mistreating a corpse (assuming in hadn’t been denied by the US military) is more likely to enrage our Islamist enemies than something minor like, say, a member of Congress and presidential candidate talking about nuking Mecca.”
Sure, but no doubt CB is happy to oppose talk of nuking Mecca, and he gets to oppose what he thinks are lies that endanger the troops despite the existence of worse instances of endangering the troops for no good reason.
CB: “Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.”
Note that he’s here under a pseudonym which isn’t at all familiar to people who don’t read his part of the blogosphere – Anarch was probably unaware of that.
Jes: Or suggesting that the bodies of Muslims killed by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan ought to be buried wrapped in pork, which I seem to remember was a meme going round the right-wing blogosphere as a means of quelling resistance to US occupation in 2004 or 2005.
Something like that.
Jes: Or suggesting that the bodies of Muslims killed by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan ought to be buried wrapped in pork, which I seem to remember was a meme going round the right-wing blogosphere as a means of quelling resistance to US occupation in 2004 or 2005.
Something like that.
Jes: Or suggesting that the bodies of Muslims killed by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan ought to be buried wrapped in pork, which I seem to remember was a meme going round the right-wing blogosphere as a means of quelling resistance to US occupation in 2004 or 2005.
Something like that.
“Something like that.”
I seem to recall having a heated argument over at tacitus.org about the desecration of the corpses of the four mercenary soldiers – the contrast of attitude in the linked thread is making me ill.
“Something like that.”
I seem to recall having a heated argument over at tacitus.org about the desecration of the corpses of the four mercenary soldiers – the contrast of attitude in the linked thread is making me ill.
“Something like that.”
I seem to recall having a heated argument over at tacitus.org about the desecration of the corpses of the four mercenary soldiers – the contrast of attitude in the linked thread is making me ill.
“This isn’t at all relevant to CB’s argument.”
I thought I’d deleted that paragraph, having noticed that. That’s why it says “taking the last part first” — I wrote that first, and deleted it, along with several other paragraphs, after realizing it didn’t work, and wrote a different comment, which is the rest of what was posted.
But somehow that I-thought-deleted paragraph wound up accidentally pasted in again later, or something, and I didn’t notice it; it shouldn’t have been posted. Sorry.
“he’s here under a pseudonym”
Who is Bob Owens, and what pseudonym here is he using?
“This isn’t at all relevant to CB’s argument.”
I thought I’d deleted that paragraph, having noticed that. That’s why it says “taking the last part first” — I wrote that first, and deleted it, along with several other paragraphs, after realizing it didn’t work, and wrote a different comment, which is the rest of what was posted.
But somehow that I-thought-deleted paragraph wound up accidentally pasted in again later, or something, and I didn’t notice it; it shouldn’t have been posted. Sorry.
“he’s here under a pseudonym”
Who is Bob Owens, and what pseudonym here is he using?
“This isn’t at all relevant to CB’s argument.”
I thought I’d deleted that paragraph, having noticed that. That’s why it says “taking the last part first” — I wrote that first, and deleted it, along with several other paragraphs, after realizing it didn’t work, and wrote a different comment, which is the rest of what was posted.
But somehow that I-thought-deleted paragraph wound up accidentally pasted in again later, or something, and I didn’t notice it; it shouldn’t have been posted. Sorry.
“he’s here under a pseudonym”
Who is Bob Owens, and what pseudonym here is he using?
Rilkefan: Sure, but no doubt CB is happy to oppose talk of nuking Mecca, and he gets to oppose what he thinks are lies that endanger the troops despite the existence of worse instances of endangering the troops for no good reason.
As Mattt noted:
Charles Bird, July 2005:
Rilkefan: Sure, but no doubt CB is happy to oppose talk of nuking Mecca, and he gets to oppose what he thinks are lies that endanger the troops despite the existence of worse instances of endangering the troops for no good reason.
As Mattt noted:
Charles Bird, July 2005:
Rilkefan: Sure, but no doubt CB is happy to oppose talk of nuking Mecca, and he gets to oppose what he thinks are lies that endanger the troops despite the existence of worse instances of endangering the troops for no good reason.
As Mattt noted:
Charles Bird, July 2005:
Who is Bob Owens, and what pseudonym here is he using?
Bob Owens is Confederate Yankee
Who is Bob Owens, and what pseudonym here is he using?
Bob Owens is Confederate Yankee
Who is Bob Owens, and what pseudonym here is he using?
Bob Owens is Confederate Yankee
Jes, see my 1:20 above. Somebody else can take over the peacekeeping duties for now.
Gary, thanks for the update. Bob Owens is referred to above – apparently that’s Confederate Yankee‘s real name.
Jes, see my 1:20 above. Somebody else can take over the peacekeeping duties for now.
Gary, thanks for the update. Bob Owens is referred to above – apparently that’s Confederate Yankee‘s real name.
Jes, see my 1:20 above. Somebody else can take over the peacekeeping duties for now.
Gary, thanks for the update. Bob Owens is referred to above – apparently that’s Confederate Yankee‘s real name.
Jes, see my 1:20 above.
I wrote my 01:21 comment and posted it before I saw yours.
Jes, see my 1:20 above.
I wrote my 01:21 comment and posted it before I saw yours.
Jes, see my 1:20 above.
I wrote my 01:21 comment and posted it before I saw yours.
“Something like that.”
Hilzoy summed it up best here.
“Something like that.”
Hilzoy summed it up best here.
“Something like that.”
Hilzoy summed it up best here.
Hilzoy summed it up best here.
Wait wait wat. You mean to tell me I can’t believe everything I read about Islam and terrorists on right-wing blogs?!!?
Dangit dangit dangit.
*takes off garlic clove necklace*
*stops sharpening wooden stakes*
*wonders if cross tattoo on forehead can be removed*
Hilzoy summed it up best here.
Wait wait wat. You mean to tell me I can’t believe everything I read about Islam and terrorists on right-wing blogs?!!?
Dangit dangit dangit.
*takes off garlic clove necklace*
*stops sharpening wooden stakes*
*wonders if cross tattoo on forehead can be removed*
Hilzoy summed it up best here.
Wait wait wat. You mean to tell me I can’t believe everything I read about Islam and terrorists on right-wing blogs?!!?
Dangit dangit dangit.
*takes off garlic clove necklace*
*stops sharpening wooden stakes*
*wonders if cross tattoo on forehead can be removed*
What’s noteworthy is that Charles subsequently replied several times to other comments on that thread, but never responded to Hilzoy or her points.
What’s noteworthy is that Charles subsequently replied several times to other comments on that thread, but never responded to Hilzoy or her points.
What’s noteworthy is that Charles subsequently replied several times to other comments on that thread, but never responded to Hilzoy or her points.
What’s noteworthy is that Charles subsequently replied several times to other comments on that thread, but never responded to Hilzoy or her points.
I noticed that too. Not responding is probably the only credible response.
What’s noteworthy is that Charles subsequently replied several times to other comments on that thread, but never responded to Hilzoy or her points.
I noticed that too. Not responding is probably the only credible response.
What’s noteworthy is that Charles subsequently replied several times to other comments on that thread, but never responded to Hilzoy or her points.
I noticed that too. Not responding is probably the only credible response.
I was shocked at the time, but more so now, since in the intervening time we laid my own father to rest. There’s always someone that would like you to die, simply because of your membership in one group or another (real or perceived). There’s often someone willing to take a whack at it. That’s just life in a sometimes hostile world, and it’s what security is about dealing with.
But I think how I would feel if anyone had made a calculated effort to get Dad into a blasphemous situation from which he couldn’t escape. I don’t think Dad believed that there was anything you could do to him that would mechanistically send him to Hell, insofar as he believed in such a place. but I can imagine how I’d feel if there were such a thing in his creed and someone talked and joked about doing it to him as payback for…I dunno, his role in World War II, or his part in the NASA conspiracy to conceal the truth of the flat earth, or whatever. I can’t even take up the idea without feeling a tremble of anger, and it’s purely hypothetical for me.
When I read that 2005 thread and think how I’d feel at knowing that a bunch of people who regard themselves as my mortal enemies were gleefully working out how to desecrate my corpse so as to send me to Hell and forever deny me God and the reunions of the afterlife…I have to say that it would anger me. At the least. And that I’d have a hard time thinking of it as something to just dismiss, knowing that some of them are themselves soldiers and that that kind of insane, evil scheming gets endorsed inside the government as well as outside.
What I can’t quite understand, back at the real me, is why anyone might find the above reaction surprising or inappropriate. How would any of us feel about efforts to cut us off from whatever we hold most dear?
I was shocked at the time, but more so now, since in the intervening time we laid my own father to rest. There’s always someone that would like you to die, simply because of your membership in one group or another (real or perceived). There’s often someone willing to take a whack at it. That’s just life in a sometimes hostile world, and it’s what security is about dealing with.
But I think how I would feel if anyone had made a calculated effort to get Dad into a blasphemous situation from which he couldn’t escape. I don’t think Dad believed that there was anything you could do to him that would mechanistically send him to Hell, insofar as he believed in such a place. but I can imagine how I’d feel if there were such a thing in his creed and someone talked and joked about doing it to him as payback for…I dunno, his role in World War II, or his part in the NASA conspiracy to conceal the truth of the flat earth, or whatever. I can’t even take up the idea without feeling a tremble of anger, and it’s purely hypothetical for me.
When I read that 2005 thread and think how I’d feel at knowing that a bunch of people who regard themselves as my mortal enemies were gleefully working out how to desecrate my corpse so as to send me to Hell and forever deny me God and the reunions of the afterlife…I have to say that it would anger me. At the least. And that I’d have a hard time thinking of it as something to just dismiss, knowing that some of them are themselves soldiers and that that kind of insane, evil scheming gets endorsed inside the government as well as outside.
What I can’t quite understand, back at the real me, is why anyone might find the above reaction surprising or inappropriate. How would any of us feel about efforts to cut us off from whatever we hold most dear?
I was shocked at the time, but more so now, since in the intervening time we laid my own father to rest. There’s always someone that would like you to die, simply because of your membership in one group or another (real or perceived). There’s often someone willing to take a whack at it. That’s just life in a sometimes hostile world, and it’s what security is about dealing with.
But I think how I would feel if anyone had made a calculated effort to get Dad into a blasphemous situation from which he couldn’t escape. I don’t think Dad believed that there was anything you could do to him that would mechanistically send him to Hell, insofar as he believed in such a place. but I can imagine how I’d feel if there were such a thing in his creed and someone talked and joked about doing it to him as payback for…I dunno, his role in World War II, or his part in the NASA conspiracy to conceal the truth of the flat earth, or whatever. I can’t even take up the idea without feeling a tremble of anger, and it’s purely hypothetical for me.
When I read that 2005 thread and think how I’d feel at knowing that a bunch of people who regard themselves as my mortal enemies were gleefully working out how to desecrate my corpse so as to send me to Hell and forever deny me God and the reunions of the afterlife…I have to say that it would anger me. At the least. And that I’d have a hard time thinking of it as something to just dismiss, knowing that some of them are themselves soldiers and that that kind of insane, evil scheming gets endorsed inside the government as well as outside.
What I can’t quite understand, back at the real me, is why anyone might find the above reaction surprising or inappropriate. How would any of us feel about efforts to cut us off from whatever we hold most dear?
What I’m trying to work out about the stance Charles, and others, take here, is how it can be held absent doublethink.
One would seem to be required to simultaneously believe that what’s written in any little American, or, I suppose, Western, magazine, or blog, or website, no matter how obscure, or hidden behind a subscription paywall, is likely to be scanned by Islamist jihadists, and if they find it offensive, Teh Terrorists are apt to become far more inflamed than they already are, and be moved to kill more Americans than they already are trying to kill, or do it faster, or more angrily, or something — it’s not clear, but it’s Wery Wery Dangerous To American Troops, we’re assured — and we must also believe at the same time that offensive things said in American, or, I suppose, Western magazines, blogs, and websites, aren’t a concern at all — if the material that might offend Muslims or Islamist jihadists comes from right-wingers and Speaks Truth.
It’s not all clear to me that Teh Terrorists, or the mobs waiting to riot, or whomever it is we’re supposed to be concerned about, are inclined to cut the American and Western right-wing, and their Truth, the same slack Charles and friends do.
But if Charles could explain how this all works, I’d be most interested.
I’d suggest a fresh post by Charles on the topic, as this thread is already difficult to load on dial-up.
What I’m trying to work out about the stance Charles, and others, take here, is how it can be held absent doublethink.
One would seem to be required to simultaneously believe that what’s written in any little American, or, I suppose, Western, magazine, or blog, or website, no matter how obscure, or hidden behind a subscription paywall, is likely to be scanned by Islamist jihadists, and if they find it offensive, Teh Terrorists are apt to become far more inflamed than they already are, and be moved to kill more Americans than they already are trying to kill, or do it faster, or more angrily, or something — it’s not clear, but it’s Wery Wery Dangerous To American Troops, we’re assured — and we must also believe at the same time that offensive things said in American, or, I suppose, Western magazines, blogs, and websites, aren’t a concern at all — if the material that might offend Muslims or Islamist jihadists comes from right-wingers and Speaks Truth.
It’s not all clear to me that Teh Terrorists, or the mobs waiting to riot, or whomever it is we’re supposed to be concerned about, are inclined to cut the American and Western right-wing, and their Truth, the same slack Charles and friends do.
But if Charles could explain how this all works, I’d be most interested.
I’d suggest a fresh post by Charles on the topic, as this thread is already difficult to load on dial-up.
What I’m trying to work out about the stance Charles, and others, take here, is how it can be held absent doublethink.
One would seem to be required to simultaneously believe that what’s written in any little American, or, I suppose, Western, magazine, or blog, or website, no matter how obscure, or hidden behind a subscription paywall, is likely to be scanned by Islamist jihadists, and if they find it offensive, Teh Terrorists are apt to become far more inflamed than they already are, and be moved to kill more Americans than they already are trying to kill, or do it faster, or more angrily, or something — it’s not clear, but it’s Wery Wery Dangerous To American Troops, we’re assured — and we must also believe at the same time that offensive things said in American, or, I suppose, Western magazines, blogs, and websites, aren’t a concern at all — if the material that might offend Muslims or Islamist jihadists comes from right-wingers and Speaks Truth.
It’s not all clear to me that Teh Terrorists, or the mobs waiting to riot, or whomever it is we’re supposed to be concerned about, are inclined to cut the American and Western right-wing, and their Truth, the same slack Charles and friends do.
But if Charles could explain how this all works, I’d be most interested.
I’d suggest a fresh post by Charles on the topic, as this thread is already difficult to load on dial-up.
Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.
Contra rilkefan I was aware of this, and I stand by what I said. If you feel that’s a bannable offense, ban away.
Although I am deeply amused that, ignoring the substantive posts to which you could have responded, you chose to be outraged — excuse me, to claim the moral high ground — at my little barb. Sad, really.
Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.
Contra rilkefan I was aware of this, and I stand by what I said. If you feel that’s a bannable offense, ban away.
Although I am deeply amused that, ignoring the substantive posts to which you could have responded, you chose to be outraged — excuse me, to claim the moral high ground — at my little barb. Sad, really.
Because Bob Owens is on this thread, Anarch, you just violated the posting rules. Well done.
Contra rilkefan I was aware of this, and I stand by what I said. If you feel that’s a bannable offense, ban away.
Although I am deeply amused that, ignoring the substantive posts to which you could have responded, you chose to be outraged — excuse me, to claim the moral high ground — at my little barb. Sad, really.
Bruce: What I can’t quite understand, back at the real me, is why anyone might find the above reaction surprising or inappropriate. How would any of us feel about efforts to cut us off from whatever we hold most dear?
I think it goes along with the presumption (OCSteve has outlined it a couple of times) that while it’s natural and right for Americans to feel rage when they saw the WTC destroyed, when Iraqis or Afghans see US bombers destroying buildings and killing civilians, they shouldn’t feel anger, or if they do, it’s because they’re bad, wrong people who don’t understand the noble motivations of the US military.
“We can’t reason from our feelings to those of this class of persons,” said the other lady, sorting out some worsteds on her lap.
Bruce: What I can’t quite understand, back at the real me, is why anyone might find the above reaction surprising or inappropriate. How would any of us feel about efforts to cut us off from whatever we hold most dear?
I think it goes along with the presumption (OCSteve has outlined it a couple of times) that while it’s natural and right for Americans to feel rage when they saw the WTC destroyed, when Iraqis or Afghans see US bombers destroying buildings and killing civilians, they shouldn’t feel anger, or if they do, it’s because they’re bad, wrong people who don’t understand the noble motivations of the US military.
“We can’t reason from our feelings to those of this class of persons,” said the other lady, sorting out some worsteds on her lap.
Bruce: What I can’t quite understand, back at the real me, is why anyone might find the above reaction surprising or inappropriate. How would any of us feel about efforts to cut us off from whatever we hold most dear?
I think it goes along with the presumption (OCSteve has outlined it a couple of times) that while it’s natural and right for Americans to feel rage when they saw the WTC destroyed, when Iraqis or Afghans see US bombers destroying buildings and killing civilians, they shouldn’t feel anger, or if they do, it’s because they’re bad, wrong people who don’t understand the noble motivations of the US military.
“We can’t reason from our feelings to those of this class of persons,” said the other lady, sorting out some worsteds on her lap.
“when Iraqis or Afghans see US bombers destroying buildings and killing civilians, they shouldn’t feel anger”
Strictly speaking, if the WTC had been the HQ for some evil overlord who’d fed my uncle into a plastic shredder feet first, I might have cheered it’s destruction. It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people, (Those who didn’t have minion status, anyway.) which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and Americans.
“when Iraqis or Afghans see US bombers destroying buildings and killing civilians, they shouldn’t feel anger”
Strictly speaking, if the WTC had been the HQ for some evil overlord who’d fed my uncle into a plastic shredder feet first, I might have cheered it’s destruction. It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people, (Those who didn’t have minion status, anyway.) which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and Americans.
“when Iraqis or Afghans see US bombers destroying buildings and killing civilians, they shouldn’t feel anger”
Strictly speaking, if the WTC had been the HQ for some evil overlord who’d fed my uncle into a plastic shredder feet first, I might have cheered it’s destruction. It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people, (Those who didn’t have minion status, anyway.) which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and Americans.
Strictly speaking, if the WTC had been the HQ for some evil overlord who’d fed my uncle into a plastic shredder feet first, I might have cheered it’s destruction.
You might, but what does that have to do with the experience of Iraqis and Afghans seeing their homes and workplaces destroyed? I did specifically say the WTC, not the Pentagon.
It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people
Yes: they started out a country of 27 million where it was possible to keep your head down and live a relatively normal life: four years later, about one million are dead, at least three million are refugees, and the survivors are learning to live in a country where you cannot just “keep your head down”, because foreign military occupiers – mercenaries or soldiers – can murder you for being in the way, and you can die in the civil war that the invasion/occupation sparked off, just for being in the “wrong” sect.
What “pluses” were you thinking of, Brett? I’m not seeing any.
Strictly speaking, if the WTC had been the HQ for some evil overlord who’d fed my uncle into a plastic shredder feet first, I might have cheered it’s destruction.
You might, but what does that have to do with the experience of Iraqis and Afghans seeing their homes and workplaces destroyed? I did specifically say the WTC, not the Pentagon.
It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people
Yes: they started out a country of 27 million where it was possible to keep your head down and live a relatively normal life: four years later, about one million are dead, at least three million are refugees, and the survivors are learning to live in a country where you cannot just “keep your head down”, because foreign military occupiers – mercenaries or soldiers – can murder you for being in the way, and you can die in the civil war that the invasion/occupation sparked off, just for being in the “wrong” sect.
What “pluses” were you thinking of, Brett? I’m not seeing any.
Strictly speaking, if the WTC had been the HQ for some evil overlord who’d fed my uncle into a plastic shredder feet first, I might have cheered it’s destruction.
You might, but what does that have to do with the experience of Iraqis and Afghans seeing their homes and workplaces destroyed? I did specifically say the WTC, not the Pentagon.
It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people
Yes: they started out a country of 27 million where it was possible to keep your head down and live a relatively normal life: four years later, about one million are dead, at least three million are refugees, and the survivors are learning to live in a country where you cannot just “keep your head down”, because foreign military occupiers – mercenaries or soldiers – can murder you for being in the way, and you can die in the civil war that the invasion/occupation sparked off, just for being in the “wrong” sect.
What “pluses” were you thinking of, Brett? I’m not seeing any.
It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people, (Those who didn’t have minion status, anyway.) which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and Americans.
Actually, I can think of quite a number of “pluses” that came out of the destruction of the WTC. However, that doesn’t mean that (i) given the choice, I’d still like to have it happen; or (ii) the pluses outweigh the minuses.
It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people, (Those who didn’t have minion status, anyway.) which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and Americans.
Actually, I can think of quite a number of “pluses” that came out of the destruction of the WTC. However, that doesn’t mean that (i) given the choice, I’d still like to have it happen; or (ii) the pluses outweigh the minuses.
It’s possible to forget that the Iraq war actually DID have some pluses for the Iraqi people, (Those who didn’t have minion status, anyway.) which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and Americans.
Actually, I can think of quite a number of “pluses” that came out of the destruction of the WTC. However, that doesn’t mean that (i) given the choice, I’d still like to have it happen; or (ii) the pluses outweigh the minuses.
“which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and the Americans.”
No, you can’t. Well, you can make a case for it, but it would be a kind of reverse inside-out political correctness to do so.
Which I enjoy doing, just to participate in stupid, meaningless arguments.
Yes, in some ways the Iraqi people are better off, kind of like cattle are better off in the beef packaging plant than chickens are in the chicken packaging plant.
At what cost to the United States and its political well-being domestically and at what cost to its foreign policy?
George Bush’s foreign policy and conduct of the war, in all of its particulars, is one part early Buffy St. Marie (peace, love, democracy, and the flat tax), one part Torquemada (yes, that hurts, but the Death Tax is worse, and the flat tax), one part Larry Kudlow (flat cities and the flat tax), and one part Reilly, Ace of Spies (flat tax, schmlat tax, can you say highly paid mercenaries, multiyear high margin contracts, pallets of money that go missing in the night, and the world’s largest bazaar of tricked-out armaments).
Is al Qaeda better off? I mean, compared to my imaginary friend, Saddam Hussein? Is Iran better off? Is Pakistan better off?
Is America better off?
I have two words for you (not Brett; “you” is the ether that never talks back):
Rudy Guiliani — who before 9/11 and all of the brass rings it placed within his reach was little more than a bitter little martinet with a cranky wife, a cranky mistress, and cranky prostate.
He’s better off, and not only because he unloaded the cranky wife. Although he ended up losing the love nest and gaining an even crankier wife.
But it doesn’t stop there. How many stock symbols can I quote you with a comparison of the prices on 9/10 and prices, let’s say on July 4, 2007, that have gone parabolic, benefiting everyone, including moi.
Why? Because there is nothing like a little war to unclog the credit spigots, goose the balky economic machinery of peacetime, and make American entrepreneurs break into pidgin French.
Of course, it will turn out badly in the long run, because inflating the economy to keep George Bush’s ego bubble from bursting, I’m sorry, I mean, to finance a war is usually followed by a hangover, but that’s Bill’s province.
Which conservastives should know, considering their baseline opinion that it was not the edifice of the New Deal that caused the U.S. to break out of the Depression, but the onset of World War II, with all of that financially profitable carnage, from which the survivors returned to
finally place a chicken in every garage and two cars in every pot, and later, in the Sixties, lots of pot in the garage AND in the pots in the basement.
Yippee for war is a dirty little politically incorrect secret.
But except for a few whacko conservatives on a few idiot websites and most of the population crowding the White House and a little less than half the Congress, who still think the adrenaline rush of having TWO clearly identifiable enemies — Islam and Liberals — was well worth the cost of a couple of gummint subsidized skyscrapers coming down like powdered mummies …………….. I don’t think conservatives take any more pleasure from that tragedy than antiwar liberals would take pleasure from Saddam coming back to life to butcher lots of uncles in a plastic shredder.
“which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and the Americans.”
No, you can’t. Well, you can make a case for it, but it would be a kind of reverse inside-out political correctness to do so.
Which I enjoy doing, just to participate in stupid, meaningless arguments.
Yes, in some ways the Iraqi people are better off, kind of like cattle are better off in the beef packaging plant than chickens are in the chicken packaging plant.
At what cost to the United States and its political well-being domestically and at what cost to its foreign policy?
George Bush’s foreign policy and conduct of the war, in all of its particulars, is one part early Buffy St. Marie (peace, love, democracy, and the flat tax), one part Torquemada (yes, that hurts, but the Death Tax is worse, and the flat tax), one part Larry Kudlow (flat cities and the flat tax), and one part Reilly, Ace of Spies (flat tax, schmlat tax, can you say highly paid mercenaries, multiyear high margin contracts, pallets of money that go missing in the night, and the world’s largest bazaar of tricked-out armaments).
Is al Qaeda better off? I mean, compared to my imaginary friend, Saddam Hussein? Is Iran better off? Is Pakistan better off?
Is America better off?
I have two words for you (not Brett; “you” is the ether that never talks back):
Rudy Guiliani — who before 9/11 and all of the brass rings it placed within his reach was little more than a bitter little martinet with a cranky wife, a cranky mistress, and cranky prostate.
He’s better off, and not only because he unloaded the cranky wife. Although he ended up losing the love nest and gaining an even crankier wife.
But it doesn’t stop there. How many stock symbols can I quote you with a comparison of the prices on 9/10 and prices, let’s say on July 4, 2007, that have gone parabolic, benefiting everyone, including moi.
Why? Because there is nothing like a little war to unclog the credit spigots, goose the balky economic machinery of peacetime, and make American entrepreneurs break into pidgin French.
Of course, it will turn out badly in the long run, because inflating the economy to keep George Bush’s ego bubble from bursting, I’m sorry, I mean, to finance a war is usually followed by a hangover, but that’s Bill’s province.
Which conservastives should know, considering their baseline opinion that it was not the edifice of the New Deal that caused the U.S. to break out of the Depression, but the onset of World War II, with all of that financially profitable carnage, from which the survivors returned to
finally place a chicken in every garage and two cars in every pot, and later, in the Sixties, lots of pot in the garage AND in the pots in the basement.
Yippee for war is a dirty little politically incorrect secret.
But except for a few whacko conservatives on a few idiot websites and most of the population crowding the White House and a little less than half the Congress, who still think the adrenaline rush of having TWO clearly identifiable enemies — Islam and Liberals — was well worth the cost of a couple of gummint subsidized skyscrapers coming down like powdered mummies …………….. I don’t think conservatives take any more pleasure from that tragedy than antiwar liberals would take pleasure from Saddam coming back to life to butcher lots of uncles in a plastic shredder.
“which you can’t really say of the WTC bombing and the Americans.”
No, you can’t. Well, you can make a case for it, but it would be a kind of reverse inside-out political correctness to do so.
Which I enjoy doing, just to participate in stupid, meaningless arguments.
Yes, in some ways the Iraqi people are better off, kind of like cattle are better off in the beef packaging plant than chickens are in the chicken packaging plant.
At what cost to the United States and its political well-being domestically and at what cost to its foreign policy?
George Bush’s foreign policy and conduct of the war, in all of its particulars, is one part early Buffy St. Marie (peace, love, democracy, and the flat tax), one part Torquemada (yes, that hurts, but the Death Tax is worse, and the flat tax), one part Larry Kudlow (flat cities and the flat tax), and one part Reilly, Ace of Spies (flat tax, schmlat tax, can you say highly paid mercenaries, multiyear high margin contracts, pallets of money that go missing in the night, and the world’s largest bazaar of tricked-out armaments).
Is al Qaeda better off? I mean, compared to my imaginary friend, Saddam Hussein? Is Iran better off? Is Pakistan better off?
Is America better off?
I have two words for you (not Brett; “you” is the ether that never talks back):
Rudy Guiliani — who before 9/11 and all of the brass rings it placed within his reach was little more than a bitter little martinet with a cranky wife, a cranky mistress, and cranky prostate.
He’s better off, and not only because he unloaded the cranky wife. Although he ended up losing the love nest and gaining an even crankier wife.
But it doesn’t stop there. How many stock symbols can I quote you with a comparison of the prices on 9/10 and prices, let’s say on July 4, 2007, that have gone parabolic, benefiting everyone, including moi.
Why? Because there is nothing like a little war to unclog the credit spigots, goose the balky economic machinery of peacetime, and make American entrepreneurs break into pidgin French.
Of course, it will turn out badly in the long run, because inflating the economy to keep George Bush’s ego bubble from bursting, I’m sorry, I mean, to finance a war is usually followed by a hangover, but that’s Bill’s province.
Which conservastives should know, considering their baseline opinion that it was not the edifice of the New Deal that caused the U.S. to break out of the Depression, but the onset of World War II, with all of that financially profitable carnage, from which the survivors returned to
finally place a chicken in every garage and two cars in every pot, and later, in the Sixties, lots of pot in the garage AND in the pots in the basement.
Yippee for war is a dirty little politically incorrect secret.
But except for a few whacko conservatives on a few idiot websites and most of the population crowding the White House and a little less than half the Congress, who still think the adrenaline rush of having TWO clearly identifiable enemies — Islam and Liberals — was well worth the cost of a couple of gummint subsidized skyscrapers coming down like powdered mummies …………….. I don’t think conservatives take any more pleasure from that tragedy than antiwar liberals would take pleasure from Saddam coming back to life to butcher lots of uncles in a plastic shredder.
John, totally platonically of course, I love you completely.
John, totally platonically of course, I love you completely.
John, totally platonically of course, I love you completely.
I never liked Plato.
I never liked Plato.
I never liked Plato.
Let’s handshake! I couldn’t stand that guy either.
Let’s handshake! I couldn’t stand that guy either.
Let’s handshake! I couldn’t stand that guy either.