Batting .134

What John Quiggin said. Obviously, it may turn out to be the case that some details of Scott Beauchamp's story don't check out, and equally obviously no political issue of consequence turns on whether or not his tale of fraternity-style pranks is 100 percent accurate. What does have significance is this genre of right-wing press criticism. Basically, a story comes out that conservative bloggers don't like, someone -- without evidence -- proclaims it bogus. Then all kinds of people who may or may not know what they're talking about put forward theories about why X or Y must be false. Then those theories are all uncritically endorsed by key conservative bloggers.

Then if it turns out that any of the dozens of claims made by the blog swarm end up vindicated, the horde proclaims "advantage: blogosphere" and decides that all war-related news reporting it doesn't approve of must be made up. It's as if you had a guy batting .134 who hit a home run once, years ago, and fancies himself a slugger.

Comments

The state of the Right's intellectual infrastructure is the best argument of I can think for tenure. People on their side just are financially dependent on the acceptability of the arguments made, and field reputation doesn't exist as a competing interest.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 29, 2007 1:24 PM

It's as if you had a guy batting .134 who hit a home run once, years ago, and fancies himself a slugger.

Bob Shrum?

Posted by Delicious Pundit | July 29, 2007 1:37 PM

War stories, like fish stories, are notorious for their embellishments. I'd be surprised if Beauchamps' tales turned out to be 100% accurate, but equally suroriused if they were made up out of whoel cloth.

Posted by Jonf | July 29, 2007 1:46 PM

I ran cross country in high school!

Posted by Right Wing Jackass | July 29, 2007 1:57 PM

Are you guys still smarting over Rathergate? When Quiggin writes that he's 'not interested in, and won’t debate, the details of these stories', one can probably take that to mean that he fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Never mind, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. In fact, the greatest triumph of the rightwing blogosphere has been its recent marshaling of forces against the cosy Bush-Democrat immigration bill.

But I must object against the characterisation of the entire right-wing blogosphere as supporting Bush and the Iraq war. The way I remember it, or, at least, in those sections of the conservative blogosphere that I habituate, the position was consistently anti-war from the beginning. And most of the analysis was superior to that of the liberal anti-war crowd, because it didn't have to unite under such dishonest slogans as 'No Oil For War'.

Posted by Asbo | July 29, 2007 2:02 PM

It's as if you had a guy batting .134 who hit a home run once, years ago, and fancies himself a slugger.

In other words, its as if Duane Kupier fancied himself as Barry Bonds.

Well, actually Kuiper had a lifetime .270 BA, but only one lifetime homerun (in over 3,300 ABs). And having listened to "Kuip" (rhymes with gripe) for years on Giants broadcasts, he is much more realistic about what his strengths and weaknesses were as a player.

Posted by tiparillo | July 29, 2007 2:20 PM

one can probably take that to mean that he fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

One could also take it to mean that he genuinely doesn't care about the story and hasn't followed it. I haven't. (I mean, who the fuck cares? It's news that young guys can behave badly? Or that they're more likely to do so in stressful situations, surrounded primarily by other guys, and away from normal support structures?) One could take it to mean that the Big Oz has eyes for you, Asbo. Or that the moon is made of cheese.

One could also decide whether or not one wanted to make a specific charge against Quiggin and then act accordingly, rather than offer some mealy-mouthed, passive, identity-diminishing construction of the same.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 29, 2007 2:28 PM

I realise now, of course, that the slogan 'No Oil For War' is not only dishonest, it's plain back to front. Mea culpa. Even I wouldn't stoop to accusing the Left of wanting to leave our brave boys stranded in the desert, sans petrol.

Posted by Asbod | July 29, 2007 2:28 PM

And, of course, even with 'Rathergate' the allegedly forged document was described as being representative of the truth by the surviving parties. That one was very well-played by Rove. Or, to keep with the baseball analogy, their one home run came when the catcher tipped them off to the pitch.

Posted by calling all toasters | July 29, 2007 2:29 PM

If Quiggin doesn't care about the story, hasn't followed ir, and couldn't give a fcuk, isn't he the one guilty of non-specific mealy-mouthed, passive, blah, blah, whatever you said?

Posted by Aswad | July 29, 2007 2:32 PM

Allegedly forged document? See what I mean, still not over it. Let go....seek closure.

Posted by Freda Utley | July 29, 2007 2:35 PM

Well, Freda, of course it was forged. I was just being cautious, because there's been no official finding. But it would not have served Rove's purposes it it were not forged. The story of Bush's TANG time got spiked by making the messenger suspect. But the overall message was in no way suspect. BTW, how did a Republican operative with no expertise in computers come up with the flaw in the kerning a few hours after the pdf was posted?

Anyway, I'm over Rathergate--it's in the file with another 100,000+ pieces of GOP bullshit. I just reference it when needed.

Posted by calling all toasters | July 29, 2007 2:52 PM

That you evidently suspect Rovian machinations behind the forgery clearly prove that you're not over it. Next you'll be disputing the Cheney Lone Gunman Hypothesis.

Posted by Rip van Crinkle | July 29, 2007 3:20 PM

You're too generous. Their record is closer to 0.013.

Posted by Jalmari | July 29, 2007 3:28 PM

There's a tin can in the water. And you have a handful of pebbles. What's the best tactic to try and ensure hitting the can? Throw each pebble, one by one, or all at once? The latter, of course. So there's method to this apparent scattergun madness. As Razumikhin notes in Crime & Punishment, error can be positive, if it leads to truth. I will make enquiries.

Posted by Hotbed | July 29, 2007 3:37 PM

equally obviously no political issue of consequence turns on whether or not his tale of fraternity-style pranks is 100 percent accurate.

Hardly accurate, Matt. These were reported in a respected national magazine as a serious of depraved actions of soldiers engaged in animal torture and killing for fun, corpse desecration, and emotionally abusing a wounded female comrade.

Frat pranks? Please.

Worse, the article by saying many witnessed the depravity and UCMJ violations and did nothing about them no - discipline or authority existing , collectively slurred every soldier in Iraq.

The reason conservative and milbloggers collectively jumped on this is it immediately rang untrue. And the sensitivity to how the Left successfully lied and pulled it off in Vietnam, stealing the soldiers valor and honor - and determination that never again will lefty lies and slurs be permitted to go unchallenged by the soldiers or Vet community.

Your defense of a lying journalist who only gets 70% of his stories pulled out of his ass as still credible for the rest is admirable, and should have been seized by Jayson Blair. But Scott Thomas Beauchamp can't even do that high a percentage. He appears to be batting 0%. Already, elements of his quadron have written milbloggers, signed their name and rank to their post, said they are under orders not to discuss specifics, but stated Beauchamp is a "troubled soldier" and a flat-out liar.
Of course, fake atrocity stories are just one of several poisonous memes the Left tries to promote against the troops they love and support out of their patriotism, as we all have heard...

Add:

1. The meme of soldiers too stupid or lazy to make it in real life, so they end up "stuck in Iraq/Vietnam."

2. Soldiers as hapless victims, ignorant that they fight for wealthy elites and kill for oiiiiilll, or that the hapless persecution that comes from volunteering to serve the nation is not shared with "more privileged types".

3. Soldiers as little children in uniform, who should listen to their anti-war mommies who only want their helpless babies safe, far away from any enemy of America...

4. Soldiers as naive, Jesus-loving rubes who were "duped" by Bush lies...

5. Besides being stupid and committing atrocities and being victims of child-like minds and maturity - The Soldier As Timebomb. Timebombs who will become drug-addicted, homeless, kill masses of people while suffering flashbacks. And of course, elite troops coming back from Afghanistan engaged in a mass wife&child beating orgy because they were still "trained killers immersed in mayhem on return since they lacked compassionate Left psychologists who could pacify and rehabilitate them from the Army Spec Ops monsters they were...

All the other Lefty memes are shit, too, disproven by studies that show Vets from Vietnam and the Gulf War and current ops have less pathologies than the Gen American population.

War stories, like fish stories, are notorious for their embellishments. I'd be surprised if Beauchamps' tales turned out to be 100% accurate, but equally suroriused if they were made up out of whoel cloth.
Posted by Jonf

I think Jonf is angling for "Fake but accurate" or "The facts may be wrong, but the narrative & theme is correct."
If he had written in TNR as a writer of war fiction, the "awww, he was just joshing!" defense might have legs, but he wrote claiming to be an serious eyewitness or actual participant to Army troops significant crimes and depraved acts, reporting on the unvarnished truth of sick acts and a breakdown of discipline and order at a critical Army combat base.
With half of what he said known to be lies, the other half still being investigated to document the complete truth for DOD leadership.

*********************

The guy is finished as a soldier or as a writer anyone would risk hiring. Or any other decent job as it looks like some jail time and a dishonorable discharge awaits him. And his TNR wife might find it advisable to dump him. fast. Bad personally and bad for a journalist career to be married to a liar and a, it appears - someone's whose only public recognition will be as a notorious media fabulist.

***************
On top of his other Article 134(Conduct unbecoming to necessary order and discipline, concealing violations from chain-of-command) or Article 32 (General Court Martial) for exposure from defamation of fellow soldiers and aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war - Mr. Beauchamp was discovered by someone examining his Blog to have violated standing orders for wartime OPSEC (Operational Security) by posting his unit's planned movement and location in a war zone on his Blog. That was forwarded to his unit and will be investigated for charges.
**************

Posted by Chris Ford | July 29, 2007 4:00 PM

The real question isn't the batting average of the critics here, but of the media as a whole. What's the acceptable percentage for "this story was totally made up and is not true"? 5%? 10%? If the bloggers are hitting .134, doesn't that imply that at least 13% of the stories in the media are total bull? (And, of course, that's just the ones that get mentioned - so plenty of non-controversial stories are probably also bull!)

I'm not saying that media organizations need to have an absolutely perfect record. But what's disturbing is the seeming lack of care for getting those facts correct - "Our analysis is right, even if the data we based it on might be a little flawed" is NOT an opinion worthy of respect.

So yes, when the media has a story that's shocking but somewhat unlikely, I expect them to look at it with a critical eye, even if they'd REALLY like it to be absolutely true! In that respect, 90% of the time isn't good enough.

Posted by Avatar | July 29, 2007 4:11 PM

"the sensitivity to how the Left successfully lied and pulled it off in Vietnam, stealing the soldiers valor and honor "

ummm, yeah. I'd say somebody isn't over something.

Oh, and Newt Gingrich still wants to re-fight Gettysburg so that the South can win.

Posted by Count Cant | July 29, 2007 4:12 PM

Chris Ford, another crazed degenerate monster. You go, Chris.

Posted by Jennifer | July 29, 2007 4:21 PM

For the benefit of Asbod, I'll cite my one post referring to Rathergate at the time

(Irony alert on)

"Having been distracted by wonkish obsessions like current account deficits, fiscal bankruptcy and the situation in Iraq, Indonesia and other unimportant countries, not to mention our own election, I haven't been able to keep up with the US election campaign as closely as I would like. But, following a quick tour of the press and the blogosphere, I've come up with the following shorter ( © Daniel Davies) version for others who may be in a similar position.

The crucial issue is to determine which candidate has the better record on Vietnam, and will therefore make the better president. As I understand it:

* Kerry fought in Vietnam, but then came back and denounced the war
* Bush didn't fight, but supported the war
* There are a lot of memos

That seems to be all I need to know. Have I missed anything important?"

(Irony alert off)

Posted by John Quiggin | July 29, 2007 4:25 PM

Wow,

Looks like Matt picked up some new trolls. Good the other insane rigt-wingers were getting too predictable, some new insanity will be entertaining.

Posted by Eric K | July 29, 2007 4:32 PM

Anything would be more entertaining than Yglesias's posts. He has no discernible talent, whatsoever.

As for Quiggin, I wouldn't give up the day job either.

Posted by Lipid | July 29, 2007 4:42 PM

Remember:

Lying to start a war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people A-OK!

Publishing a story that some people claim could not happen based on little proof-worst thing possible EVAR!

Posted by Rob | July 29, 2007 4:44 PM

There's a tin can in the water. And you have a handful of pebbles. What's the best tactic to try and ensure hitting the can? Throw each pebble, one by one, or all at once? The latter, of course. So there's method to this apparent scattergun madness. As Razumikhin notes in Crime & Punishment, error can be positive, if it leads to truth. I will make enquiries.

Posted by Hotbed

Now that's nearly tragic. Someone who never played, much, I guess. Not as a kid tossing rocks, nor any carny games or darts or shooting in competition or military with a finite supply of ammo. Sorry to know that about you, Hotbed.

For a fixed target and limited ammo, the optimal strategy is aimed fire, one by one, for the best chance to hit the target. When have you ever seen a good dart player grab a handful and toss them, rather than aim one by one? Any boy challenging another boy to toss rocks would laugh at the "whole handful thrower".

But I get your point, which appears to be that Beauchamp had to throw a whole bucketful of turds at the Army and his fellow soldiers, hoping one would stick, before he got his ass stomped as a malicious liar by a non-stationary, angry target if he adopted the tactic of throwing one turd at a time into counterfire...

The rules change when you have a moving target or enemy (your fellow soldiers) to statistically favor flinging a bucketful of turds, using a shotgun, or frag grenade.

As Razumikhin notes in Crime & Punishment, error can be positive, if it leads to truth.

Sounds like "fake but accurate" again being used as a Beauchamp defense, Hotbed.

Or just another manifestation of the Lefty belief that truth or lies are irrelevant as long as the correct metanarrative of race, gender, or class is advanced. (In this case, the narrative the "bad class" of military servicemen and women, which of course the patriotic Left loves and honors so much, displaying their expected monstrous depravity, cruelty, lack of leadership, and unprofessionalism as childish, evil college rejects. )

Posted by Chris Ford | July 29, 2007 5:09 PM

It's as if you had a guy batting .134 who hit a home run once, years ago, and fancies himself a slugger.

A better sports analogy (because the vast majority of right bloggers are spectators in the Iraq war) might be that a guy sees a referee make a bad call that blows the game for "his" team, and afterwards believes that every call he doesn't agree with, by every referee, is a bad one.

Posted by RSA | July 29, 2007 5:53 PM

Now that's nearly tragic. Someone who never played, much, I guess.

Sir, you have slighted my person, and I cannot and will not allow that affront to go unchallenged. Withdraw your injurious remark, forthwith, or else submit to a duel to be held at an appropriate time and place. As to weaponry, may I suggest a handful of pebbles?

Posted by Hotbed | July 29, 2007 6:28 PM

Or just another manifestation of the Lefty belief that truth or lies are irrelevant as long as the correct metanarrative of race, gender, or class is advanced.

Shit, how'd he find that out? If he figures out what we plan to do once we appoint Speaker Pelosi as Pr--I've said too much.

Posted by Stu | July 29, 2007 8:36 PM

Ooooh, Chris is gonna kick Beauchamp's ass!! Fight! Fight!

Posted by Night Ring Whatjob | July 29, 2007 8:43 PM

I didn't believe Beauchamp when he wrote that story about four American soldiers being involved in the rape of a fourteen year old and the murder of her family. US soldiers have never raped a young girl and killing civilians is against SOP. Because of the TNR's lies and pressure from anti-American lefties two of the soldiers had to take a guilty plea. You liberals will get what is coming for undermining our troops.

Posted by C. Hawk | July 29, 2007 11:12 PM

""Our analysis is right, even if the data we based it on might be a little flawed" is NOT an opinion worthy of respect."

The problem is that data is never perfect in anything that requires analysis. By this standard, all scientific tests and statistics are bullshit. That's why we have things like uncertainties and standard deviations mentioned in published results. The difference is when a critic is just nitpicking over irrelevancies or actually making points against the argument itself. In the grand scheme of things, the purpose of the piece was to show that soldiers are not saints and the effects of guerrilla war on soldiers' mental states. Whether or not running over dogs violates SOP is rather irrelevant in light of things like Abu Ghraib.

Posted by Reality Man | July 29, 2007 11:13 PM

US soldiers have never raped a young girl and killing civilians is against SOP

Is it just in Iraq that this never happens or are you lobbying for a blank pardon for everyone ever convicted in a court-martial of rape?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 29, 2007 11:57 PM

every now and then i read through a comments thread like this one and wonder to myself what exactly goes in on the brain of someone like chris ford? in particular, how is it that they immediately assume the entire Army is being criticized whenever poor behavior is brough to light?

more interesting by far is to wonder how it is that, when the abuses at abu ghraib came to light, so many right-wingers insisted that it must have been "bad apples," not higher officers, yet when someone writes about a "bad apple," these very same people start screaming about how dare you criticize the army?

at least that speculation leads you somewhere fruitful - we are reminded that to be a contemporary american right-winger, you must operate in a full-time propaganidistic mode - whereas my initial speculation - how to explain the mind of a chris ford and so many like him or her? - has been proven unanswerable over the last 6 years....

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 12:45 AM

Testing testing 1-2-3.

Posted by Coby | July 30, 2007 9:00 AM