False Equivalence

I think George Packer does his readers a disservice by trying to construct a parallel between conservative reaction to Scott Beauchamp and liberal reaction to O'Hanlon/Pollack:

The same people who believed the first story refused to believe the second, and vice versa. In a sense, they believed or refused to believe each story before it was published—even before it had occurred. What mattered was whether the story supported or undermined their view of the war. This kind of thing depresses me even more than the thought of Bradley Fighting Vehicles running over stray dogs.

But that's not what happened. I haven't seen people question the veracity of specific anecdotes Pollack and O'Hanlon offer. In fact, it would be absurd to do so. If they say they spoke to soldiers whose morale was high, no doubt that's because they did, in fact, speak to soldiers whose morale was high. What I, and others, have done is question the strategic judgment they offered about the surge. We suggested, moreover, that their upbeat analysis of the situation should be put in the larger context of them both having extensive records of poor judgment on Iraq, with errors invariably coming from being too hawkish.

The right, meanwhile, not only insisted without evidence that Beauchamp was lying, but suggested that the publication of his story was motivated by The New Republic's desire to undermine the war even though TNR has never opposed the war and doesn't oppose it today.

UPDATE: By the same token, I should say that the whole thing is apples and oranges. If you agree with the main point of the Pollack/O'Hanlon op-ed, there's an obvious policy upshot: the surge should be continued for months and talk of withdrawal should be stopped. The Beauchamp article, meanwhile, no matter how true or false it may be, has no implications whatsoever. "This dude killed some dogs, therefore we should leave Iraq" would be an absurd argument.

Comments

Don't forget the incredibly dishonest presentation of Pollack/O'Hanlon as onetime "harsh critics" of the war. Mr. Beauchamp was accused of calling himself something he isn't, when it is O'Hanlon and Pollack who are doing so.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | August 7, 2007 11:02 AM

But the Beauchamp story was a lie and he has admitted this. Many people felt the stories were lies and pushed hard enough to get an admission.I would have thought journalist would be happy .

Posted by mymy | August 7, 2007 11:03 AM

Also O'Hanlon and Pollack have a track record--a track record of being disastrously wrong. This track record must be weighed against their new "insights" gained from 8 days spent in Iraq on a trip arraigned by the military. Part of the liberal furor over O'Hanlon and Pollack is why are we still listening to these idiots.

Conservatives attacked the then-anonymous Scott Beaucahmp as dishonest because they didn't like what he said therefore he must be a liar.

By the way, considering how completely the Republican machine referenced the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed, it makes it seems like they were in on it. It seems like a strategy coordinated with Gen Petraeus who apparently is a personal friend of O'Hanlon.

Posted by KevinNYc | August 7, 2007 11:06 AM

mymy, Oh my oh my, you are just straight out lying aren't you?

Posted by KevinNYC | August 7, 2007 11:08 AM

What mattered was whether the story supported or undermined their view of the war.

That line is a bit much coming from a guy who continually said that his appraisal of our chances of success were influenced towards the positive by his desire that something work out well for his Iraqi friends and acquaintances. AFAIK, that's still his position.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 7, 2007 11:09 AM

Beauchamp recants his stories. So he is either lying to the Army or lying to TNR.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp

Posted by Dave | August 7, 2007 11:12 AM

amazing, innit? Dave (and presumably mymy) will rely on the weekly standard, thereby proving the point that matthew makes in the first piece.

whatever may depress george packer, what depresses me is the desire of people like george packer to invoke "on the one hand, on the other, and neither of these hands is anywhere near as clean as mine are" routine....

Posted by howard | August 7, 2007 11:16 AM

So, Howard, your argument is that WS is lying and he did not in fact recant all his stories under oath to army investigators?

Posted by Dave | August 7, 2007 11:18 AM

Beauchamp recants his stories. So he is either lying to the Army or lying to TNR.

Or this anonymous source is lying to Weekly Standard. Or Weekly Standard is lying to its readers. Until I hear more, either of those is at least as plausible.

Posted by Glenn | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM

Packer's blog entry is worse than you let on, Matt. In his final paragraph, he says the way progressives and conservatives look at the world is essentially the same: Both sides are faith-based and ignore inconvenient facts.

Sorry, pal, but the people I read and respect are precisely those who look at reality as unflinchingly as possible. They don't fear going where the evidence and reason take them. Call them Kantian progressives, as in the Kant of "What is Enlightenment?" (The answer, by the way, is thinking for yourself.)

Posted by dporreca | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM

Only problem, mymy, is he has NOT admitted anything was a lie. Last word at TNR is: "Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)"

Only thing he's admitted he got wrong was the incident mocking a disfigured woman occurred in Kuwait, not Iraq, but DID occur. All other incidents remain unrefuted.

I believe the USArmy PA office has now issued a claim none of it is true, and say they have interviewed unit members who (the PA Officer says) refute his claims.

Only problem is, the Army has taken away Beauchamp's phone and computer, and all access (his wife hasn't spoken to him since last week). Additionally, speaking as retired military myself, I'm hardly surprised that when confronted by military officers investigating inappropriate (perhaps illegal) behavior that junior enlisted men are now telling a different story than they originally told the press when they confirmed Beauchamp's story. Particularly when one recognizes the political and military pressure being brought to bear to refute this.

One should also remember that part of his story was already confirmed by the Weekly Standard (the child bones), and that his critics loved his stories prior to this most recent report! Yet again, when the right hear something they do not like, first impulse is to shoot the messenger rather than refute the information.

Posted by Zoomie | August 7, 2007 11:22 AM

It's more apples and oranges because liberal bloggers were discussing a large scale process with which they had tons of information to judge the validity of the O’Hanlon/Pollack argument whereas conservative bloggers were judging individual events against what was to their minds “plausible”.

O’Hanlon/Pollack were trying to counter the wide spread impression that the surge is a failure. The fact that post publication many people still think the surge was a failure isn’t a function liberal knee jerking.

Posted by ChristopherColaninno | August 7, 2007 11:30 AM

I'm waiting to hear more on the record re Beauchamp. Who knows, could be that the Weekly Standard's anonymous source got his/her story wrong.

But this seems utterly silly:

TNR has never opposed the war and doesn't oppose it today

Matthew's joking, right?

Posted by Al | August 7, 2007 11:31 AM

On what journalistic priniciple is WS anonymously sourcing its story of Beauchamp recanting?

If he did recant then a military spokesman should be able to report that without restriction. The Press' relentless use of anonymous sourcing to push pro-Iraq propaganda is mind-boggling.

Posted by Piqued | August 7, 2007 11:31 AM

O'Hanlon and the other useful idiot swallowed the military's nonsense hook, line, and sinker:

These guys went to the Green Zone and other secure locations and talked only to occupation officials (“American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel”).

Posted by blogenfreude | August 7, 2007 11:32 AM

Dave, what zoomie said, and yes, the weekly standard, which told us long ago how we were "wining" in iraq, which has been consistently wrong about iraq, which is a propaganda outlet devoted, among other things, to smearing anyone who isn't as war-crazed as bill kristol, is a source of zero reliability.

and i'm also saying that matthew's point is exactly correct: what "scott thomas" is saying is neither here nor there to whether we should be in iraq, but the warmongers must hate him. there is zero equivalence between that kneejerk reaction by delusional war-enablers and a conclusion that o'hanlon and pollack wrote an op-ed that made no strategic sense whatsoever.

Posted by howard | August 7, 2007 11:33 AM

Jeezus fucking christ that packer piece is a disgrace. Since I can't post this over at the NYorker (which subscribe to) I'll have to put this here:

There is no "fog of war" and there never has been. The soldiers know what they are doing. The army knows what its soldiers are doing. They know where their weapons are. They know when weapons are given away or unaccounted for. They know how many civilians they have killed. They know whether they are winning or losing the war. These are facts. They are out there. We don't actually need Ohanlon and Pollack to go over there to *find something out* except that the bush administration and its enablers are determined to keep us from seeing the numbers, looking hard at the facts, and concluding that the war is fucked up beyond measure.

This is not a question of faith or opinion. ITs a matter of fact. And the only reason the facts are so hard to come by is that the facts would so entirely discredit the bush administration as an administration (given the task of administering this country) that soldiers, the army, the GAO etc...are interfered with when they try to tell the world what they are up to.

Like most people who opposed the war on rational grounds (not faith based, not pacifist, rational)I don't have any opinion one way or another about one soldiers stories about atrocities that may or may not have been committed. The bombing of a civilian population during shock and awe was enough of a war crime for me. What scott thomas did or did not do doesn't make thiswar more immoral, or less immoral, than watching american journalists cheer on shock and awe without inquiring for one second into the innocent civilian lives that were destroyed for nothing more than george bush's political advantage.

I think I'll tear that packer piece out when it gets here and mail it back wrapped in a diaper.

aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 11:35 AM

Beauchamp recants his stories. So he is either lying to the Army or lying to TNR.

Or this anonymous source is lying to Weekly Standard. Or Weekly Standard is lying to its readers. Until I hear more, either of those is at least as plausible.

Posted by Glenn | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM

hear, hear. That post is 'evidence'?

from the Beauchamp recants link:

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

"The claims?" All of them? All the stories were invented from the whole cloth? or some of the claims? Nothing in the stories were true? What kind of quote is that? For example, did Scott Thomas mention in any of his articles that there was a war in Iraq, and are they claiming that that "claim" is false? Or is that not an "allegation?" That statement is nonsense. It's an empty P.R. statement.

Posted by duus | August 7, 2007 11:39 AM

Another key apples-and-oranges difference is the Beauchamp is answerable to someone; O'Hanlon/Pollock are not.

If Beauchamp doesn't lie to the Army, he gets an Article 15 or worse. O'Hanlon and Pollock can continue to spout *demonstrably* wrong analysis and still be assured of cherry jobs. In the wonderful responsibility-free world of pro-war punditry, any pro-surge conclusion is a win-win situation. Beauchamp, on the other hand, is looking at real-life punishment.

As to "Beauchamp should accept the consequences of what he said", the guy is already in Iraq, which makes him of more benefit to the country than any number of spouting pundits sitting in comfortable offices.

Posted by LittlePig | August 7, 2007 11:40 AM

Packer was/is a socialist. He probably has little love for either liberal/progressives or conservatives. I wouldn't use the WS for bird cage liner and I would be highly suspect of any claims of "recanting" done Beauchamp. He may have been ordered to do so.

"George Packer has struggled to carry on his own version of his grandfather's and father's legacies. He served in the Peace Corps. He came home early, worked as a laborer, volunteered in a night shelter, and enrolled in the Socialist Party when the collapse of international communism and the socialist ideal was complete and laissez-faire conservatism seemed unchallenged. (Joining the Socialists in 1989, he acknowledges wryly, was like 'coming out as a flat-earther during the Enlightenment.'"

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3880/is_200210/ai_n9140068/pg_1

Posted by Nunya | August 7, 2007 11:41 AM

You lie when you state that the Beauchamp article has no implications whatsoever. It would have entered the record as historical fact. It would have fueled dissertations on the behavior of US forces during the Iraq war, and reinforced the Kerry version of the American warrior as killbot.

Think of the epistemic damage that you do when you condone TNR's presenting such rubbish as a first-hand account of the dehumanization wrought upon an everyman soldier. A lie by any other rationalization still stinks to high heaven.

Posted by Dan Collins | August 7, 2007 11:43 AM

If it were not for liberal blogs' chronicling of the right wing reaction to the Beauchamps writing, I would never have heard of it.

By the way, I don't solely require a U.S. soldier to report what has or has not been done to Iraqi civilians -- there are actually Iraqis and others who report what Iraqi civilians say, and their testimonies weigh just as much if not more than soldiers' field reports. Visit ElectronicIraq.net for a start.

O'Hanlon and Pollack, fake war critics and authors of a new non-study, however, were on every major news & political media for days. Days. Headline news. Newspapers. Columns. Radio shows. Everything.

All for a 'report' which has no measurable substance what-so-ever, no matter which of their bracing conversations were real or not.

When biblical fundamentalist creationists visit the Grand Canyon, and see proof that it is recent, say, 6,000 or so years old, you don't have to dispute that they went to the Grand Canyon.

O'Hanlon and Pollack apparently wouldn't know what a real "study" was if it walked up, bit 'em in the a**, and then hit them over the head repeatedly.

Posted by El Cid | August 7, 2007 11:45 AM

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:"An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

What? The Army investigated itself and found nothing wrong? And the military flack whose job it is to go out and tell reporters there's nothing wrong went out and told reporters there's nothing wrong?

Who says the system doesn't work?

Posted by Peter Principle | August 7, 2007 11:57 AM

You lie when you state that the Beauchamp article has no implications whatsoever. It would have entered the record as historical fact. It would have fueled dissertations on the behavior of US forces during the Iraq war, and reinforced the Kerry version of the American warrior as killbot.

Collins, what are you talking about? It's a damn far cry from "Beauchamp said he was in a Bradley that ran over some dogs" to "Beauchamp said his superiors made him bathe in the blood of Iraqi children." Seriously, no one makes that leap unless they're a knee-jerk reactionary.

Posted by James F. Elliott | August 7, 2007 12:00 PM

Dan Collins, have you ever killed a man? That is a serious question. Have you?

Because if you have, could you explain how you get the terminology "killbot"?

Posted by milo | August 7, 2007 12:00 PM

i keep trying to understand how the dan collins of the world draw their moronic conclusions. by their standards, when i say that george bush is a nasty, dishonest, foolish little man, i must be saying that all republicans are nasty, dishonest, foolish little men....

Posted by howard | August 7, 2007 12:01 PM

As a mental exercise, translate "anonymous source at The Weekly Standard" to "Dick Cheney". Now think about how credible the article is.

Quite seriously, given the past seven years, it's hard to imagine anybody giving any credibility to "anonymous sources" who put out pro-administration stories. The only reason that the administration puts out propaganda anonymously is to avoid serious scrutiny. If the administration had serious arguments to make that favored their position and withstand scrutiny, they wouldn't bother with anonymity, would they?

Posted by Whispers | August 7, 2007 12:04 PM

A much better analogy to Beauchamp would be the Pat Tillman situation, where the army has been associated with obscuring some uncomfortable realities of war, but also in a situation without any deeper meaning outside the personnel directly involved.

I believe the balanced position, given that perspective, would be to be disappointed in both the magazine and the military for exploiting low-ranked soldiers to score their points.

Posted by BruceR | August 7, 2007 12:08 PM

What? The Army investigated itself and found nothing wrong?

Clearly, Beauchamp is a bad apple.

Posted by Anderson | August 7, 2007 12:12 PM

Matt,

"What I, and others, have done is question the strategic judgment they offered about the surge."

That's not all you did. You also effectively questioned their motivation and integrity, by suggesting they might spin the facts to enhance their future job prospects.

Posted by Fred | August 7, 2007 12:13 PM

Aimai has it right I think. Disgraceful and clueless - like most of Packer's journalism about Iraq.

In essence, the only thing the Beauchamp pseudocontroversy has done is clouded the real controversies that should have been swirling around the trial of Spielman last week, the third third soldier from Company B, First Battalion, 502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne Division to be convicted of murder and rape - a little matter of sexually forcing themselves on a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and then killed her and her family. Instead of that, the blogosphere was discussing whether soldiers said nasty things in a cafeteria about an injured woman.

Meanwhile, Packer's account of the 'center-left' commenters again swallows a description of them that he knows is misleading. Packer does know that both supported the invasion. He does know that both supported the surge. He does know that both omitted that pertinent information from their op ed piece, instead asserting that they had been critics of the war - implying that they were anti-war, rather than critics of the way the Bush administration has conducted the war. He knows these things and he omits them in his account, too. That's because he is the second audience the op ed was written for, the insider audience that uses the 'critics of the war' label as a peg to distribute a soft soaping piece on the surge, full of equivalent misrepresentations of the state of play in Iraq (misrepresenting the Anbar strategy as part of the surge rather than a retreat from American positions laid down in 2003, misrepresenting the stability in Northern Iraq grossly, etc.).

Logically, there's no connection between the truths or untruths of the Beauchamp account and the truths or untruths of the O'Hanlon and Pollack op ed. By connecting them, of course, Packer is making a surreptitious appeal to liberals - hey, if you believe the Beauchamp story, then you have to believe the O'Hanlon story. That is pure sophistry, given that the sets of facts involved have nothing to do with each other. It is a laughable lawyerlike tactic. It is morally disingenous. It is pure Packer.

Posted by roger | August 7, 2007 12:18 PM

Why is "anonymous Scott Beaucahmp" so important? Is it because it was in TNR? The Nation published a piece very similar except they used multiple sources and no one was anonymous. In fact some were interviewed as real live human beings on Democracy Now. There has been no faux outrage over that article to my knowledge.

Posted by An Outhouse | August 7, 2007 12:30 PM

I love the theological underpinnings of 'recant'.

Nice little Inquisition you wingnuts have going there. You never know, if the Malkinites skweam hard enough to the brass in Iraq, they might get Beauchamp to sign an affadavit saying that there's no sectarian violence in Iraq.

Still, thanks for showing us who you think the real enemies are.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM

anytime Beauchamp's name is mentioned, the comments section fills with right wing trolls. Must be a program out there that notifies them.

Posted by moe99 | August 7, 2007 12:43 PM

As everyone in Greater Blogistan knows there is only one truly reputable source of information about the war.

Posted by David Ehrenstein | August 7, 2007 1:00 PM

It would have entered the record as historical fact. It would have fueled dissertations on the behavior of US forces during the Iraq war, and reinforced the Kerry version of the American warrior as killbot.

The dumbest thing that will be said today. First, these things do happen in war. Everyone knows this. The entire WORLD knows this Certainly, the Iraqis know this. Shit, bad acts on behalf of invading/occupying armies isn't just in the historical record -- by and large it IS the historical record.

The only people who literally can't believe it are the same moral infants and intellectual lepers who believe the fucking war is going well.

And your great parry on Beauchamps' ancedotes? The army denies them. Democracy cannot survive you people. I'm utterly convinced of it.

Posted by Jay B. | August 7, 2007 1:07 PM

"You lie when you state that the Beauchamp article has no implications whatsoever. It would have entered the record as historical fact. It would have fueled dissertations on the behavior of US forces during the Iraq war, and reinforced the Kerry version of the American warrior as killbot."

Uh...2 soldiers were just convicted for rape and murder in Iraq. Trust me, Beauchamp's account is peanuts compared to those atrocities.

Posted by Nikki | August 7, 2007 1:11 PM

Let me get this straight, Dan. A whole passel of marines started their court martial hearings last week to determine their roles in the rape of a 15 year old girl and the murder of her entire family, but it's Scott Beauchamp who's tale will forever stain our fighting men?
Beauchamp's stories are nothing that haven't happened in nearly every war in history. War dehumanizes people. It always has. Heck, you don't even have to go to war-zones to find people who honest and truly are that asshatted.

Posted by Geeno | August 7, 2007 1:16 PM

Oh - just looked it up - Nikki caught it. The hearings ended, not started, last week 2 were convicted.

Posted by Geeno | August 7, 2007 1:19 PM

What? The Army investigated itself and found nothing wrong? And the military flack whose job it is to go out and tell reporters there's nothing wrong went out and told reporters there's nothing wrong?

Who says the system doesn't work?

Posted by Peter Principle | August 7, 2007 11:57 AM

*************************************************
What? The TNR investigated itself and found nothing wrong? And the editor whose job it is to go out and tell reporters there's nothing wrong went out and told reporters there's nothing wrong?

Who says the system doesn't work?

Posted by Campesino | August 7, 2007 1:19 PM

Yglesias, regarding the Beauchamp affair on 2 Aug:

Well, it looks like The Weekly Standard and the right-wing blogosphere really turn out to be full of shit

Yglesias, regarding the Beauchamp affair on 7 Aug:

The Beauchamp article, meanwhile, no matter how true or false it may be, has no implications whatsoever.

Lol, it's funny how now you are trying to play down this embarassing episode as much as possible. Like Mike Nifong with the stripper, you (and Andrew Sullivan) banked a little too heavily on Beauchamp, lashed out against his critics, and now you have totally discredited yourselves.

Meanwhile, neither of you Ivory tower denizens bothered to listen to actual soldiers (like myself) who pointed out many reasons why his story was impossible. You have only yourselves to blame.

Posted by John Rohan | August 7, 2007 1:24 PM

I've read absolutely nothing to suggest that Beauchamp's story was "impossible", as in having zero probability. That's a ridiculous proposition to even try to defend, and makes me question the sanity/comprehension skills of anyone making that claim. In some sense, claiming that Beauchamp's stories have a p=0 chance of happening is more extraordinary than his own claims (Someone killed a dog with a big honking vehicle? No wai!), especially in light of the rape/murder trial of, you know, a human being.

If Beauchamp is right, it's because he's right, and if he's wrong it's because he's wrong, not because of any possible/impossible/plausible/implausible "smell test" arguments that keep getting trotted out.

Posted by TheF79 | August 7, 2007 1:36 PM

A question for George Packer (or, really, The New Yorker): How the heck can you have a blog and not allow comments? Afraid of a little vituperation from the great unwashed masses?

Heh. Indeed.

Posted by commie atheist | August 7, 2007 1:36 PM

Meanwhile, neither of you Ivory tower denizens bothered to listen to actual soldiers (like myself) who pointed out many reasons why his story was impossible. You have only yourselves to blame.

Let's see... Beauchamp is an "actual soldier" -- even wingnut assholes can't claim otherwise now, right? He said it happened. TNR reported that several other "actual soldiers" confirmed that these things did or could have happened. But everyone was naturally supposed to listen to you -- whoever the fuck you are, I've never heard of you -- because you're an "actual soldier"? Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Posted by Glenn | August 7, 2007 1:37 PM

Packer and the rest of liberal hawks now realize that they jumped on a bandwagon that plunged over a very high cliff. Their main order of business now is to do what they can to rehabilitate their severely, and hopefully permanently, tarnished reputations.

As always, they were far more concerned about attacks from the right than attacks from the left. The threat from the right is why they jumped on the glorious Iraq bandwagon in the first place, suppressing any reasonable analysis of the prewar evidence. However, they don't feel threatened from the right now because the right is faced with an even deeper quandary than are the liberal hawks. The right is responsible for generating the propaganda that the liberal hawks so unjudiciously swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

The real threat to the liberal hawks' reputations now comes from the left -- a situation of no small discomfort to the liberal hawks who are more accustomed to delivering lectures to those on their left than receiving them.

It is a canard of the right, now parroted by those like Packer and O'Hanlon and Pollack, that the vast majority of those to their left on Iraq opposed the war out of knee-jerk pacifism. But this is demonstrably false, as everyone who frequents lefty blogs knows all too well.

Many of us judge each proposed use of military force on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I supported the first Gulf War, I supported most of Clinton's military actions. I supported invading Afghanistan (and I was an even bigger Afghanistan hawk than the hawks because I said at the time that we should swarm bin Laden at Tora Bora while we had him cornered).

Clearly I am no pacifist. But I opposed the Iraq War for several reasons, most prominently because while an act of preventive war would require the strongest of evidence to be justified, I became convinced that Bush's case for WMD was a fraud. This was not hard to figure out if you examined the evidence objectively.

Bottom line: attempting to lump everyone to the left of the liberal hawks as pacifists is intellectually dishonest.

But, then, that is precisely what we've come to expect of the liberal hawks.

Posted by Junius Brutus | August 7, 2007 1:52 PM

Lol, it's funny how now you are trying to play down this embarassing episode as much as possible. Like Mike Nifong with the stripper, you (and Andrew Sullivan) banked a little too heavily on Beauchamp, lashed out against his critics, and now you have totally discredited yourselves.

Yes, The Left banked all of its credibility on whether or not a soldier's stories of cruelty during wartime were accurate or not, and now we are discredited completely. Oh, woe! You're absolutely right. George Bush is a God, we're winning in Iraq, we've got Al Quaeda on the run, soldiers don't rape or kill innocent civilians, and Republicans will run America forever!!!

Comrades, it's time to admit defeat. There's no way we can ever overcome this stunning setback. Our secret plan to lose the war in Iraq and destroy America can never succeed, so long as real Americans like John Rohan exist to expose our perfidy.

Posted by commie atheist | August 7, 2007 1:56 PM

"Many of us judge each proposed use of military force on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I supported the first Gulf War, I supported most of Clinton's military actions. I supported invading Afghanistan (and I was an even bigger Afghanistan hawk than the hawks because I said at the time that we should swarm bin Laden at Tora Bora while we had him cornered).
Clearly I am no pacifist."

All of these wars no doubt brutalized soldiers. Beauchamp-type pieces could have been written about any of them. If you've known cops whose beat is the American inner-city, as I have, you know that they can become a little callous about their fellow citizens who they're policing. It's a self-defense mechanism not all cops or soldiers suffer from, obviously.

And yet for the Bush-haters, American soldiers behaving callously proves Bush is evil, evil, evil!

While O'Hanlon/Pollack are dismissed out of hand, because, you know, they agree with the Rightwing - in some nuanced way - and that can't possibly be right, no matter the evidence.

Everyone agrees the Iraqi politicians haven't been able to work it out, which is very bad news for the American soliders, the Iraqi people, and everyone else except for possibly Iran, which can keep the US pinned down; for the jihadists, who don't want the Iraqi govenrment to function; and to Democrats who can pin a continuing disaster on the Republicans, thereby improving their electoral chances next year.

However a smart Democratic president would hope that Iraq would settle down, so they could pull the troops and declare victory.

Posted by Peter K. | August 7, 2007 2:14 PM

And yet for the Bush-haters, American soldiers behaving callously proves Bush is evil, evil, evil! - Peter K.

That's completely ridiculous. Find one source--one!--that makes that claim.

Posted by duus | August 7, 2007 2:24 PM

Banked what on Beauchamp? You guys make less sense than is humanly possible -- you'd have to be programmed to be that obtuse.

Some asshole is worried about 'the historical record' about soldiers running over dogs in the same war already defined by Abu Gharib. While you go to preposterous lengths to denounce mundane cruelty as "impossible" your fellow deviant Jules Critteden wrote about a different reported incident regarding the desecration of an Iraqi grave: "** Technically, as a reader notes below, abusing a corpse in military as well as civilian life is a crime. In this case, I’d apply the legal principle of who cares?"

You guys can't figure out whether atrocities (a designation which Beauchamps anecdotes don't even rate) can actually happen, or, if they do, "who cares"?

But of course, you also believe that the Army -- with evidently nothing vested in the war -- would be more apt to want the truth than a generally pro-war magazine who happened to print a journal from an ordinary grunt. Insane.

Posted by Jay B. | August 7, 2007 2:27 PM

"A much better analogy to Beauchamp would be the Pat Tillman situation, where the army has been associated with obscuring some uncomfortable realities of war, but also in a situation without any deeper meaning outside the personnel directly involved.

I believe the balanced position, given that perspective, would be to be disappointed in both the magazine and the military for exploiting low-ranked soldiers to score their points."

Posted by BruceR

Actually the Tillman situation has deeper meaning. The major who falsified a report was promoted and given a battalion command. This indicates that (a) lying about something, (b) being caught and (c) having it become a public scandal is no longer a barrier to promotion in the US Army.

Posted by Barry | August 7, 2007 2:27 PM

What I've learned from people like Dan Collins and John Rohan is that a lot of Americans really need remedial literacy courses. Why would anyone voluntarily post such embarassing nonsense?

Posted by vanya | August 7, 2007 2:57 PM

Jay B has it exactly right. Beauchamp or no Beauchamp right wing cheerleaders for the war have actively sought, applauded, and cheered on torture, rape, murder, mutilation etc... as natural and even desirable parts of our war on terrorism. Nice guys all, I"m sure. And I mean that. I'm sure that the very bloodthirstiest of these guys is probably a sweet human being at a cocktail party, loves his children, takes the dog for walks. In fact that's part of the absurdity of the right wing attack on Beauchamp's story as *inconceivable* and due to his poor taste in wedding gifts or his willingness to read fiction. Nice people stand by all the time while other people do terrible things to "protect" them. And nice people do terrible things in war protecting other people. And nice people do terrible things in war because they are in a war and don't have time or the inclination to refuse to do terrible things.

I remember Friedman and Brooks,for example, exhorting us to forget our humane and civilized side and get ready to rumble as hard as it took. THey said that from the safety and comfort of their (many) homes in the US before our soldiers even set foot in Iraq. Faster pussycat kill kill was the motto, kick over the chessboard, throw some crappy little country up against the wall (ledeen), use Saddam's prison to hold and torture a new generation of Iraqis, blah, blah blah.

And *now* we have to hear from the right wing trolls that if it weren't for *Kerry?* the world would never have heard of, say, My lai? That if it weren't for *kerry*, a then young and largely unknown navel officer there would never have been vietnam vets against the war? No napalm bombings of civilians, no agent orange?

There is an essay to be written here,and no doubt Digby has the wit to write it, about the insane childish logic of these people. I say childish not because any child I've ever known is so vicious and so unhinged but because children think things like "because I've put the sweater on, it is cold" or (actually, this is a parisian woman who Proust knew as one of the stupidest people on earth) "because they've put salt on the ground to prevent ice, it will not snow." If an atrocity *happened* not reporting it doesn't make it unhappen. In fact, most of us adults would think that makes it *worse.* It compounds the injustice, just as (at law), it compounds the crime. Only a child or a right winger thinks that sin, crime, and murder are only bad if a) an enemy does them or b) we are embarrassed by it becoming known that we ourselves have committed the act.

aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 2:58 PM

aimai

"Beauchamp or no Beauchamp right wing cheerleaders for the war have actively sought, applauded, and cheered on torture, rape, murder, mutilation etc... as natural and even desirable parts of our war on terrorism."

Sure they have as I'm sure you have ample evidence of people on the right cheering on rape and you'll duely post it. Right next to your latest dispatch from Bagdhad, er I mean Kuwait, Oops, I mean Sandusky Ohio. Go Rapists! WooHoo! Gimme an R.Gimme an A........

Of course as it turns out Beauchamp really wasn't in Bagdhad either when he was "hardened by war" and "lost his humanity" This all happened in Kuwait. Which is just a minor detail to those here. That flight from Germany to Kuwait in a C5 can be a real bitch though so it's easy to see how the guy could lose his humanity and all before stepping into Iraq.

Spin away people, spin away. You people are going to need Dramamine after so much spin.

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 3:13 PM

"And yet for the Bush-haters, American soldiers behaving callously proves Bush is evil, evil, evil!

While O'Hanlon/Pollack are dismissed out of hand, because, you know, they agree with the Rightwing - in some nuanced way - and that can't possibly be right, no matter the evidence."
Posted by Peter K. | August 7, 2007 2:14 PM

Bush recklessly and needlessly created the situation in which these soldiers quite predictably are "behaving callously," so yes, he is evil. This is what Kerry was saying about Vietnam, by the way, not that GIs were becoming "killbots," but that bad leadership had thrown lots of young people into what can easliy turn into morally compromising situations. To say he was blaming the troops was to purposely misunderstand him.

And O'Hanlon and Polack aren't being villified for "agreeing with the Rightwing in some nuanced way" but for trying to "kick the can" on this foolishness down the road for yet another six months to a year, simply to forestall the judgement on their reputations that they engineered an unmitigated disaster. They're hoping some kind of miracle can occur to bail them out, and at no cost, since they aren't the ones suffering and dying while this drags out.

Posted by tom tom | August 7, 2007 3:15 PM

"And yet for the Bush-haters, American soldiers behaving callously proves Bush is evil, evil, evil!"

We knew Bush was evil long before Beauchamp. The Beauchamp article is insignificant, whether it be true or false. None of the powerful liberal critiques of the Iraq War depend in any way on Beauchamp's claims.

In the meantime, there are a lot of Repubs whistling by the graveyard, knowing that they got a lot of things a lot more wrong than a Beauchamp article.

Republicans are simply incapable of honestly assessing evidence.

Posted by Junius Brutus | August 7, 2007 3:21 PM

"Republicans are simply incapable of honestly ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR FUCK-UPS."
Posted by Junius Brutus

Fixed your typo.

Posted by tom tom | August 7, 2007 3:27 PM

"In the meantime, there are a lot of Repubs whistling by the graveyard, knowing that they got a lot of things a lot more wrong than a Beauchamp article"

Exactly. I'm sure their guilt is hard to take, especially how their mind control machine was used to get all those Dems to vote for it as well. And how it is now unable to get the Dem majority to end the war now by defunding it when they have the power to!

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 3:28 PM

Sure they have as I'm sure you have ample evidence of people on the right cheering on rape

Sadly, yes.

"They were just having a good time, blowing off steam"

Of course, then you'll just say that forced sodomy and masturbation while gagged and collared isn't "rape". Who is spinning?

Posted by Jay B. | August 7, 2007 3:34 PM

Yes that proves it then alrighty.

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 3:37 PM

Dan Collins @ 11:43am: "You lie when you state that the Beauchamp article has no implications whatsoever. It would have entered the record as historical fact. It would have fueled dissertations on the behavior of US forces during the Iraq war..."

Right. Because Abu Ghraib, etc., won't provide enough material for that.

The Beauchamp article, if true, is a data point, not a thesis. There's already plenty of other material to support the same thesis.

I don't know if the Beauchamp article would have other, more serious, implications or not. I suspect not. Whatever the case, you're argument does not support your proposition. It's silly, wrongheaded, and could only be made by someone ignoring all the other atrocities going on in Iraq.

That may seem like a harsh assessment, but ignoring other atrocities is the foundation of your argument, Dan.

Posted by JGabriel | August 7, 2007 3:40 PM

What you seem to forget that the people who did those horrible things are fortunately in jail now themselves. That's why stories like Beauchamp's are important and it's important to get the story right.

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 3:45 PM

Alexander Thomas,
If you've got the stomach for it I suggest you step over to the NRO and simply read through the coverage over there of Abu Ghraib and the sexual torture meted out to prisoners under our control. There isn't one of those right wing jingos who would go on record criticizing Abu Ghraib or the chain of command that let it happen even as pictures and videos that implicated our soldiers in the rape of a 14 year old boy were circulating and were, in fact, shown to our legislators.

Here's the thing. The feeblest, weakest, most cowardly of conservative voters--a category I put all of the 26 percent who still support bush *and who don't have the guts to enlist to fight the war to end all wars they nominally support* gets a kick out of talking the most brutal talk. If you were to read your own representative bloggers you'd find them talking about "more rubble/less trouble" (Glenn Reynolds) and about showing the Islamofascistmexicans just whose boss (malkin et al), about blowing our enemeies away (coulter inter alia)about blowing up or glassing over mecca, etc...etc...etc...

Well, which is it? Are we so tough and angry about 9/11 (as bush keeps saying) that we are acting out our revenge on Iraq because it was behind 9/11 or are we liberating Iraq and the Iraqi people from saddam's brutal grip and letting a hundred flowers bloom? Because it can't be both. You can't ship armed soldiers over there and tell them to blowshit up and take revenge *and* somehow not have bad things happen to the IRaqis. Unless you think our army is totally incompetent to perform the task at hand. But if you think we sent 150,000 guys over there to bomb a capitol city filled with civilians, to replace the indigenous government, to fire the entire military, to blacklist the whole administration, to privatize all local industry, to build the largest embassy in the world, and that not a one of 150,000 of those guys will break, rape, steal, or otherwise injure any iraqi in the process well, you are just nuts.

And I don't think you are nuts. I think you are just a common or garden variety coward. You not only know what is happening in Iraq you approved it when you thought that it would produce a quick and easy victory, hearts and flowers, money for nothing and your chicks for free. Now that its turning out to be costly in every sense of that word you want to squirm away from your responsibility for it. And no doubt you can. Because if you or your fellow conservative cowards had had the ounce of intelligence of a stuffed cat you would have realized--really realized not just imagined--that war is hell. And if you are going to cheerfully, willingly, delightedly vote for and pursue agressive war against another people you are also cheerfully, willingly, and delightedly supporting every atrocity that you and your representative troops (and even your paid mercenaries) visit on those people.

Don't blame me for busting your bubble and pointing out that even your nicest, shiniest, most popular public mouthpieces publicly came out for mass violence in pursuit of empty manliness. Its in the public record. You've got to live with it, and the Iraqis have to die with it. But don't try palming it off on the rest of us.

Spin? you are soaking in it.

aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 3:46 PM

aimai,

Funny, You seem to be such an expert while knowing so little. But you are correct. I'm a coward. Your garden variety Marine with 14 years of active duty and 2 deployments to Iraq and one coming up kind. But hey what do I know. I'm just a big ol' Bushitler cheerleading rape kind. Guess that explains why you're here setting the world straight. Thanks Mr. aimai or is it Scott?

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 3:54 PM

And just to add something to this tale of lost national honor, it is John Yoo, Bush's principle architect of the new found right and duty to torture who authored a scholarly publication arguing that the President *has the right* to order the torture-by-crushing-the-testicles of a minor child if he thinks its necessary for national security. I didn't make that up. I couldn't make that up. The depths to which Bush and his inner circle have sunken, and the depths to which they have taken this country, are literally bottomless.

AT this point there is nothing that anyone could accuse us of doing that the world wouldn't believe. That's not due to some fantasy TNR readership, that is due entirely to the actions and publications and speeches of America's authorized representatives.

aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 4:00 PM

Alexander Thomas,
If you are a marine with two deployments to Iraq then you are simply lying about not knowing that atrocities are committed every day during war time, by every side involved in the war. And, of course, there are other Marines, soldiers, and returning national guard members who see things quite differently from you. I'll take their testimony over yours because I know that they have been over there while Ive got nothing but your word for it that you have.

But lets do a thought experiment. I'll grant that you are a marine, heading back for your third tour of duty to Iraq. Can you explain to me what is the hold up? How come we haven't "finished the job" over there? Why are 150,000 of our finest not enough to conquer Iraq? Is it something you guys aren't doing right? Or is it something our REpublican leadership isn't doing right? Because I'm confused about all this. I was told that we were going to get in and out with very few "boots on the ground" and that the Iraqis were going to "greet us with flowers and candy" and that it was going to cost at most a few billion dollars (Andrew Natsios) and that we'd be out in a few months. You and your buddy bush (you used the word hitler, I didn't, by the way) seem to have had some other kind of understanding than I did or the rest of the country did.

For instance I read as much as I could about the region and quickly concluded that by removing a tin pot dictator we would be blowing the lid off an unstable region, destabilizing the entire middle east, and taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. I thought it would cost tons of money, absent a draft we would be sending our marines and soldiers back for endless tours of duty, and that we'd refuse to pay for the medical care they would need upon their return. How'm I doing so far?

I further concluded that, yes, the vast majority of the jingoistic pro-war voters would never enlist to fight and that we would soon be forced to use our troops over and over while being unable to replenish our all volunteer army. If I'm wrong about that you should see the remaining 26 percent of the country who supports the war lining up to enlist--after all everythign's great in Iraq, we've almost won, its the war to end all wars and its a great time to get in here and get some GWOT medals at little or no risk.

If you don't think that--if you think that five years on we are losing the war, the public doesn't support it, you can't get the recruits you need, the money hasn't been appropriated for veterans benefits and treatment, the VA system and Walter reed are busted, and Bush has (as he himself has admitted) no plan other than further deployments and surges whose fault is that?

Your party and your ideals have been in charge for the bulk of this war. You know I didn't support it--in fact that's your beef with the dems that they didn't support your war. So whose fault is it if you are losing it?

aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 4:12 PM

*Sigh*. You would think the Lefties who "dissent" against America and all it stands for as the highest form of patriotism would equally cherish and honor "dissent" from us military Vets, Army soldiers, and blogs on the Right as similar patriotism with absolute moral authority.

And of course, the Left that claims they "Love and support our Troops soooooo much" they trumpet the death count as reason to quit ....no doubt should be delighted that Beauchamp recanted on the 1st day of the investigation under oath his tales were lies.
Think! All those Leftists dancing with delight as the "troops they support sooooo much" were vindicated completely of the collective depravity Beauchamp said existed right up to officers and NCOs doing nothing as enlisted behaved despicably.

"No 'Soldier's command let' American soldiers roam the country side, burning, raping, cutting off heads in the manner of Jeng-Hiss Kaahhhn." as John Kerry implied was ubiquitous in Vietnam.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 7, 2007 4:21 PM

aimai,

See that's the problem. First off you simply draw an automatic conclusion "atrocities are committed every day during war time, by every side involved in the war". You're wrong. We are duty bound to report them and we do if they occur. Do they happen? Sure, but they are the the exception not the rule. Yet you have no compunction believing that they do.

"How come we haven't "finished the job" over there? Why are 150,000 of our finest not enough to conquer Iraq? Is it something you guys aren't doing right? Or is it something our REpublican leadership isn't doing right? Because I'm confused about all this."

Find me one military operation in the last 200 years that has not had miscalculations, setbacks and tragedies. Operation Market Garden, Dieppe come to mind. You forget, It takes very few people to cause lage scale damage.

"For instance I read as much as I could about the region and quickly concluded that by removing a tin pot dictator we would be blowing the lid off an unstable region, destabilizing the entire middle east,"

Do tell, was it stable before ?

"Your party and your ideals have been in charge for the bulk of this war. You know I didn't support it--in fact that's your beef with the dems that they didn't support your war.

No, you're quite wrong. In fact your party voted for it overwhelmingly and could end it RIGHT NOW, TODAY, by simply defunding it they have the votes but they haven't. Why do you think that is?

Your last sentence is most telling.

"So whose fault is it if you are losing it?"

I am more interested in finding a positive result for the men I serve with and for the Iraqi people. You seem to be more interested in finding blame. When you say "if you are losing it" is telling. I have news for you. If WE lose it's bad for all of us Dem or Rep or Ind. Like Sen. McCain said. I'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Too bad your ilk doesn't feel the same and would prefer to do so to score cheap political points.

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 4:31 PM

Alexander Thomas,

I'm not alone in looking at this clusterfuck of a war and thinking not only was it a bad idea, and not nly was it terribly fought by the generals, but that we have already lost it. In fact *former general* after *former general* has more or less come out and said the same thing. So let us dispense with the convenient fiction that only anti american unpatriots think the war was a bad idea, badly commanded, and now essentially lost. I'm sorry if you think that hurts the feelings of your soldiers. I"m more concerned with not committing troops unless we think we an win a real war (not a phony war) and I'm more concerned with pulling them out now before welose any more with nothign to show for it.

Like most other democrats, I opposed the war and I would like to get out now. But its not my fault, or the fault of my party, that the oval office is occupied by the war's principle cheerleader or that the republian minority, in lockstep with this administration, is frustrating the efforts of the demoratic caucus. I'll continue to protest the war, support the troops (by demanding that taxes be raised to pay for their needs *even as your party cuts taxes on the rich and defunds your hospitals and your comrades), you continue to do whatever you do.

No amount of Iraqis killed by you, or protected by you from other Iraqis, will affect the way this war will be undrstood by Iraqis and the rest of the world in the years to come. Neither your personal heroism, if any, nor any individual story of atrocities is going to affect the world's memory of this war which will be abysmal. I, and my children's children(and your children's children) will continue to pay for this war financially and in every other way regardless of its status as "lost" or "won."

I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. Its just the facts. We've already lost this war in every meaningful sense. Now we are just struggling as a people to figure out how to withdraw with the least loss of honor and life. I personally don't think we'll get out with any honor. And I expect given the republican party's unwillingness to admit what a horrible idea the war was in the first place that we won't be able to extricate ourselves from Iraq until the blame can sucessfully be shifted to the democrats and the very people who opposed the war. In that sense, I can say to you "mission accomplished, marine!" You are doing your part to fight the rearguard battle of blame. Wherever a citizen raises his or her head on the internet to inquire into the actual progress of the war (lives lost, schools painted, streets secured, children orphaned, wounded soldiers treated, families re-united) we will be roundly excoriated by serving soldiers for daring to care what happens with our tax dollars, our soldiers, our children's lives and fortunes because asking what is going on is the same as *not supporting the troops!*

I'm not the one afraid to find out that soldiers are human too. I'm not the one afraid to hear soldiers stories and testimony about this or any other war. But you and the other supposedly pro-war posters sure are. You aren't convincinganyone but yourselves that inwar this army, unlike any other in history, is composed entirely of angels. Hell, bush and his team had to literally *rewrite the rules of war* and ram it down your own generals throats to protect you from the crimes *he thought* you'd want to be committing. It wasn't the liberals who assumed you'd all end up war criminals. It was bush et al who wanted to protect the CIA and his own administration from war crimes charges.

But logic is wasted on you. Good luck over there, if you are going over or have ever been over there. And G-d send you learn some day to recognize true friend from false.

aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 4:53 PM

AT,

This is precious:

"Find me one military operation in the last 200 years that has not had miscalculations, setbacks and tragedies. Operation Market Garden, Dieppe come to mind. You forget, It takes very few people to cause lage scale damage." No shit. Now describe for the people the difference between World War II and this debacle, namely, which one has actively engaged the US military longer. My grandfathers whupped the Nazis and the Japanese and the Italians and we can't take on a Third World country in the same amount of time? You can't be a Marine. You're too much of an apologist for failure. Marines demand more than excuses.

See that's the problem. First off you simply draw an automatic conclusion "atrocities are committed every day during war time, by every side involved in the war". You're wrong. We are duty bound to report them and we do if they occur. Do they happen? Sure, but they are the the exception not the rule. Yet you have no compunction believing that they do.

So, to sum up your point: atrocities don't happen, except when they do and people are stupid to believe they occur, despite the fact that I say that they do.

I'll give you points for being more coherent than Chris Ford, however.

Posted by Jay B. | August 7, 2007 5:06 PM

aimai,

"*former general* after *former general* has more or less come out and said the same thing."

Yes, you'll note former.

"I'm sorry if you think that hurts the feelings of your soldiers"

Well it's a good thing I serve with fellow Marines.

"I"m more concerned with not committing troops unless we think we an win a real war (not a phony war)"

Son of a bitch. It never occured to me that I was in a phony war. I'll have to let the guys know, they'll be relieved to hear this.

"Like most other democrats, I opposed the war and I would like to get out now. But its not my fault, or the fault of my party"

Hey sunshine, I don't know if you have google or not, but yea, you're party voted for it overwhelmingly and in fact could end it today, they have the power to defund it right now. You of course never answered that from before.

"we will be roundly excoriated by serving soldiers for daring to care what happens with our tax dollars, our soldiers, our children's lives and fortunes because asking what is going on is the same as *not supporting the troops!* "

Here's an idea, How about not accusing us all of being war criminals as a start. "atrocities are committed every day during war time, by every side involved in the war". Yea, I know you support us though. Sure.

"You aren't convincinganyone but yourselves that inwar this army, unlike any other in history, is composed entirely of angels. Hell, bush and his team had to literally *rewrite the rules of war* and ram it down your own generals throats to protect you from the crimes *he thought* you'd want to be committing. It wasn't the liberals who assumed you'd all end up war criminals."

Well thanks again for the support calling us all killers and criminals that's mucho appreciated!
And again thanks for the stellar support.

People like you are a dime a dozen. I'm done wasting time with you and your ilk. And thanks for proving my point. You didn't address one thing I asked you, I was courteous and tried to answer your questions. You did nothing but non answers and talking points and accusations of us all being criminals. You are the perfect example of what the left has sadly become. JFK and FDR would be ashamed. Thanks for slandering us all. Good luck and thanks aimai for all you do to make the world a better place. Please keep on a spinnin'.

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 5:17 PM

Well thanks again for the support calling us all killers and criminals that's mucho appreciated!
And again thanks for the stellar support.

And Marines aren't such whiny bitches either.

Posted by Jay B. | August 7, 2007 5:19 PM

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."

--The Editors

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=132739

Posted by TheF79 | August 7, 2007 5:27 PM

"My grandfathers whupped the Nazis and the Japanese and the Italians and we can't take on a Third World country in the same amount of time? You can't be a Marine. You're too much of an apologist for failure. Marines demand more than excuses."

We also are held to a higher standard. Which means explaining it to people like you.

The battles are completely different than what our grandfathers had to deal with. Clear the territory by clearing areas by whatever was needed including carpet bombing of Tokyo and Dresden. Could we end all the insurgents right now? Sure if we simply started leveling cities. Kind of defeats the purpose. And by the way. Their has not been one time where we have not prevailed during any contact. But really, thanks for acknowledging all the hard work and sacrifice.

"So, to sum up your point: atrocities don't happen, except when they do and people are stupid to believe they occur, despite the fact that I say that they do."

Not sure how you got to that summation. But to restate. Yes attrocities do happen. Go back and read what I wrote. I never said people are stupid to believe they occur. Please find an instance where I said so. That's why being accurate counts. If you're going to go around accusing people of defiling graves and ruining Iraqi people's homes for fun then you ought to be able to back it up. If there's evidence and it happened then we want those morons prosecuted more than anyone at home does because we have to deal with the consequences of those actions and it makes our jobs harder and puts our lives in greater danger. So Beauchamps lies and the apologists who are now spinning certainly don't help.

Posted by Alexander Thomas | August 7, 2007 5:29 PM

AT,

Man, if you are a marine I hope the others take you out back and kick your whiny, pathetic ass. If you are defending your fellows (soldiers/marines whatever the fuck you think you are defending)with they same bitter, childish, attitude that you've displayed here they must be as sick of you as I am.
aimai

Posted by aimai | August 7, 2007 5:32 PM

While standing over a Dead Rape victim the Winger squeals "Beauchamp is LYING about kicking DOGS!!!"

Posted by owlbear1 | August 7, 2007 5:32 PM