A cemetery, not a “mass grave”; Update: NYT scrubs TNR editor’s “near certainty” that Thomas is a soldier; Update: Original quote restored; Update: MNF-I response added; Update: Yet another edit
posted at 1:51 pm on July 24, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
“Scott Thomas” makes the NYT. Franklin Foer is still trying to corroborate his correspondent’s writings by talking to his buddies.
Meanwhile, at FOB Falcon:
There was a children’s cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied.
Remember what “Scott” wrote about this incident.
About six months into our deployment, we were assigned a new area to patrol, southwest of Baghdad. We spent a few weeks constructing a combat outpost, and, in the process, we did a lot of digging. At first, we found only household objects like silverware and cups. Then we dug deeper and found children’s clothes: sandals, sweatpants, sweaters. Like a strange archeological dig of the recent past, the deeper we went, the more personal the objects we discovered. And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children’s bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.
He’s describing a stratified dump, with the bodies of children at the bottom–a mass grave–that “no one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here.” The PAO of the base tells us that it was a children’s cemetary that was discovered and relocated in an orderly fashion. Nothing had “happened” there at all. “Scott Thomas” has written a mound of untruth around a kernel of truth. I started to suspect as much when I came across this passage on a site about FOB Falcon a few days ago.
Previous construction work at the Forward Operating Base Ferrin-Huggins [now called FOB Falcon] site had been done fast and cheap. Soldiers later were assigned with the renovation of a series of concrete housing facilities that had been previously hurriedly constructed by the Iraqis. They were constructed so fast, in fact, that the landfill they were built on had not been properly compacted and allowed settlement time. Subsequently, after the buildings went up and weathered the rainy season, the floors gave, breaking all the water systems. The soldiers had to replace those systems and as well as restore the buildings, with Army engineers also providing input to contracting. (emphasis added)
Put the two stories together, one about correcting construction over a landfill, and the other about the transport of an unmarked children’s cemetary, and you have the basis of the “Scott Thomas” story, which he embellished with the behavior of the soldier who put the chunk of skull on his head.
I now think that what the TNR has on its hands is not a fraudulent soldier, but a Walter Mitty. He’s there, he’s bored, and he’s using his real experiences as a basis to make stuff up.
Update (AP): At first blush this seems like nitpicking. It isn’t. Here’s how the quote read last night when I saw the piece:
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
That blockquote comes from Dean Barnett. Here’s how it reads now, 14 hours after TNR took the unusual step of challenging the Times’s version in a posting on the site’s group blog, The Plank:
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier.
Why was TNR so quick to challenge the Times on that quote? Because they perceived, quite rightly, that running war dispatches from a guy they’re not even sure is a soldier not only would immolate the credibility of their investigation into Thomas’s reporting but would confirm that their initial fact-checking is as piss-poor as those conservative bloggers for whom Foer has such contempt have alleged. Conveniently, there’s nothing in the article or on the Times’s corrections page to explain the sudden omission of “near certainty,” which can mean, as Ace says, only two things: either the Times blew the quote originally or they got it right but pulled it under pressure from TNR. At the very least, the Times is guilty of trying to hide its own mistake, at worst they’re colluding to hide a very damning admission. Which is it?
Update (AP): And just like that, after a few hours of complaining from conservatives, the “near certainty” quote is magically restored to the Times piece. No explanation whatsoever. Is it simply case of which side is embarrassing the Times most acutely at any given moment? If Foer comes back with an indignant, outraged post about the Times misquoting him, will it disappear again?
Update (bp): MNF-I has put out an official response to the “Scott Thomas” affair.
“We are aware of what was written under a pseudonym. Its writer is unknown as are his motives. We hold soldiers to the highest standards and the allegations made are completely inconsistent with those expectations. In the absence of any credible information or independent corroboration, we presently have no reason to believe it.”
V/r
MAJ Alston
Update (AP): Via Ace, third time’s a charm:
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
After this article appeared, Mr. Foer said he was “absolutely certain” that the author is a soldier.
Yes, we already know that. The question is why it read differently in the original article. Anyone going to answer that or have the two sides reached a mutually satisfactory agreement?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Totally made up or embellished, they’re still the kind of thing the left likes to see.
Kowboy on July 24, 2007 at 1:54 PM
You say to-may-toe, “scott” says psychopathic dog-killing, brain-eating, ROE-ignoring, laugh-at-the-burn-victim warlord-soldier.
I’m sure it’s just a misunderstanding.
TheEJS on July 24, 2007 at 1:59 PM
The fact that there is any truth to this at all is troubling to me. A little truth is all our enemies need.
MikeZero on July 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Hey, Bryan, whaddya think of this?
Bad Candy on July 24, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Liberals learn nothing from experience (remember Stephen Glass?) They just keep making the same mistakes over and over when the stories fit their ideology.
TheBigOldDog on July 24, 2007 at 2:07 PM
There you go again, digging up the truth. Setting the record straight…causing nothing but trouble. Why can’t you leave these lying bastards alone.
If it wasn’t true, it could have been true, and that’s good enough for any liberal.
right2bright on July 24, 2007 at 2:17 PM
I can actually see an innocent explanation for this. TNR could know that their boy is a soldier, but not for sure whether he’s in Iraq at the moment or not. From what I’ve seen, if your normal duty station is, say, Ft. Bliss, but you’re currently in Iraq, your email address doesn’t change. If TNR is corresponding with “Scott” via email, they won’t always know whether he’s in Iraq or Ft. Bliss.
It could be that, or the NYT placing a hedge in the sentence that Foer didn’t, so he made them clarify it. I don’t trust either the NYT or Foer but I’m not as hung up on that as on how “Scott” is constructing his stories. I think this landfill/cemetary composite is significant as to how he’s operating and why some of his buddies might “corroborate” his stories. They’ll remember this or that about garbage or bones, enough to say “Yeah, I remember that,” but the central story is still totally false. It’s going to take more than hearing from his buds, whose identities we don’t and won’t know, to rehabilitate TNR’s “Baghdad diarist.” And “Scott” needs to stop smearing his fellow soldiers.
Bryan on July 24, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Dunno, I thought it might be something of interest for you.
Bad Candy on July 24, 2007 at 2:19 PM
AF runs global email same way with terms of unit location (part of why tried I stayed away from it was stories such as air force academy cadets emailing the chief of staff with demands and receiving harsh rebuttals).
Does the Army though have unit descriptions as part of the email contacts? I was able to narrow down specific units (squadrons or company-sized) and find people in the unit, but don’t know about Army.
DISCLAIMER: AT NO POINT AM I ACTUALLY SUGGESTING SOMEONE GETS ON, IF POSSIBLE, AND EMAILS 150 GUYS ASKING IF HE IS “SCOTT THOMAS”; if you are caught by a JAG, a commanding general, or your First Shirt, don’t blame me
TheEJS on July 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Well, Allahpundit and Ace might be on to something. They’ve both made pretty good cases for caring about this. I still think that the landfill/cemetary angle is more central to the story, but whether the NYT screwed up or is helping TNR out of its screwup here is certainly interesting.
Bryan on July 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM
When I was in the Marines the worst thing you could be called (next to a cook) was “Buddy F—er”. If “Scott” is a real soldier, then he is a buddy f—er and needs to have a blanket party thrown in his honor.
srhoades on July 24, 2007 at 2:32 PM
…. or if he’s still in orbit with Dr. Evil.
fogw on July 24, 2007 at 2:34 PM
See, Bryan, I know what I’m doing! :P
Bad Candy on July 24, 2007 at 2:36 PM
how hard is it to know if he is a soldier?
tomas on July 24, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I still call BS on his identity. If Thomas is ‘in fact’ a soldier, he must be the most lyrical grunt to ever sew on a set of stripes…who also coincidentally doesn’t know a damn thing about the military.
James on July 24, 2007 at 2:40 PM
I don’t know about the army Bryan, but my son is in the Navy and his email addy did change when he was transferred to his ship. It could just be because it was a ship, I don’t know.
Kowboy on July 24, 2007 at 2:41 PM
john f. kerry put on bars if it makes you feel any better.
TheEJS on July 24, 2007 at 2:42 PM
I still think the whole thing reads like it was written by a Hollywood hack. How many of these military stock characters/cliche’s show up in Mr. Thomas’ story.
Military Stock Characters:
1. The Writer/Poet
2. The Misogynist
3. The Torturer
4. The Joker
5. The Psycho
6. The Tough Chick
7. The incompetant Lieutenant
8. The grizzled senior NCO
9. The Latently Gay Homophobe
10. The Farmboy
11. The Inner City Street Kid
12. I’m Gonna Marry My Sweetheart When I Get Out of Here
13. The Religous Nut
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 24, 2007 at 2:42 PM
“Scott” isn’t just smearing his fellow soldiers. He’s accusing at least one of playing with a fragment of a child’s skull. Last time I checked that was a frowned upon by the UCMJ. He’s accusing one so-called “joker” of being a grave-desecrating headcase. By extension, “Scott” is accusing his other fellow soldiers of witnessing this crime and not reporting it. I’m sure the Army does not looking kindly on not reporting the desecration of corpses, especially children’s skulls. I imagine that’s a rather sensitive topic among the Iraqis.
When the Army finally finds “Scott”, which they will, he’ll either provide evidence that sends people to enjoy some hard labor in Leavenworth or be exposed as a liar.
Thomas the Wraith on July 24, 2007 at 2:42 PM
“Why was TNR so quick to challenge the Times on that quote?”
It could be because the TNR’s absolute certainty relied not on the certainty of Foer but another TNR editor. Foer did some previous vetting to arrive at “near” but not “absolute” certainty.
Maybe Foer is standing by the “near” but that’s not good enough for TNR and they took a vote whether to stand by the unknown editor who first brought Thomas to TNR, and Foer lost.
Maybe Foer is not done looking at this mess (and the future) and will not let TNR put different words in his mouth. That might explain TNR’s not quite on subject rebuttal and the posting by “The Editors” and not Foer.
Just parsing and speculating here.
Dusty on July 24, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Heh…that one was a good read, but not as good as the legendary Alaskan Assassin email chain, also originating at USAFA.
James on July 24, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Hey, James, feel the Falcon love.
KelliD on July 24, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Semper Excelsior.
James on July 24, 2007 at 3:12 PM
God there was one where some kid (c3c) wanted a check ride with a group stationed where he grew up, so he emailed the group, referring to it as a “squadron”, in typical academy pride demanding the flight… well the Stan/Eval officer got a hold of him and tore him a new one, but then made the mistake of forwarding it under “stupid academy cadets”. Thing went through a chain of academy-bashers like wildfire until it reached the superintendent of the academy, a three-star…
Alaskan Assassin though is definately a classic. Talking about “pimping out your classmates”.
TheEJS on July 24, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Yep…the Major at S-J got fired over that. I still have no sympathy for the three-dig, though.
James on July 24, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Folks…why do we get all worked up about the legacy media telling lies about our troops? Should we be this stunned when they actually tell the truth?
Come on folks…it is what it is…they will lie and fabricate at every turn if they think they can sink and twist that dagger a bit more. It’s what they do. If we are to attack them on this, let’s attack them for not even fabricating a story correctly…not the fabrication itself because we are wasting our time in that effort.
Pilgrim on July 24, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Damn thing was I believe the three-dig got the flight.
TheEJS on July 24, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I know the NY Times with a complete certaintly is good for lining birdcages
William Amos on July 24, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I’m glad the Weekly Standard, you, and other bloggers are staying on top of this. I look forward to the results.
jediwebdude on July 24, 2007 at 3:26 PM
That “near certainty” line stuck out like a sore thumb. Bad call, changing it like that. Down the memory hole…
Jim Treacher on July 24, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Yes (as do the other services).
baldilocks on July 24, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Pilgrim - I read this thing over at Blackfive last week and didn’t believe a word. The reason I am upset about the article (and glad that the blogs are putting heat on it) is because it is enemy propaganda…
TNR should be ashamed of themselves for printing it. Having received a correspondence like this they should have immediately informed the army. They should have strongly suggested that an investigation take place.
Of course, they didn’t…
Our troops don’t need this kind of crap being put out by our 5th column media. It is terribly detrimental to their mission.
Thank you Blackfive, Hot Air and all the other blogs that are demanding answers.
Babs on July 24, 2007 at 3:50 PM
“I now think that what the TNR has on its hands is not a fraudulent soldier, but a Walter Mitty. He’s there, he’s bored, and he’s using his real experiences as a basis to make stuff up.”
I agree with that 100%. There is a soldier over there who is writing fiction and passing it off as fact. Notice that TNR stands behind not the truth of what they published but only that the writer is a soldier. They are attempting to divert attention from the content and by fighting a battle they think they can win (that the author is a soldier) somehow cloud the issue of the truth of it.
crosspatch on July 24, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I think I served with all of those guys you described when I was in the US Army from 1982 to 1986. :)
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 24, 2007 at 3:55 PM
This practice of changing published stories without disclosure is unethical, dishonest and despicable. I hope someday Brit Hume or O’Reilly brings this practice to the attention of the world. It must stop!
TheBigOldDog on July 24, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Most of them show up in Aliens too, which is good because we now know that the Iraqi Police and militias are using M41A Pulse Rifles, as they fire a square backed 10 mm exploding tip caseless round.
Of course they were all there in Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, and Heartbreak Ridge too.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 24, 2007 at 4:10 PM
crosspatch on July 24, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I think Bryan and crosspatch are absolutely correct. This “Scott Thomas” reminds me of a guy that I served with who constantly embellished stories or made up outright lies to get attention from the rest of us. Needless to say he was not the most popular person in our barracks and was given a nice blanket party when he was transferred to a different duty station.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 24, 2007 at 3:55 PM
JayHaw, by any chance did you do basic at Ft. Jackson in ‘82?
dawgyear on July 24, 2007 at 4:20 PM
SPR was missing the “tough chick,” otherwise, spot on. When I was in MI, nearly all were number 5 (self included) with the other descriptions being secondary. :-)
BTW, love your nick. I wish I would have thought of the nick “Cranky Beach” for myself but some other blogger thought of it first.
baldilocks on July 24, 2007 at 4:33 PM
HOTAIR… THE FORCE IS STRONG IN YOU… YOU HAVE THE POWER…
Kaptain Amerika on July 24, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Im really surprized that the NY Times is even devoting its energy to this story. Normally they just snicker at us online “Peasants” who are too unsophisticated to understand their mighty elitism.
Its hard to have a talk with someone who perpetually looks down their nose at you.
William Amos on July 24, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Any chance this guy is someone ordered by the courts to accept military service or else go to prison ?
William Amos on July 24, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Ace and one of us moroncommenters(not me) are delving into the wayback and are looking into a possible match, given that TNR said the guy was a commenter.
Bad Candy on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 PM
That doesn’t happen any more, does it?
Pablo on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Bryan, when did you last look at it. Now it has an unnoted appendage in the form of a one sentence paragraph at the bottom:
I wonder if Louise Story came to work and found it was changed without her knowledge.
Dusty on July 24, 2007 at 5:10 PM
You have got to be kidding me? What journalistic ethic allows for published stories to be constantly changed on the fly without disclosure? This practice must be exposed and stopped.
TheBigOldDog on July 24, 2007 at 5:20 PM
“Any chance this guy is someone ordered by the courts to accept military service or else go to prison ?”
They don’t do that anymore, or at least the Army doesn’t. About the only way I can see that happening is if someone has enlisted and been accepted on their own and a judge decides to set aside punishment and allow them to go into the service. The military is not a court-ordered alternative for incarceration anymore.
These days the Army only wants soldiers who want to be there.
crosspatch on July 24, 2007 at 5:31 PM
What all of the above said. The military doesn’t take the nation’s crackheads anymore. Hasn’t for quite some time. The Air Force won’t even take those with GEDs (and no higher academic achievement) anymore. I think that the other services put the ix-nix on that, too.
baldilocks on July 24, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Slowly they are backed into a corner, where they are the most dangerous. Right now they know they have a “hot Potato”, now how do they get rid of it. Full panic mode, caught again.
right2bright on July 24, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I need not be as diplomatic or professional as MAJ Alston…The New Republic has had a week to provide something to authenticate this story and have failed entirely to do so. At worst, they are lying piles of crap who have slandered our service men and women and at best they ran something without having any proof on hand and are having a hard time validating the story after the fact.
So to The New Republic…are you liars or incompetent?
Drew on July 24, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Let’s not give TNR a way out by supplying them with alibis. They will give a little at a time a until they suspect that the issue has been dropped. Let them give full accountability. How do we know that some staff writer in NY didn’t see the same website about FOB Falcon. Why should we ascribe normal human fallibility to the editors at TNR when the truth may be more sinister. That’s the problem with conservatives, too many think that the people on the left are “good guys” just a little misguided. Everytime Laura Ingraham introduces some piece showing the true foul and dishonest nature of guys like Michael Isakoff, Chris Matthews, Matt Cooper, etc., she always has to preface it with a statement about what a “nice guy” he is. Well, Laura, maybe those guys are alot of fun at cocktail parties in Georgetown but to us out here in middle America all we know is their obvious disdain for us and the United States.
peacenprosperity on July 24, 2007 at 5:52 PM
An Open letter to The New Republic..
“PALAMINO”!!!
Thank You.
GoodBoy on July 24, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Ok, make it “Palomino”.. Im sleepy
GoodBoy on July 24, 2007 at 5:54 PM
All they need to do is have a cheap headstone made up (they can ask Cindy Sheehan how), take a photo of it, and then report that “Scott Thomas” died in action in Baghdad.
Killed by a roadside blog.
profitsbeard on July 24, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Is this soldiers name Jamil Hussein?
right2bright on July 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say TNR aren’t being 100% straightforward with this story.
madne0 on July 24, 2007 at 6:13 PM
I think they thought they would get away with it because there was meat for both sides. But what the left fails to understand, our brains are wired to think, and process what we are reading, good and bad.
Throwing out some supposed facts about atrocities by Saddam, was to makes us believe the whole story, but we are not sheep like the left. We process things and the BS meter either goes on, or it does not.
A story that might say, Mr Honorable Military Serviceman said, “We are here making Iraqi’s safer that when Saddam slaughtered 100,000. We opened a new Electrical station this week, and slaughtered a family because they asked for free electricity. We handed out these Beanie Babies to all the beautiful Iraqi kids we saw at a bustling market, though several of the beanie babies we took from the clenched hands of some kids we killed by accident back in May”
Our BS meter flashes. They just dont understand that yet.
WoosterOh on July 24, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Oh, and I am sure the lefts BS meter goes off. No way there is a bustling market. No way a new Electrical station opened up, and beanie babies to Iraqi kids? No way.
WoosterOh on July 24, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Ah, so Bryan thinks it’s more like a case of Spc. Jeff “Whiskey Pete” Engelhardt. “Transcript” here, sorry about the weird characters.
There were two possibilities with Jamil Hussein as well: that he was a figment of the AP’s imagination, or that he was an actual Iraqi cop who exaggerated everything and gave dubious reports without any indication of how he might possibly have known all the things he claimed.
I think we’ll probably find Scott Thomas is a real dude in Iraq, and one with a flair for drama.
see-dubya on July 24, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Ahh, chill out. The “kernel” of truth is nothing more than that a children’s cemetery existed and was unearthed during the preparation of an FOB, in the approximate location of the bogus story. That doesn’t make any of the questionable behavior represented by the Scott Thomas nutbag’s story any closer to real.
And our enemies don’t need ANY truth to hate us, or hadn’t you noticed?
Freelancer on July 24, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I found this analysis of the Scott Thomas writings fascinating. It’s by an admitted lefty who consumes massive amounts of writing for a living, and whose interest is in, to oversimplify, pattern-spotting. He thinks he’s got Thomas’ general background pegged, as deduced from his stylistic cues.
Splunge on July 24, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Freelancer-
True, but every fresh (vaguely-plausible, but decidely anti-American) tidbit is jihadi web-sited (then al-Jazeera’d) overnight into renewed fuel for Muslim Ummah outrage.
Best to let them make up their own b.s. than give them any freebies.
profitsbeard on July 24, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I’m “absolutely certain” no one will answer that.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 24, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Splunge, that is an excellent piece. Thanks.
Pablo on July 24, 2007 at 7:55 PM
There is no “Walter Mitty” REMF-type here. There isn’t even a soldier’s story, here. I’m calling BS on this whole story.
This is, I have no doubt, a quack story being told by the same genocide-loving, liberal, monsterous allies of Pol Pot,
The rag that allowed Glass to run as long as he did is hoping to get America to fall for their BS line. Why? It makes the military look bad. It puts pressure to cut and run. And it’s another shot at Bush.
TNR is a PROVEN lie teller and supporter of mass murder. No amount of spin from the NYTimes changes this.
georgej on July 24, 2007 at 7:59 PM
As the man, said “read the whole thing.”
baldilocks on July 24, 2007 at 8:23 PM
profitsbeard said:
Actually, I was thinking of our esteemed colleagues over at D-Kos, DU and their ilk.
MikeZero on July 24, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Only if you are using a NIPR account from your unit - if you use your AKO (Army Knowledge Online) account, it will be a generic firstname.lastname@us.army.mil (with maybe a number or middle initial for common names.
Oh, and
was really quite good.
major john on July 24, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Ah hah. Thanks for the correction.
baldilocks on July 24, 2007 at 8:56 PM
I have a friend in the military that predicted how this would all play out in the soldier’s unit (if it really is a soldier in theater) when they find out who it is: he will be dishonorably discharged (as he should be - the rules are CLEAR that this is impermissible conduct: traitorous to his unit, unbecoming, aiding and abetting the enemy through propaganda op, etc.) but right after it leaks to his unit but before he is taken away by the MP’s, he will ever so gently be placed under a blanket while he gets the lies beat out of him - severely. We’ll never hear about it, of course, but it’s satisying to know he will feel some retribution for the pain he has caused.
JustTruth101 on July 24, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
TheBigOldDog on July 24, 2007 at 9:40 PM
I’m completely sick of papers stealth-editing their on-line articles. I think it’s unethical - even on minor stuff. I joked about about it yesterday in another H.A. discussion and I’ll take the narcissitic step of quoting myself:
Good bloggers have more integrity and balls than the MSM. They just fess up if they make a mistake and/or eat the criticism if people don’t like what they posted. The MSM tries to hide stuff - weak.
forest on July 24, 2007 at 9:42 PM
At Presidio San Francisco in 1979 we had an underground newspaper…….it just sorta ‘appeared’ once a week at key locations……
It was called the ‘Red Revenger’…….only one ‘fact’ was ever produced…..it was copied for distribution on the Provost Marshall’s personal copier in the middle of the night. Difference is the ‘Red Revenger’ was Sad Sack. ‘Thomas’ is Jane Fonda on a AA battery.
Not that I know anything about ‘rogue’ reporting or anything.
The guy is a disgruntled ’short-timer’…..
based on what he has written he is a desk jockey, hanging out in the e-clubs and workout rooms picking up ‘facts’. It wouldn’t surprise me that he wears a pair of ‘Code Pink/KOS is my friend’ shower shoes.
Limerick on July 25, 2007 at 12:20 AM
I just dug up this picture of Scott Thomas when he was held hostage by al-Qaeda.
Who doesn’t remember that?
I think we all owe TNR their due.
DANEgerus on July 25, 2007 at 1:08 AM
I’m pretty sure they monitor all electronic communication from Iraq. The only exception might be if he is using a local national “internet cafe”. I highly doubt he is stupid enough to send it from a work or government MWR (morale, welfare, rec) computer… but we can always hope.
BadBrad on July 25, 2007 at 6:04 AM
I am still thinking that some soldier told some stories to some writer, who then weaved this little tale. There is some hint of underlying truth to these stories, but they way they were written betrays the author’s prejudices against the military. It also shows his lack of basic knowledge, like the square backed glock ammo. Platoon was supposed to be “semi-autobiograpgical” based on Oliver Stone’s experiences in Vietnam, but its not a true story. Its a mishmash of various stories, some truth, some based on rumor, some pure fiction. Good movie, but not truth, movie. That’s what this story reads like. Not truth, movie script.
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 25, 2007 at 8:47 AM
I’ve solved it. Scott Thomas is really Dan Rather!
Fake but accurate!
Swinehound on July 25, 2007 at 9:35 AM
ahem… forged but accurate.
Mojave Mark on July 25, 2007 at 8:03 PM