Army spokesman: Investigation shows Beauchamp’s allegations are false; Update: No specific statement forthcoming?

posted at 9:11 am on August 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

A nice “get” by Bob Owens. There were rumors all day long that the Army is preparing to formally pronounce Beauchamp a liar, first from Matt Sanchez and then from Michael Goldfarb, who was told by a source to “stand by for a statement about to come from the Army saying their review of Beauchamp’s story shows it to be a combination of complete fabrication and wild exaggeration.” That last bit hints at something much more specific than what Bob got but the gist is the same.

TNR claims to have corroborated the various elements of Beauchamp’s story with five different members of his company, four of whom had firsthand knowledge of the incidents. The statement Bob got suggests (but doesn’t quite explicitly say) that every last man in the company was interviewed and, to quote the spokesman, “no one could substantiate [Beauchamp's] claims.” Assuming both Foer and the spokesman are telling the truth, five guys in the squad are lying to someone. They all have a motive to tell the Army the incidents never happened given the trouble they’d be in for not reporting them at the time; assuming they’re all friends of Beauchamp and want to protect him from a career-destroying mistake, they also all have a motive to tell TNR that the incidents happened the way he said. (Although if they’re lying to TNR, why then dispute the location of burned woman incident? Why not just corroborate him on that detail too? Maybe because there are too many people at FOB Falcon who could disprove it?)

Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said where each side simply believes whom they’d prefer ideologically to believe and leaves it at that. Let’s hope what they’ve got is as specific as Goldfarb’s quote implies.

Update: Michael Goldfarb e-mails to say that Col. Boylan — the spokesman who e-mailed Bob Owens — is also the person he’s been waiting on for the hopefully more specific to come about the Army’s findings re: Beauchamp. Goldfarb’s wondering now if there is any more specific statement in the works or if Boylan’s e-mail to Bob is all we’re going to get.

Here’s Goldfarb’s take on the significance of what Boylan had to say.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Are we really that suprised that the story turns out to be untrue? I only know that I would not risk my life for the author of this bs.

robo on August 4, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said where each side simply believes whom they’d prefer ideologically to believe and leaves it at that. Let’s hope what they’ve got is as specific as Goldfarb’s quote implies.

Meaning any sane person will know that the Army’s version is correct, and everyone else (the American left, Europe, etc.) will buy the obvious lies put forth by Beauchamp.

It’s so sad that it even has to be a “he said he said” sort of thing, when any person with an ounce of logic saw through the BS the second this thing was brought to light. At the earliest, the best possible scenario (for Beauchamp) was that his stories were EXTREME exaggerations.

So in the end, this won’t matter to anyone. Even those on the left who will claim to buy Beauchamp’s version don’t really… they’ll just lie like they always do… They know their people argued for WMDs… They know the Plame situation was a joke… They know the Minneapolis bridge is no more Bush’s fault than it is Clinton’s… These people are just professional liars, because no one could sincerely believe the things they claim to.

RightWinged on August 4, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Yeah, I agree with the OP, we need something more expansive, eventually. Of course, the new report is an emailed response to an inquiry from a blogger, so it would be unreasonable to expect a full report.

Either Beauchamp stands by his allegations, or he recants them.

If he stands by them, and they are found to be false, that would seem to be the military equivalent of perjury, since he is alleging some things that I hope the army would take seriously if there was any truth to them. It seems pretty relevant whether he is able to offer any evidence in support of his claims. In particular, he claims to have knowledge of identifiable people doing things which are forbidden. If he can’t name names, that undercuts any charges of a cover-up.

If he recants, then Franklin Foer’s vacation may last a bit longer than he planned…

LagunaDave on August 4, 2007 at 2:53 AM

Well, of course the KKKillitary-Bush-Haliburton conspiracy stooges are going to cover up these war crimes…. Just like the KKKillitary-Nixxon-Dow Chemical-McDonnel Douglas conspiracy stooges tried to cover up John Kerry’s great expose of American war crimes 35 years ago.

Thank god Gaia for brave peace lovers like Scott Thomas now and John Kerry then, coming forward to show the evils perpetrated by the evil ameriKKKan military industrial complex.

LegendHasIt on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 AM

(The above was, of course, sarcasm…. But I’ll bet there will be plenty of people over at Kos and the DU etc. saying pretty much the same sort of nonsense, but believing it.)

LegendHasIt on August 4, 2007 at 3:01 AM

Whether or not Beauchamp’s stories are true or not, it does nothing to change my opinion that we need to finish the job in Iraq. Unfortunately, it looks like the stories are true. It shouldn’t come as such a shock that a handful of our troops are just bad apples, and it’s kind of embarrassing to see a few of my favorite righty blogs bending over backwards to cover up for them.

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:05 AM

I hope TNR will do the honorable thing and issue an apology.

SoulGlo on August 4, 2007 at 3:06 AM

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:05 AM

Come on. Beauchamp’s stories are obviously false. At best they are gross exaggerations of the tiniest dust mote of truth.

Oh, certainly there have been some evil things perpetrated by people wearing American uniforms in Iraq, but Beauchamp’s stores are such obvious lies or at least gross exaggerations that anyone who has the slightest bit of first hand knowledge of the American Military would put NO credence in the totality of his stories.

LegendHasIt on August 4, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Methinks this has become the Iraq war’s version of A Million Little Pieces

Captain Scarlet on August 4, 2007 at 4:28 AM

Unfortunately, it looks like the stories are true.

I’ll bet Mr. Spock has a beard in your space-time continuum, too.

LagunaDave on August 4, 2007 at 6:18 AM

Unfortunately, it looks like the stories are true.

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:05 AM

I’d like to know what you base that on. While I admit that there are possible elements of truth, there’s no way any of what he wrote happened as outrageously as he claims.

The skull incident: It’s possible that a soldier could have put a piece of a skull on his head, but no way would it be allowed to go on for more than a minute or two. Any NCO there would have put a stop to it long before any of the things went on that Beauchamp claims.

Running over dogs: It might have happened once. If it did, the driver would have been brought to task for not following protocol when driving the vehicle. Another possibility is that it could have been accidental and Beauchamp just greatly exaggerated it.

The chow hall(I still call them that) incident: Never happened. I know form my own military experience that if anyone had done what they claim, every other soldier there would have shouted them down. And the threats they would have received would have both serious and severe. If anything, there might have been quiet comments made among themselves, but none loud enough for the woman or anyone else to hear.

Beauchamp is a liar. While I do admit that there is a possibility that minor incidents could have been the basis for his stories, there is no way they occurred as outrageously as he claims.

Kowboy on August 4, 2007 at 6:42 AM

Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said where each side simply believes whom they’d prefer ideologically to believe and leaves it at that

And the problem with the entire process in our country. Truth is no longer the only answer. The truth is the turth. One side is lying and one is not. Bring the whole company into a court and get the truth out. The pursuit of the truth should take center stage. If someone is lying send that someone to jail or discharge that person. Enough with the “can’t we all get along” crap.

unseen on August 4, 2007 at 7:00 AM

RightWinged on August 4, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Not so. My brother is one of the bigger lunatics at Kos. He’s an engineer, probably the smartest person I’ve ever known. And he’s very sincere about wanting to help me see the light about Bushco Hallithuglican. He’s concerned for me because of this mental illness from which I suffer. I’m an ostrich, entrenched in my love for Bushco, who I never liked much and after Shamnesty like even less, but my brother can’t see it. Failure to maintain foaming at the mouth hysterical hatred = love.

I’m genuinely worried about what’s going to happen to him in Jan. 2009 when none of his predictions about the fascist takeover of Amerikkka come true. I know there are a lot of disingenuous people on that side, especially Schumer and Reid – but the rank and file Kossacks really believe it. Which is far scarier than if they were just politically opportunistic liars.

Laura on August 4, 2007 at 7:45 AM

I’ll bet Mr. Spock has a beard in your space-time continuum, too.

That has got to be one of the most subtle, geekiest responses I’ve ever seen.

LagunaDave is hereby awarded the GeekOfTheMonth award.

ArmedGeek on August 4, 2007 at 7:51 AM

They all have a motive to tell the Army the incidents never happened given the trouble they’d be in for not reporting them at the time

I would argue the opposite is true. They have zero incentive to lie during a formal Army investigation. Most men would be under the assumption that one of them would tell the truth when interviewed. Therefore, they know that would open up the “liars” to charges far more serious than not reporting the incidents in the first place.

Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said where each side simply believes whom they’d prefer ideologically to believe and leaves it at that. Let’s hope what they’ve got is as specific as Goldfarb’s quote implies.

It’s up to TNR and Beauchamp to provide evidence his stories are true. However, I sincerely doubt Beauchamp stuck to his TNR stories when questioned. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a confession that he made it all up.

TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 7:57 AM

2:11 in the morning AP? AND on a Friday night? Shouldn’t you have been out chasing tail or at the very least having a nice glass of wine over a picture of KP?

J/K dude.

Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said where each side simply believes whom they’d prefer ideologically to believe and leaves it at that. Let’s hope what they’ve got is as specific as Goldfarb’s quote implies.

Well, I guess the best way to determine if the Army is confident would be if they decided to prosecute Beauchamp for the lies. If the Army does that, I’d feel confident he is a liar. If they don’t, it’ll appear that he may have some facts correct and the Army is not inclined to prosecute him just to have his attorney prove the events in court.

If Beauchamp is lying, wouldn’t his biggest problem be with his fellow soldiers? Not that they would beat him up, but war is hell, and it’s got to be even worse if you have no friends.

csdeven on August 4, 2007 at 8:07 AM

Unfortunately, it looks like the stories are true.

Hey! Dan Rather is a HotAir fan.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 8:16 AM

I’m genuinely worried about what’s going to happen to him in Jan. 2009 when none of his predictions about the fascist takeover of Amerikkka come true.

Unfortunately your brother is right about the fascist takeover of America, He just got the wrong culprits. Hilary”I’ll seize the profits of the oil companies>” and “We must wage a war aginst individualism”Clinton and her foul associates in the democrat party show all the symptoms of true fascism. The democrat party is overthrowing the government system in the House as we speak yst despite what we percieve of ourselves we silently sitting back and watching.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 8:22 AM

Human perception is a wonderful thing, and very un-Spocklike. All new information is not treated equally. We tend to accept new information as true if it reinforces our previously held believes. Information counter to closely held believes must be heard many times to be accepted.

That’s why the loonies that already believe that our war fighters are just tools of the evil Bush will believe the STB fables. That’s why it’s so important to shut down such stories before they become “common knowledge”.

On the other hand all votes are equal. Mother Sheehan’s vote in 2008 will count exactly the same as Allahpundit’s.

TunaTalon on August 4, 2007 at 9:07 AM

He just got the wrong culprits.

:-) I’m still not buying. We survived Carter and if necessary we’ll survive Hillary.

Laura on August 4, 2007 at 9:10 AM

I’ll bet Mr. Spock has a beard in your space-time continuum, too.
LagunaDave on August 4, 2007 at 6:18 AM

Any space-time continuum where Uhura shows midriff can’t be all bad.

TunaTalon on August 4, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Every dog has his day.

on a lighter note…

I’ll bet Mr. Spock has a beard in your space-time continuum, too.

LagunaDave on August 4, 2007 at 6:18 AM

That says it all.

Zorro on August 4, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Laura on August 4, 2007 at 9:10 AM

If that happens I hope you’re right. The pullout in Vietnam cost the lives of 3 million people. The difference is, those 3 million were in a different country on the other side of the world and there was no effort to export that terrorism to the shores of the USA. ANY dem candidate will encourage an atmosphere that will make a future attack on the US much more likely than the attitude of taking the fight to them in their own country.

csdeven on August 4, 2007 at 9:32 AM

Hey, the stories are true! There is a country called Iraq. The US Army is there. FOB Falcon has a chow hall. People eat in it. Bradleys are in Iraq. Dogs are in Iraq. There are roads in Iraq. Graves of children are in Iraq. Beauchamp is an as*hole punk. The sun shines in Iraq.

See, all of it, indisputable! And the rest is just nitpicking little tiny minor details.

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 9:35 AM

I’ll bet Mr. Spock has a beard in your space-time continuum, too.

Spock’s Beard? Great band…

Good Lt on August 4, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Any guy who would write about mocking a disfigured woman sure has a great career ahead of him.

The Tehran Times is looking for a stringer.

profitsbeard on August 4, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said…

Ah, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Anyone can claim anything; that’s easy to do. However, the one making the claim better have stronger evidence other than “He said/She said” or “I say/They say”.

eanax on August 4, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Laura on August 4, 2007 at 7:45 AM

I lost a good friend because he was a very early true believer in the 9/11 truther dementia. I cut off all contact with him because I got tired of being told I was naive and foolish because I wouldn’t acknowledge that cruise missile robot planes (or somesuch horsesh*t) hit the twin towers at the behest of Dick Cheney. This guy was a former marine, fairly conservative otherwise, a pc engineer, and he was foaming mouth mental about this damn conspiracy.

austinnelly on August 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM

“Unless the Army comes up with compelling evidence disproving his story it’s going to end up as the military version of a he said/she said….”

Nope.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If none of the troops are willing to susbstantiate Beauchamp, even if they are granted immunity from prosecution (which I guarantee would happen), then Beauchamp’s claims will be “unfounded.”

Officially.

Legally.

In reality.

And, if Beauchamp stuck to his story with the Army, then he ought to be courtmartialed. If Beauchamp told the Army another story than the one he told TNR, then the Army should release that. In that case, TNR is proven to be leftwing liars.

georgej on August 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM

laura,

I feel your pain. My brother was a lefty for a while. He is more conservative now, but still leans left. I’ve stopped arguing with him.

On a side note, my family is in the oil industry and they say that a Democrat in the White House always works out well for them. Because the Democrats don’t understand the business and try to slap regulations and taxes and such on them, which just drives up the price of oil and demand and things usually work out well for the companies themselves. So they aren’t afraid of Hillary.

But I sure am.

Rightwingsparkle on August 4, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I am so glad that our military had to take the time to conduct this investigation because I’m sure they had nothing better to do with their time. I hope editorial heads roll at TNR for this!

jediwebdude on August 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Military unit vs Inspector General………

It is run for the hills and people get careers ruined over it. The IG (or worse and IG called in by a congressman) doesn’t make a commander very happy…..whoever’s unit it is, regardless of their record, has a big black streak across their personnel jacket.

IG wins every single time. No one would dare lie about anything asked about. You lie, you get court-martialed.

Limerick on August 4, 2007 at 11:12 AM

I’m not surprised. The www’s collective bvllshtt meter went red soon after tnr & its resident chump published the tale.

But for the leftist-utopians, the fake-but-accurate crap narrative is still preserved.

The only thing I’m surprised about is the parasites lawyers have not attacked with loads of defamation/slander lawsuits on behave of the chump’s defamed & slandered members of his platoon. Or can that not be done on behalf of soldiers?

locomotivebreath1901 on August 4, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I am so glad that our military had to take the time to conduct this investigation because I’m sure they had nothing better to do with their time.

jediwebdude on August 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM

We face a asymmetric propaganda war with the left about the military. The left gets to lie, lie, and then lie some more about the military. We basically get to be silent. This investigation is exactly how the military needs to be spending time in the propaganda war–a high priority in the overall war. It gives us a chance to take the moral high ground back–which is absolutely crucial if we are to win the overall war.

thuja on August 4, 2007 at 12:06 PM

I think 6 months of bread and water is in order.

TheSitRep on August 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM

It shouldn’t come as such a shock that a handful of our troops are just bad apples, and it’s kind of embarrassing to see a few of my favorite righty blogs bending over backwards to cover up for them.

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:05 AM

What you should be embarassment to you is that you (and others) keep missing the point. It’s not that we don’t beleive that soldiers aren’t capable of this, it’s that we don’t believe supervised soldiers are capable of this–that they could get away with it without being corrected by and officers or and NCO. Why can’t some people seem to get this?

baldilocks on August 4, 2007 at 1:35 PM

“What should be an embarrassment to you”

baldilocks on August 4, 2007 at 1:35 PM

As somebody said when this whole thing started, the only way anybody could believe Beauchamp’s liberal warporn fantasies is if they wanted to believe them. And somehow Franklin Foer’s “It’s true! Just take our word for it, with no evidence whatsoever!” non-confirmation failed to make STB any more credible. I find it hard to believe that anybody would stick their neck out to cover for a sh*tbag who smeared his entire unit, not to mention the U.S. military. Loyalty works both ways, after all, and a maggot like Beauchamp is not the type who endears himself to his fellow soldiers. He’s the type that gets good people killed by being completely ate-up.

ReubenJCogburn on August 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Why waste a court martial on the turd when an Article 15 will do just as well? An investigation is done, the turd is punished and back to the business at hand.

jdkchem on August 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM

4 eyewitnesses from Beauchamp’s company corroborated his account. With all due respect to the military men who have said his stories couldn’t possibly have happened the way he described, 4 eyewitnesses saw them actually happen. A 5th “heard about them contemporaneously.”

As of now, I find TNR’s statement more convincing than the military’s investigation (which apparently consisted of asking the soldiers, “didya do it?”). It looks like the stories are true.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207

Incidentally, have any other members of Beauchamp’s company contacted, for example, the Weekly Standard to dispute his version of the events? If five members of their company are lying – slandering them, really – shouldn’t they be lining up to tell a different story to the media?

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM

4 eyewitnesses from Beauchamp’s company corroborated his account. A 5th “heard about them contemporaneously.”

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Who were they?

ReubenJCogburn on August 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM

4 eyewitnesses saw them actually happen. A 5th “heard about them contemporaneously.”

As of now, I find TNR’s statement more convincing than the military’s investigation (which apparently consisted of asking the soldiers, “didya do it?”). It looks like the stories are true.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207

They apparently don’t have names, which brings us to our next point:

Incidentally, have any other members of Beauchamp’s company contacted, for example, the Weekly Standard to dispute his version of the events? If five members of their company are lying – slandering them, really – shouldn’t they be lining up to tell a different story to the media?

Not the WS, but BF has been contacted by soldiers on his Beauchamp’s own base. On Sergeant on the base said it didn’t happen.

It seems the only soldiers who have been willing to give their names are the ones disputing the events.

amerpundit on August 4, 2007 at 3:21 PM

ReubenJCogburn

Anonymous, for obvious reasons. I’m not a big fan of TNR, but I don’t think they’d fabricate sources and quotes. I think eventually the media is going to out them, or force TNR to out them, just like what happened with Beauchamp. We’ll find out in good time.

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Thank you RightOFLeft, for proving beyond a doubt that Michael Savage is correct when he labels liberalism a mental disorder.

corona on August 4, 2007 at 3:42 PM

I’m not a big fan of TNR, but I don’t think they’d fabricate sources and quotes
RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM

I rest my case: RightOFLeft is willing to believe that the military will fabricate but TNR will not. His logic is sound but is working on a set of assumptions that I find (expletive deleted). It will take more than a few hundred facts to shake such believers off of their closely held believes.

This is how the Truther movement got started. RightOFLeft, are you a Truther?

TunaTalon on August 4, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Incidentally, have any other members of Beauchamp’s company contacted, for example, the Weekly Standard to dispute his version of the events? If five members of their company are lying – slandering them, really – shouldn’t they be lining up to tell a different story to the media?

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM

“I was there at that stratified mass children’s grave, and I can tell you categorically that it wasn’t there!”

LOL. RightOfLeft, you’re entertaining.

jaime on August 4, 2007 at 4:38 PM

RightOfLeft can believe what he wants to believe, but he should consider the following about TNR’s purported corroboration:

1. It addresses only the “Shock Troops” article; none of the other glaring problems in the other Beauchamp stories — changing the run-flat tire in the midst of raw sewage, claiming Glocks = Iraqi police, etc. — is addressed.

2. TNR discloses the “mocking the deformed woman” happened in Kuwait, not Iraq (if it happened at all). That error alone guts Beauchamp’s claim that serving in Iraq made him coarse. He already was coarse.

3. Beuachamp wrote about what he said was “clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.” TNR now seems to agree with the Weekly Standard that it was not a stratified mass grave, but a nearby ordinary graveyard. One anonymous soldier says he saw someone wear a skull fragment, but TNR did not corroborate that he wore it for days (kinda unsanitary in deseret conditions where a shower is not a regular thing) and even wore it on a mission (presumably under his 4-5 lb. Kevlar helmet, which would seem to be a painful and life-threatening thing to do on a mission and have no one mention it).

3. The TNR’s “corroborator” for the dog-killing describes an elaborate serpentine motion made with the Bradley to scare the dog into the middle of the street. In “Shock Troops,” Beauchamp describes seeing two of three dog-killings — neither of which are accomplished by the method described in so-called corroboration.

In short, the so-called corroboration does not corroborate. It as though a murder suspect claimed to be at a movie with his friends, but his friends name different movies from that given by the suspect.

Karl on August 4, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Anonymous, for obvious reasons. I’m not a big fan of TNR, but I don’t think they’d fabricate sources and quotes. I think eventually the media is going to out them, or force TNR to out them, just like what happened with Beauchamp. We’ll find out in good time.

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Well, until they have names, I have no reason to believe they exist, and every reason to believe that they don’t, considering that we have yet to see one shred of evidence that anything Scott Beauchamp alleges actually happened. Hearsay doesn’t constitute proof to anybody but a Truther.

I find it interesting that you can accept TNR‘s liberal warporn completely on faith, but you can be absolutely certain that the Army is lying when it says this didn’t happen. Once again, like the man said, the only people who could believe this crap are the ones that want to believe it.

ReubenJCogburn on August 4, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Anonymous, for obvious reasons. I’m not a big fan of TNR, but I don’t think they’d fabricate sources and quotes. I think eventually the media is going to out them, or force TNR to out them, just like what happened with Beauchamp. We’ll find out in good time.

RightOFLeft on August 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Two words: Stephen Glass

google it, people: fire might not melt steel, but TNR does hire liars, and repeatedly publishes their BS

Janos Hunyadi on August 4, 2007 at 6:13 PM

AP asks:

(Although if they’re lying to TNR, why then dispute the location of burned woman incident? Why not just corroborate him on that detail too? Maybe because there are too many people at FOB Falcon who could disprove it?)

The flaw is in the premise that they “disputed” the mockery story. That it occurred in Kuwait might have been volunteered. Anyone involved with criminal law will tell you that suspects often don’t have their stories straight, evn if given time to do so.

Karl on August 4, 2007 at 6:24 PM

I’m genuinely worried about what’s going to happen to him in Jan. 2009 when none of his predictions about the fascist takeover of Amerikkka come true.

Laura on August 4, 2007 at 7:45 AM

Why is he so worried, if it’s already a done deal that the libs will increase their majority in the House and Senate, and take the presidency? The MSM and all the polls say so.

:-) I’m still not buying. We survived Carter and if necessary we’ll survive Hillary.

Laura on August 4, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Dearest Laura, Carter is lilliputian compared to Gargantua, the score-to-be-settled, sick “misanthropist”, “smart”, ideological, feminine, socialist, power-voracious version. We haven’t seen nuthin’ yet.

Be afraid, but not for your brother.

Entelechy on August 4, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Hey, our very own Hot Air commentator, armylawyer, has a post about Beauchamp that made me laugh out loud.

It’s about 4-paragraphs and I highly recommend it.

Also, if you check out his site, he talks about the Jon Stolz incident, etc., and it’s good stuff.

Plus, he’s an army lawyer so he’s not just talking out of his @$$. Mostly.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 7:40 PM