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.

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.

(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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.