Moxie:

Laughable. You are either being disingenuous or you are the least capable researcher I’ve ever come across.

So here’s your chance to show how incapable I am. Show me your evidence that makes Beauchamp’s admition a “well known established fact.” Take it to me.

At least someone has exposed one liar on this thread.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM

LevStrauss; while your basic points are well taken, you seem to come to them from a point of accepting these mens credentials and testimony as valid and unquestionable.

They very well might be lying, but there are ways to get to the bottom of that and they will lose face in the court of public opinion if that is the case. Now if they happen to be right, do some of you flippers believe that stating the facts constitutes sedition?

LevStrauss on March 27, 2008 at 2:14 PM

I don’t think the claims are unquestionable. I see people figuratively spitting on them. I think they should be under oath and there should be a real investigation. Especially considering that there is a very good possibility that they are veterans I think the necessity to find out the facts is paramount. There are much easier ways for vets to vault themselves into politics such as VFF and VoteVets, although I don’t personally agree with the concept of those organization, or straight through the parties.

I see this similar to allegations of rape. You don’t want to trash either side until you find out what really went on. That does not mean that the allegations of rape are unquestionable.

LevStrauss on March 27, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Thanks, dave742 for giving me the opportunity to explain how the Winter Soldiers have to come to lie about their own experience. Before I begin, I do wish to say that nothing I say in this post is against fundamentalist Christians. I just happen to have an excellent example of what is going on with the Winter Soldiers with them.

Here you say that these people’s worldview was anti-war, but they decided to join the army anyway. Once they were in Iraq, regardless of the heroic, positive things that were in reality occurring daily, they ignored those events, because it didn’t conform to their anti-war worldview, so they made up stories that did conform to their worldview. Wow. The most I’ve every seen an anti-war person do for their cause is get put in jail for a couple days. I didn’t realize that there were anti-war activists willing to join the army, risk their lives by going to Iraq, all so they could come back to tell lies on a video that maybe 5,000 people will watch. That’s real dedication to a cause. I certainly wouldn’t do it.

dave742 on March 27, 2008

A few seconds of thought on my position that human are often self-deceived should lead one to conclude that I’m in no way implying any such silliness. Instead, I logically must be arguing that some people join the military out of motives that aren’t very clear to themselves. After they get to Iraq, they come to accept anti-war views. This could be either in reaction to real events or novels or propaganda or distant memories of something their fifth grade teacher said.

when I was a freshman in college I encountered fundamentalist Christians telling stories about how they became Christians that were completely fictitious, but they sincerely believed them. Thuja

This is a lie that supports who they are. An analogous lie for a soldier would be to tell lies that portrays soldiers in a positive light. I can believe very easily that this does indeed happen. But this is not what the Winter Soldiers are doing. They are telling stories that portrays themselves and who they are negatively. An applicable analogy with your fundamentalist Christians would be if they told you how when they go to Church their fellow churchgoers rape them and take their money. Did they ever tell you stories like that? If they did, you then have a good analogy, and I will then believe the idea that these soldiers could be lying.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM

You may not be aware of a typical fundamentalist Christian narrative, but it goes like this: I was living in sin–doing horrible things–and then I turned to God and was healed. The reason the two fundamentalist Christian freshmen in college were less than accurate in their stories is that they claimed to be living in sin for “seven years”. (On the other hand, their 30 year old minister who also claimed to have living in sin for seven years could have been telling the truth.) The stories of these “Winter Soldiers” are also redemption stories. They admit that they have done terrible things and then by confessing them in public, they redeem themselves and make themselves important in a pollitical narrative that is important. Redemptions stories are powerful narratives adopted by many groups.

The fashion choices of the “Winter Soldiers” collaborate how much of their statements are due them taking on the identity of a war resister. People who have simply seen a atrocity will report on the atrocity without feeling the need to look like a hippie.

thuja on March 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Lev, thanks for your reply. It was good enough for me.

tomk59 on March 27, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Typical, cowardly, lying liberals.

Virus-X on March 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Still waiting.

Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Okay Dave, I take you at your word that you’re the least capable researcher on the Internet.

Too bad, because if you’d scratched a little you could read transcripts of a conversation between TNR’s Foer and Scoblic and Beauchamp where TNR says they’re going to be forced to back away from the story after months of defending the undefendable. Or maybe Michael Yon’s post (arguably one the most credible guy on the planet re: the War in Iraq) where he says that in the wake of the fallout Beauchamp deserves a 2nd chance.

Anyway, now that you’ve established your “geek cred” you’ve still failed to address the meat of my earlier point. In the main, the testimony of these service members consists of very thin gruel. They wish to convey something awful about their service and the service of others, but provide scant supportive evidence.

The genesis of this docu-theater is based on the largely discredited winter soldier investigation. It is established that testimony was manufactured and in some cases, those testifying had never actually served in the military.

In addition, since 9/11 there have been examples of people claiming to have participated in attrocities when there is no possible way in which they have occured and are laughable on their face (Macbeth).

The military is an organization that has a special place in society and is charged with doing a very difficult job. It also has its own warrior culture and code of honor. When allegations are made, we should all take them very seriously and should investigate.

But before we attempt to look into the veracity of their claims those leveling the allegations should provide their name, rank, branch of service, MOS, unit, name of commander, area of operation and dates of service in country.

These are reasonable very requests. After all, those providing testimony are attempting to use their claims of experience or knowledge as a basis upon which we should reach a particular conclussion.

moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 3:58 PM

I looked into this Beauchamp thing further, and it is all becoming clear now. I did not realize before that this whole thing started in The New Republic. Very funny. Roger Hertog, a trustee at the AEI and WINEP, was the co-owner of the New Republic when the Beauchamp story came out. Martin Peretz was a previous owner, and is now editor in chief, is on the Board of Advisors at WINEP. And these are the guys that printed the “Baghdad Diary”! Hilarious. Now this has “truth” written all over it! Maybe Counterpunch will come out with a story about how a anti-war activist claims that he and his anti-war friends rape women and steal their money to pay for anti-war rallies. But then it will come out later that he is lying, and he even admits to lying! What a turnaround! That would be believable to you, right? Because Counterpunch would come out with a story like that just as soon as TNR would print a story like Beauchamps.

I came here from Captainsblog, where I always had a great time. I was getting a little bored here until today. Thanks. It looks like HotAir will be entertaining as well.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Why are these guys lying? How are they benefiting from telling these lies? Is someone paying them to lie?
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Other posters have explained this very well but perhaps the basic point that dave misses is that he’s trying to approach this situation logically when there’s no logic with these peoples’ thought processes. (Liberalism is a mental disorder and some psychologists are admitting that.) I’m sure that the “mental counselors” will straighten them out–except for the dude with rainbow bracelets, that would be out of bounds!
I suggest that dave take some Psych classes and hang out in the mental wards in his neighborhood. However, the reasons may be slightly different for each cowardly pathological liar.

Christine on March 27, 2008 at 4:28 PM

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM

you still have’nt proved it.

Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Yeah, that probably is a story.

2Tru2Tru on March 27, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Christine:

I suggest that dave take some Psych classes

My wife has a PhD in Social Psychology. I think I’ve learned quite a lot from her over the years. Certainly enough to figure you out from a few sentences.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 4:54 PM

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Dave, buddy…hop off the crapper. I think you’re straining too hard. Think more Achems Razor and less bizzaro conspiracy.

moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Johan Klaus

The new republic is far from a right wing source.

Sure. The cowner is a trustee at AEI, and the editor in chief on the Board of Advisors at WINEP, but they are as antiwar as you can get. And if Noam Chomsky starts a website and calls it “The Republican,” I can claim it is right wing.

By the way, are you in academia?

I am a pharmaceutical research chemist.

Landshark:
If you are confused about my 4:44 pm comment, there is a quote, supposedly made by Ahmadinejad, that says “we do not shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to world the world.” This quote is reproduced in a bill that has been introduced into Congress. This quote was fabricated by a member of the MEK, a terrorist group who was primarily responsible for the holding of the US hostages in Iran after the revolution, and is also responsible for the assasination of US soldiers and civilians. Does this sound like a credible source for our Congress to quote in the text of its bills?

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 5:21 PM

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 4:12 PM

You don’t mean that you work for those evil pharmaceutical companies do you?

Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 5:49 PM

landshark on March 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM

So, it’s not just me.

Al in St. Lou on March 27, 2008 at 6:09 PM

You think they all just got up there and made stuff up.Drum on March 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM

I don’t know, but I find your vulcan-like logic persuasive.

moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Landshark:
You judge a source by what nation it is in. I judge it by who owns it. Canwest is owned by Asper, another Jewish billionaire who is hardly on the left, but it doesn’t matter, because Canwest bought TNR after the Beachamp story. Before that, Hertog owned it, like I said. If you believe a source is not right wing when the owner is part of the American Enterprise Institute, then you are an imbecile. Fine. I claim that ZNET is conservative.

Johan Klaus:

You don’t mean that you work for those evil pharmaceutical companies do you?

The industry is a scam and evil, but at least I do cancer research, which is somewhat less so.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Drum on March 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM

Anybody can get up and claim anything that they want. Kerry did.

Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Scum sucking dogs all

Captain America on March 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM

I did not know that so many people wanted to emulate Kerry.

Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Oh, good on ya, dave. You managed to cherry pick find one somewhat ambiguous sentence from a magazine that’s been around for 94 years. You’re a real Philip Marlowe, pal.

Hey, while you’re at it, maybe you can find all those glowingly positive cover stories about the GOP, free market economics, and Ronald Reagan. There should be hundreds of ‘em.

Just for fun: have you noticed the cover of the current issue? You know, the one that combined Hillary and Barack’s faces? Did you notice what it says on that picture?

“We Have to Choose One.”

Sheee-it, Hoss. I didn’t realize that we conservatives had to choose the Democratic nominee. I guess that one got by Rove, huh?

landshark on March 27, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Johan Klaus:

You don’t mean that you work for those evil pharmaceutical companies do you?

The industry is a scam and evil, but at least I do cancer research, which is somewhat less so.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Why does that first statement lead me to disbelieve the second? Clearly, you don’t have CML or GIST or any number of other lethal diseases that are now manageable because of pharmaceuticals. And you appear to be ignorant of them, unless you think keeping afflicted folks living decent lives is evil.

Pablo on March 27, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Landshark:

You judge a source by what nation it is in. I judge it by who owns it. Canwest is owned by Asper, another Jewish billionaire who is hardly on the left, but it doesn’t matter, because Canwest bought TNR after the Beachamp story. Before that, Hertog owned it, like I said. If you believe a source is not right wing when the owner is part of the American Enterprise Institute, then you are an imbecile. Fine. I claim that ZNET is conservative.

Speaking of imbeciles; Check your facts, dave. Canwest was one of the owners of TNR when the Beauchamp thing happened. For that matter, as a CanWest shareholder, so was I. And so what?

Here’s a secret about conservatives; we like to make money. If the potential ROI looks good, we’ll invest in lots of things. Hell, if the Berkeley Unshorn Wymyn’s Performance Art and Nude Ballet Troupe wanted to perform their interpretive rendition of the Communist Manifesto in Tiannemen square, and I thought it would do well, I’d invest.

Looking at ownership will tell you less than looking at content. Chomsky pulls in some pretty good coin by publishing books - I guess that makes him a rabid, capitalist, right-winger, huh?

landshark on March 27, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Landshark:
I see Martin Peretz’s name here next to Podhoretz, Perle, Solarz, Kirpatrick, Kagan, etc., but no Goff, Pappe, Blum, etc. How weird. Of you want to believe TNR is liberal, that’s fine. I think it’s funny. Pappe to you must be a terrorist.

I read your new post. Yes, you may be right about the ownership thing. Asper ownership is not much different than Hertog. Look, I took the Beachamp story seriously until I saw where it originated. I read TNR, and for you to claim it is liberal is a joke. Dershowitz is a liberal, too. Right?

Silverfox:
No, I know what I am talking about.

Pablo:
Is that Confederate Yankee site another one of the liberal terrorist rags? We are way beyond that. The story is fake, and I fell for it for a while.

It’s interesting that you link to the Novartis site to get your info. There’s another objective source.
Yes, Gleevec is one of the better drugs. At 2,000 a month, it better be. Considering that “researchers found no evidence that treatment with Gleevec lengthens patients lives,” that’s a lot of money. This site says that Gleevec slowed disease progression to a statistical significance of p less than 0.0001, which is pretty impressive. Last week, on another thread, I showed that most suicide bombers are secular, and that there is a correlation between suicide bombing and occupation by a foreign country that is statistically significant to a p value less than 0.001. I was told that this was a coincidence, so maybe Gleevec’s activity is a coincidence as well.
Most cancer drugs will lengthen your life a few months, and you’ll spend your life savings for those few months. That’s the scam. I showed how the scam works with Avastin here. Meanwhile, while pharmaceutical companies making people pay tens or hundreds of thousands to squeeze out a few extra months, 18,000 people a year are dying because they are uninsured. It’s a joke. This is why a country like Cuba can pay 5% of what the US does in health care cost and have a life expectance virtually the same as the US. But it pays my salary, I guess.

dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Landshark:
Do me a favor and “cherry pick” an article for me from Michele Malkin’s site that calls for a Democrat to punch David Horowitz in the nose or to “take a bunker-buster” to Michael Ledeen. If you can do so, I will believe that TNR is a liberal source.

dave742 on March 28, 2008 at 12:24 AM

dave742 on March 28, 2008 at 12:08 AM
My neice from the socialist state of Australia quoted that stastic to me. So you are the source of the eighteen thousand deaths because of no insurance. The pharmaceutal companies had better hurry and find a cure for this new laka-insurance disease.

Johan Klaus on March 28, 2008 at 1:04 AM

Statistic, numble fingers.

Johan Klaus on March 28, 2008 at 1:37 AM

Is that Confederate Yankee site another one of the liberal terrorist rags?

No, that’s the site run by the guy who made the FOIA request for Beauchamp’s statements and got them. Which is why you can read them there.

We are way beyond that. The story is fake, and I fell for it for a while.

Yes, we’re beyond that. Beauchamp’s story is fake, and he’s admitted so. So why are you insisting that he didn’t?

BTW, Fidel could use a researcher like you.

Pablo on March 28, 2008 at 5:56 AM

I guess if you’re far enough Left, everything looks right-wing. Even TNR.

JohnTant on March 28, 2008 at 9:16 AM

landshark:
In the above scenerio, would it make sense to you that a magazine owned by Stan Goff would print the anti-war activists stories, regardless of the magazine being viewed as “moderate”?

dave742 on March 28, 2008 at 9:41 AM

And alphie runs scared from the thread having been mocked and disproved with a vengeance .

Just like old times at PW and Patterico, eh?

Techie on March 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Most cancer drugs will lengthen your life a few months, and you’ll spend your life savings for those few months. That’s the scam. I showed how the scam works with Avastin here. Meanwhile, while pharmaceutical companies making people pay tens or hundreds of thousands to squeeze out a few extra months, 18,000 people a year are dying because they are uninsured. It’s a joke. This is why a country like Cuba can pay 5% of what the US does in health care cost and have a life expectance virtually the same as the US. But it pays my salary, I guess.

Life expectancy figures can be gamed and they are.

What would you think about being told this: “The cancer will kill you. You aren’t allowed to buy any drugs to help yourself, but you can give your money for health care in a country whose government has bankrupted the country and won’t let people better their lives.”

njcommuter on March 28, 2008 at 1:16 PM

njcommuter:
There are dozens of health care systems in the world where all citizens are covered, people still have access to pharmaceuticals, it is less expensive than the US, and 18,000 people a year do not have to die needlessly. I don’t see the problem with the US adopting a system similar to those.
For every person in the US who has the luxury of spending tens of thousands of dollars to squeeze out a couple of extra months at the end of their life, which a Cuban cannot do, there are many in the US who either die or go without needed procedures or care because they don’t have insurance, and if they lived in Cuba that would not happen. I guess there are tradeoffs.

dave742 on March 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM

In all fairness to some of those testifying he asked the wrong question. He should have asked if they would put their testimony in writing and sign an affidavit that it was the truth (he did ask it that way that once). But throughout most of the Q&A shown, he seemed to be trying to get people to commit to characterizing their actions as “war crimes.” They were right to say that’s a legal question. All that matters is if what they’re saying is true. Not whether or not the events they’re testifying about are legally considered war crimes.

Spolitics on March 29, 2008 at 2:04 AM