Hot Air TV: Mattera stumps Winter Soldier II tale-tellers
posted at 8:00 am on March 27, 2008 by Michelle
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Hey, HotAirHeads! We’re back with another Hot Air/YAF video joint for you. Special correspondent Jason Mattera waded into the Winter Soldier II hearings to ask the tale-tellers a simple question: Would they sign sworn affidavits detailing their alleged war atrocities?
The answers will not surprise you, but it sure is useful to see the heirs of John “Ghengis Khan” Kerry pressed on the issue for posterity:
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
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
So you can say anything you want now without affirming the truthfulness of what you say?
richardcamera on March 27, 2008 at 8:15 AM
The lefty loons do not want these lying a$$ pieces of sh!t to be silenced, so none will ever be required to testify under oath.
They will never let truth get in the way of their testimony.
leanright on March 27, 2008 at 8:16 AM
I’m not a legal expert so I can’t really answer that…..
Beautiful! Good job, Jason.
landshark on March 27, 2008 at 8:19 AM
My mother used to say “Talk’s cheap. It takes money to buy whiskey.” If a little farm girl from Fannin County Texas knows that, why doesn’t Congress?
Kafir on March 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Goog thing they also have mental experts.
pappy on March 27, 2008 at 8:23 AM
It almost seems as if all of these guys have been told specifically not to sign sworn affidavits previously.
JetBoy on March 27, 2008 at 8:23 AM
So glad to see these rotten LYING bast@rds revealed for the scum they are!
Great job Jason and Michelle!!!
FloridaBill on March 27, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Why do they all look like hippies?
Disgraceful.effing.cowards.
PBoilermaker on March 27, 2008 at 8:26 AM
You bet you have, as lying a$$ backstabbing cretins.
Well it was your 15 minutes jackasses, just remember that you and what you say will be branded as a lie forever in blogs.
You made your choice now you will live with it. I hope this BS follows you for the rest of your lying a$$ lives.
leanright on March 27, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Talk about Atrocities… These people are atrocious.
Swinehound on March 27, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Testify under oath or STFU!
leanright on March 27, 2008 at 8:30 AM
“Mental counselors”…
priceless
You do have to forgive them a teeny, tiny bit, for their cluelessness, though: having been raised on the absolute moral authority of their own feelings, and the search to justify the Larger Truth that they know is just around the corner, these guys wouldn’t have the slightest clue on how to swear out an actual, real-life legal affidavit to go on record before the law to verify their claims.
Unless, of course, you can modify the law to reflect the “inner truth” that their feelings know must be true, because, well, they feel like it must be true, and that’s all that matters.
Now if I had no conscience (standard disclaimer for all manner of mischief), here is how I would show them what it feels like to have someone make accusations against your character, and for you to have no way to squarely fight it: I would seek out each and every one of this crop of “winter soldiers” who had children in broken relationships, and I would lay an accusation before the local department of social services that I “knew” the person was neglecting their kid during visitation (e.g., saw kid unsupervised by parent and getting into some kind of trouble or near a hazard). Anyone who has ever played the sorry role of the non-custodial parent (NCP) will know exactly what I mean, and how heartbreakingly difficult it is as an NCP to clear yourself of such an accusation.
And as far as I am concerned, each and every “winter soldier” who won’t swear before the law that they witnessed a crime, but has no problem with slandering US troops, deserves the same treatment in kind.
/spit
Wanderlust on March 27, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Good stuff, Jason!
Luckily these guys got almost no press coverage for their third-hand accounts of stuff that might have been a war crime. I think even the MSM finally realized that stories of war crimes in Iraq are invariably exaggerated or outright lies. It only took Jesse MacBeth, Beauchamp, Haditha, Fallujah part II, etc….
joewm315 on March 27, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Sorry, I’m a V. N. vet with Kerry syndrome.
leanright on March 27, 2008 at 8:34 AM
The ends justify the means for most people.
JiangxiDad on March 27, 2008 at 8:37 AM
No worries, leanright. you’ve earned the right to be angry. Thanks for your service, and I wish you’d gotten the recognition you deserved when you came home.
joewm315 on March 27, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Wait, you mean these guys might be lying? You mean our soldiers don’t kill innocent children, and rape women? That shakes my belief in humanity…imagine someone actually telling a lie about our military, who do these guys think they are, Democrat candidates for President?…lie all you want, but don’t run for Federal office (mayor ok), Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc., won’t like you cutting into their voter base.
right2bright on March 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM
I’ll give a (very small bit of) credit to the few who had short hair. At least they look like they’ve recently been soldiers.
Bigfoot on March 27, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Make up stuff, bloviate, and refuse to ground your accusations? Par for the course for the run of the mill leftist.
Richard Romano on March 27, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Hey, want to go on record with your allegations, so something might actually be done about them?
No, of course not! We told you bad stuff happened, isn’t that enough?
NeoconNews.com on March 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Then she’s a great lady from a great State, and was raised right. Although Fannin County is in North Tx, I too grew up under the legacy of COL Fannin. The family ranch is near the Fannin Battleground where COL Fannin and his men were captured by the Mexican Army, and subsequently murdered in Goliad.
Those little farm girls know that action gets it done. Thunder is just noise, boys. Lightning does the work.
Guys who won’t sign their names to a charge of war crimes or atrocities, in a country where they can’t get in any legal trouble for making such claims (they are libeling the US Army, not individual soldiers), haven’t got the Truth behind their stories. If an atrocity was committed, only a Coward refuses to testify against it.
If a house was full of women and children when attacked then it was a mistake by our Men in uniform, not a war crime, or terrorists shot from inside the house and then ran like the p*ssies they are. Even little farm girls from Fannin County TX know the difference.
War crimes are what GEN Urrea did to COL Fannin and his men at Goliad, shooting 327 of them and burning their bodies on Palm Sunday, 1836. War crimes have yet to be identified or attributed to US forces in the War in Iraq. Al Qaeda and Saddam’s Baathists? Not so clean, are they?
Subsunk
Subsunk on March 27, 2008 at 8:46 AM
OK. One, you can see they’ve been coached and told to say NOTHING to the press. Just give your “account” (bullshit) to the assembled press and then shutup. Two, I don’t believe that most of those people were ever soldiers. They look like derelicts.
RWLA on March 27, 2008 at 8:46 AM
All braindead hippies stuck in little high school plays.
Shocking, shocking.
benrand on March 27, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Clinton kept his job; Kerry is still a senator; the 3 left in “presidential race” don’t seem to know the difference between spin and the truth.
Hillary: List too long
The Obama: I had no idea Rev. was a racist but knew Granny was….
Senor McVain: Yeah, I was working not for profit but patriotism (plus that’s what Cindy’s Daddy’s money is for….)
My OPINIONS
Branch Rickey on March 27, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Funny that only the guy with the rainbow bracelets would have the guts to sign his name to his allegations.
Like this is a surprise, though. These guys had no guts to begin with.
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Says one of two things about these clowns, they’re either gutless cowards or liars (and probably both). If tie-dyed-stoner-skater dude (and his friends) really did wintess “atrocities” he needs to show some back bone and put his own @ss on the line and go under oath. Otherwise it’s all . . . er, hot air.
srhoades on March 27, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Mattera should ask Bush and most of his cabinet the same questions about not testifying under oathe. Also maybe Mattera should ask oil company execs the same thing as why they didn’t have to testify under oathe when they dealt with congress. I like this idea, when people testify lets get them under oathe, but our chief executive has set a very bad example on this.
LevStrauss on March 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM
You guys are being way too tough on these patriotic-speaking-truth-to-power heroes.
Clearly, they are simply laying the groundwork for their bright futures in the Democratic Party and a possible Presidential run.
They are all so very noble. Their mothers must be so proud.
Gartrip on March 27, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Democrats want Bush under oath for the sole purpose of trying to catch him say something that can be construed as perjury. And having a bad memory is only excusable of you’re a Clinton.
Esthier on March 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM
While I totally disagree with this Winter Soldier II playacting and I support the fight in Iraq (one son has just complete 15 months there), I can understand why those who may honestly feel what we are not following the rules of warfare in Iraq will not swear an oath of truthfulness about their stories. That certainly negates what they say in my opinion, but still I can understand their reluctance. Just ask Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart
In 1972 I was asked to testify in congress by CA Senator Cranston’s office based on a letter I had written about morale on board our submarines because of navy pay policies. I told my shipmates that I would write about it when I got out of the service. Writing a letter was one thing, but swearing an oath on your belief when challenging the government was frightening. This was also around the time of Nixon’s enemy list and since I was applying for a job in a federally licensed position, I decided not to testify.
BS’ing on whatever subject and swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under oath is another thing even if you believe you are right in your facts. Just think about it.
amr on March 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM
What’s an oathe?
James on March 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM
I’m with leanright’s original post. They are lying scum.
dogsoldier on March 27, 2008 at 9:46 AM
You must be JOKING! No American would ever vote for someone like that to any public office, much less the presidency!
Wait…
MadisonConservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I’m glad HotAir andd Jason looked into this issue. It is tremendously important. Winter Soldier II gives both our traitors and the enemy talking points when they attempt to moral equivalence us with the muslim savages.
The problem we face in fighting back is that we appear mean to challenge the stories that people tell about themselves. Yet, human self-deception is everywhere. We all rewrite our own histories to protect ourselves or for ideological purposes. When people make claims about themselves and those claims attempt to cause our national and cultural suicide, we need to be allowed to politely challenge these claims. Rhetorically, I find it is best to start by mentioning a few who have lied. I point out to other people that what John Kerry said at Winter Soldier could not have been true. I then point out how people deceive themselves into all sorts of things: God telling Pat Robertson all the amusing things that God has told Pat, the sexual harasser who believes that his victims love him, my own beliefs about how good I look, and so forth. Wouldn’t we expect a few people to say what the Winter Soldiers have said–given the propaganda coming from some quarters?
thuja on March 27, 2008 at 9:57 AM
It seems to me most gave the “right” answer. They had no idea what it really means to give such testimony under oath. They don’t know what the consequences might be.
This is a great stunt but had little value. Those people were put on the spot and were honest enough to say they couldn’t answer.
mycowardice on March 27, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Their courage != Their conviction
ronsfi on March 27, 2008 at 10:06 AM
These guys are impugning the morals and honor of (presumably) their former comrades-in-arms. If they are not willing to stand up and make their charges under oath, with names, places, dates, and evidence, including corroborating testimony, then they simply cannot, and should not, be believed.
If a credible claim were made that our soldiers had committed war crimes, it would be investigated. If these guys are not prepared to back up their claims, then they deserve every epithet they have received in this thread.
I wondered, too, at the ’60s-hippy look they affect. Apparently it goes with the attempt to resurrect the ‘anti-war’ ‘protest’ culture of that pathetic era.
MrLynn on March 27, 2008 at 10:10 AM
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
I’d like to see the testimony. At the very least they are in a quandry which is in someway dependent upon their military status. If they participated in the events they suggest, they are guilty and could be charged. If they bore witness to what they allege and did not report the activity they could be charged or at the very least are morally culpable. If military personnel committed murder or attrocities, they should be charged.
Having said that, we’ve all see the Jesse Mabeth types who tend to be pretty easy to uncover.
Hats off to Jason Matera but a better approach would have been to say if these guys want to be taken seriously, at the very least these folks should provide their name, rank, branch of service, MOS, unit, name of commander, area of operation and dates of service in country.
They should not have any problem providing this minimum standard which provides enough information for a cursory vetting process. Then we can get into the meat of the matter. Without substantiating that these people are who they say, this sort of testimony is only theater. Once vetted then we can get into the specifics of the charges, dates, etc…
Note to Jason: If you follow up on this, the military community does a very good job of outing make believe servicemembers.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM
at what point can we question their patriotism?
ThackerAgency on March 27, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Here are their names. Other details are in the testimonies, but I don’t think all you ask for is.
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I was surprised to see one of them say “Yes.”
jukin on March 27, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Great video and good work, but I could have done without the Enya soundtrack!
bekarlss on March 27, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Most of what I read and heard of the Winter Soldier testimony seemed to be about RoE, but not actual engagements. One said they were authorized to shoot people only carrying a shovel, another said they were told to run over children and civilians instead of stopping a convoy. However, there were no actual events. No one testified that, “I shot three shovel carrying civilians” or “I ran over 5 children.” Basically, there was no actual crime.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 27, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Sounds like they all graduated from the Hillary Clinton School of Military Experiences.
TooTall on March 27, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Great exposure piece Jason, do they stand by their word or not - NO. Ask them to swear out a statement that they did not inhale, and they would argue the word inhale.
MSGTAS on March 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM
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
I’d say it’s possible they’re getting lucky with appreceiative peacenick chicks like……
http://www.globalexchange.org/getInvolved/speakers/12.html
eeewwww
max1 on March 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM
People have a need to tell stories about themselves that make them look important. You can call these stories “self-narratives”. People usually rewrite their self-narratives to conform to their worldview. For instance, 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.
We all lie to ourselves like my fundamentalist Christian friends did or these Winter Soldiers do. We need to be humane and realistic about the human capacity for self-deception. We also need to firmly state that these Winter Soldiers tell stories that are nothing but stories.
thuja on March 27, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I looked through some of the profiles and have the feeling that most of these people have served in the military but it is also obvious that the organization is a catch-all for any prior service folks who are against the war.
It is a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when people claim to have first hand knowledge of an event and want people to use the information for formulating their own views then we have to impose a much higher standard. Then we need to ask the sort of questions I mentioned above as a means of substantiating who they are and did they have access to the sorts of things they allege.
Case in point, Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He was in the military and did serve in a combat zone. He had the means of seeing the sorts of things he alleged, the only problem is they were lies. His allegations were quickly exposed once he was identified and folks could put him in a specific unit and at a particular time.
This approach establishes a basis of credibility and gets around the whole “coverup” refutation that is so common with war crime claims.
I’ve passed on my thoughts to Mr Mattera and would hope he would use this approach if he decides to pursue this issue in the future.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 11:15 AM
These guys are not patriots, they are cowards. If they were patriots and they really did witness the atrocities they claim to then they would not have any problem testifying under oath.
It’s hard for me to believe that any of these stoner hippies were ever in the military.
Erockk on March 27, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Support the troops…unless they disagree with my politics?
Then to hell with them?
Talk about summer soldiers.
alphie on March 27, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Next, I want Mattera to visit the Muslim lady in Lodi who says she has to homeschool her kids because the school there has lessons like “Why I Like Pigs” and make the kids talk about how delicious pork is. If you google the women in that article Hotair cited, you find they are all Muslim activists. They are just pushing the cultural envelope, like in the UK, to get more control.
PattyJ on March 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I liked the Jesus freak.
Anyone wanna bet his Dad had the same appearance and attire when these hippies were spitting on soldiers returning from Vietnam?
Looks like evolution has been brought to a grinding halt for the flower children.
Dad, pass me that bong.
fogw on March 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM
If we had real leadership with balls these idiots would have been long ago hauled before congress or federal investigators to get their statements on file and pursue action.
Why we allow outright propaganda to be committed in this nation is freekin retarded. Freedom of speech doesn’t include propaganda against your own nations interest.
By the way when will we get to question the Dum’s patriotism. The anti-US, slander of troops, junkets paid by admitted enemies, never ending propaganda, communications with top Dums found on Farc leadership computers, on and on and on and on….
The constitution addresses and names such people, and once long ago when America still had a sack their was a entire section of law written for such. The name is Sedition, and the laws are Espionage & Sedition Act.
You don’t meet the person that wants to destroy you halve way you destroy him.
C-Low on March 27, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I think some of these guys were prior service, no doubt about it. But the testifying under oath angle reaches too far.
Playing Devil’s Advocate, suppose they did see or participate in what they claim, they could face legal exposure. At least this would be their claim but it also provides an easy out for failing to swear under oath to the veracity of their claims. Moreover, even if someone did say they would sear under oath, there are the problems of associated with actually going through the process of swearing under oath.
But a much lower bar would establish a foundation for their claims by first asking them to provide the very specific information I suggested above. It provides a way of establishing who they are, the veracity of their claims as it relates to having the means of knowing what the claim and also opens the door a crack to legal exposure through a back door mechanism.
Under the terms I mentioned above, the military could look into these claims and the larger military community could begin the vetting process. It didn’t take but 10 seconds to know Macbeth was a liar and only a matter of a few days before Beauchamp’s stories began to fold.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 11:44 AM
thuja;
If I were returning from a war and wanted to look important and was willing to lie about it, I would tell stories about heroic deeds and what a positive difference I made. In the eyes of the vast majority of Americans, doing what the Winter Soldiers are doing does not make them look important, or anything else positive. Participating in giving these testimonials will only have a negative affect on these people’s lives, and they know it. The idea that they are doing it to make themselves look important is wholly unconvincing.
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.
Another scenario is that since these people joined the army, their worldview might have included the idea that it was a good thing to protect their country, and they believed in what they were doing. Then they saw things in Iraq that they considered wrong; wrong enough to talk about it. Somehow this sounds more credible to me.
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
Confession: I’m a Winter Blogger and I need counseling. Stop the internet now. It’s Gore’s internet and it’s an illegal internet. What I’ve seen and done on the internet would rot your socks.
Sign a sworn affidavit? Um, never mind.
Bacchus on March 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Have I missed it, or has this JFKerry-esque festival utterly failed to get any media traction at all? I’ve seen nothing about it other than occasional blog mentions. (But then, I don’t read The NY Times, etc.)
Sort of like Sherlock Holmes’ dog that did not bark in the night, it seems curious just how far the MSM has stayed away from this circus, when you would think it would be their natural habitat.
bofh on March 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Nope. I don’t support phony soldiers who just happened to take a wrong turn on their way to the welfare office.
Nice try on making a clever point. Big difference between disagreeing with politics and sedition.
ClassicCon on March 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM
It’s pretty clear that most of those guys were not even soldiers. What a pack of liars.
JeffB. on March 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Shouldn’t these ‘Veterans’ be issued subpeona’s to testify in front of Congress. This is at least as important as the Baseball Steroid BS.
PappaMac on March 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM
moxie neanderthal:
I did not know about this story, so I read the Wikipedia account of it. It was not shown that his story was “lies,” but there is a controversy. Even if he did lie, you are simply using the aplogetics of finding one example to nullify many. The logic is that if you can find one lie, then they are all lying. This is faulty logic. If I find one person that lied about the Holocaust, would you then think they all lied, and become a Holocaust denier?
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 12:03 PM
That word doesn’t mean anything to hippies. What he really means is not that his story has been factually verified, but rather that he feels personally “validated” by the liberal media who accept his story unquestioningly.
It’s the exact same phenomenon you see at UFOlogist conventions. The words truth and falsehood do not mean anything to these people. The implicit agreement is: “If you believe my story, then I will believe yours.” As crazy as it sounds, these moonbats actually feel insulted if you demand anything beyond that.
logis on March 27, 2008 at 12:08 PM
If there were any truth to what those guys are saying thier faces would beon cnn, abc, cbs, nbc every night and thier names would be widely known. If the msm won’t even touch them, except in anonymous asides, then the dishonesty must be blatant.
peacenprosperity on March 27, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I admire Jason Mattera. I hope he keeps up the good work. Our MSM could learn a lot from him.
freedom_nut on March 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM
If there were any truth to what these guys are saying then they would be on nbc, cnn, cbs, abc msnbc every single night and everyone would know thier names. The fact that the msm won’t touch them shows thier dishonesty is blatant.
peacenprosperity on March 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I did not know about this story, so I read the Wikipedia
Wrong. In fact Beauchamp has been demonstrably proven to be a liar and has admitted this fact.
But you’re missing the point. I’m not even addressing if they are lying at this point. What I am saying is these folks should provide their name, rank, branch of service, MOS, unit, name of commander, area of operation and dates of service in country.
There have been known anti-war liars who when pressed could not provide this sort of information. I happen to believe that the majority of the folks making statements at this event are prior service.
But were they stationed in Iraq and in a capacity to see what they claim. Moreover, as in the case of Beauchamp he had the means of seeing the sorts of things he alleged, but when placed in a unit and a time frame people who served with him refuted his stories. It was only after his stories were refuted that he recanted.
Pretty basic stuff so I’m not sure why you’re having following the logic. The military is a huge community but does a pretty good job of policing its own when these sorts of allegations are leveled.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Classic,
Ever wonder why McCain is the Republican nominee instead of a “conservative?”
“I don’t support phony soldiers who just happened to take a wrong turn on their way to the welfare office…”
Says it all.
You guys will stab anyone in the back…even soldiers, if you need a target to rant about.
President Obama…get used to it.
alphie on March 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM
You lie about combat because you weren’t there.
9 times out of 10.
IMO
Domino on March 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Well, I guess that settles it. Iraq is a success. All is sweetness and light. The Iraqis are one their way toward peace and prosperity. Jesus is proud.
Amen. On to Iran.
Drum on March 27, 2008 at 12:23 PM
They were given a chance to put up or shut up .Well they didn’t put up. (why dose that not surprise me ) So they really need to shut the F up (but they won’t) and right now I want to go on the record that I was an eye witness as this group of liars were performing un-natural sex acts to a blow up sheep a cardboard cutout of Jon Kerri and a cantaloupe. I was so traumatized I think I need to talk to one of their mental health experts.
Mojack420 on March 27, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Bollocks! If you are going to allege crimes, impune the reputation of others and provide material for our enemies, then it is reasonable to ask for very specific details which can be used to help establish the veracity of your claims.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Indeed. We’ve sown a bitter crop.
Drum on March 27, 2008 at 12:29 PM
There were dozens of speakers at Winter Soldier. How many does Mattera show in his clip? A handful. That’s no indication of anything except Mattera’s love of conquest and confiscation.
Young Americans for Freedom? Please. Russell Kirk is rolling in his grave. YSAE: Young Stupid Americans for Empire.
Drum on March 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM
moxie neanderthal:
Foer: “When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories.”
AP,”US magazine says it cannot stand by Baghdad Diarist articles that sparked Web firestorm”, Dec. 4, 2007 by Ellen Simon
So in early November, 2007, Beauchamp had not “admitted” the “fact” that he “has been demonstrably proven to be a liar.” Could you please show me where he has made this admition? I don’t think so.
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 12:33 PM
YAF. Oh my, I stand corrected. This YAF apparently has usurped the letters from the freedom loving organization.
My apologies to the few conservatives here who belong to the real YAF.
Drum on March 27, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Provide their name, rank, branch of service, MOS, unit, name of commander, area of operation and dates of service in country. Then tell your story. If it is true, this is a way of validating it. If it is not, then you’ll be exposed.
What’s the harm? How can you possibly have a problem with asking for more information.
You want the truth don’t you? That’s what all of this is about, right?
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I’ve seen Jason on Red Eye as well, he does good work.
V15J on March 27, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I’m afraid this goes far beyond “impugning reputations.” These are essentially accusations of mass murder.
To imagine anyone can do that without question goes far beyond insincerty; it even beggars the massive leeway covered under the near-absolute aegis of abject stupidity.
These people are crazy. And I’m not just talking about the wild-eyed, hairy freaks in the video either.
logis on March 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Lets see, I call out a minority of scumbags who join the military treating it as a government jobs program, and when these Jesse MacBeth’s then turn on their fellow soldiers and lie about what they are doing you have the fucking nerve to act offended? Remind me who is stabbing who in the back?
Wow, and you support a white-hating, jew-hating, closet Marxists? I am shocked!
Oh, and I am questioning your patriotism as well because only a self-loathing, adolescent, “American by birth only” individual would stoop so low as to support BHO.
ClassicCon on March 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM
google “Scott Beauchamp admits lying” You’ll be able to read stories ad nauseum, docs and an actual trascript of his …uhm….admission.
This is a pretty well known established fact.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I support the troops, except for those who commit war crimes. To witness a war crime and not to report it IS A WAR CRIME. By their own admission, they are war criminals, no less guilty than the soldiers the refused to report.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 27, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Jesse MacBeth did not last beyond a few weeks of basic training before he got the boot from boot camp. Anyone who has watched the youtube video and knows a thing or two about the military or Rangers in particular will get a hoot.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 12:55 PM
If they are not legal experts, how do they determine what and what is not a war crime?
Wade on March 27, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Who’s holding these hearings? Are any members of the congress or senate, or other elected officials? If so, who are they so that they can be contacted and asked why these people are not under oath. I’ll be calling/writing my officials today to see what, if anything, they have to say.
tomk59 on March 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM
moxie neanderthal:
When you do a Google search, you find all kinds of garbage, The web is full of garbage. So I did something better. I have access to Lexis Nexis, which is a database of over 4,000 daily news sources from around the world. First, I searched the three words: scott beauchamp iraq. I wanted to see how much the story was covered. There were 98 hits; a fair amount. Then I made a very general search. I did a search of “all available dates,” which goes back decades, of all newspapers along with all wire services. I searched the word “beauchamp” and anywhere where the word “admits” is within 60 words of the word “lying.” Lexis Nexis is smart, and would pick up “admit” if you type in “admits.”
I got one hit:
Scotland on Sunday
March 20, 2005, Sunday
WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS MAN?
BYLINE: Catherine Deveney, Scottish Feature Writer And Arts And Entertainment Writer Of The Year
SECTION: Pg. 8
LENGTH: 2942 words
The article mention a “Hilary Beauchamp,” which was the art teacher of the subject of the article, a Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk.
No, it isn’t.
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Whoah! Slow down there!
I apologise if you’ve covered this already, but I can totally understand why these guys don’t want to offer an affadavit.
First off, I wouldn’t, because I don’t even know what an affadavit is. I mean, I know roughly what it is, but I’ve never had it actually explained to me by a legal professional. So to agree to something you don’t fully understand would be foolish. Secondly, if I swore to comitting war crimes I would end up being afraid of going to jail, and no doubt these guys feel the same way.
I’m not on their side. I feel that many of these clowns are just riding a fashionable bandwagon. But be realistic: would you swear on oath you committed a war crime without knowing the legal consequences?
I would give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. The fact they won’t swear to it does not mean they are lying, just that they don’t know the legal ramifications. That’s why they often refer the questioner to someone else with more knowledge.
Not everyone is evil, or a liar. Sometimes people are misguided or plain dumb.
dcpolwarth on March 27, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Good stuff HA/YAF. A lot of Hart but not much conviction.
oakpack on March 27, 2008 at 1:42 PM
moxie neanderthal:
I found something for you!
Federal News Service
September 28, 2007 Friday
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BLOGGERS ROUNDTABLE WITH COLONEL RICKY GIBBS, COMMANDER, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION COMBAT TEAM, 1ST INFANTRY DIVISION, MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION BAGHDAD;
SUBJECT: THE STAND-UP OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT MODERATOR: JACK HOLT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SECTION: DEPARTMENT DEFENSE BRIEFING
So some Colonel at a “bloggers roundtable” said the Beauchamp admitted something to the investigator. He also made it clear that the admition was not to him, so he has plausible denial.
So here is the totality of your evidence, and it is not credible given the fact that he has publically stood by his stories. Sorry.
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM
hippies..
Chakra Hammer on March 27, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Berkeley, CA
PrettyD_Vicious on March 27, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Lying creeps. I am going to check up on there names and find out if any of them were in actual combat.
Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Thank you Hotair. They way you put this story and the VFF back to back help make the heads spin of those who don’t drink the Kool Aid. Yesterday we had the super”patriotism” of the commenters and then hatred towards those that might insinuate that VFF and VoteVets are both political arms of their respective parties.
Now today the same people are spitting on these Vets because they don’t like the allegations that they make. 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
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM
And you really believe Beauchamp.
Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Laughable. You are either being disingenuous or you are the least capable researcher I’ve ever come across.
moxie_neanderthal on March 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM
If they were facts don’t you think they would go on the record.
Johan Klaus on March 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Johan Klaus:
I don’t know if I believe him or not. I don’t know enough about the story, but it sounds like a he said/she said. I know why the military would deny his story, but I still don’t know why these soldiers would make these stories up. One person tried to explain it to me, but the explanation made no sense. Maybe you can tell me.
So do you believe Moxie Neanderthal when he says Beauchamp admitted to lying? I just realized how this story may have reached him. A Colonel at a “bloggers roundtable” makes some indirect statement about Beauchamp admitting to lying (not that he heard it himself, mind you), then the bloggers relay the story to their right wing readers, and they all believe it. This story sparked a “firestorm” (AP quote), the Army gets an admition from Beauchamp that he lied, and they decide to publicize this groundbreaking news by making an indirect reference at a “bloggers roundtable,” and not a single news organization on the planet prints anything about this “admission.”
I guess this is the type of “truth” that the right wing likes to believe.
dave742 on March 27, 2008 at 2:24 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. I’m all for getting to the facts and truth. It seems as though these men have a problem with that. With so many cases of demonstrable liars in these cases, it shouldn’t be too much to ask of people who are willing to make such charges.
I also find it interesting they go by the name “winter soldiers II”, a group of whom many members were found to be liars who had, if in service, were never in Vietnam, and still others who were found to have never served at all. It works both ways, Lev. Let’s also see if the accusers can stand up to scrutiny. So far, they don’t seem too willing.
tomk59 on March 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »