Althouse: "There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there's one hanging over the Army, as well."

August 8, 2007

"There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there's one hanging over the Army, as well."

"Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests."

From the WaPo's piece on the Beauchamp affair, that's a quote from journalism prof Mark Feldstein

84 comments:

Jeff with one 'f' said...: Winter Soldier II; 8/8/07, 11:09 AM
Fen said...: The Army needs to produce Beauchamp's signed retraction. But I don't think they care enough about this to do so. For them, its just another day of the media distorting the "news".; 8/8/07, 11:09 AM
Laura Reynolds said...: Mark Feldstein obviously wants the truth to be on TNR's side. I'd call him an idiot but that would not be fair to idiots.; 8/8/07, 11:20 AM
Maxine Weiss said...: What...no Camille Paglia?

I'm sure that post is coming up.

By the way, what's interesting is the comments section of Paglia. Paglia's readers skewer her, and they validate what I've been saying all along:

Ingmar Bergman is NOT the genius everybody thinks he his. The lack of warmth. The static camera that fails to move...hardly masterpiece filmmaking.

And, Paglia's readers drive that point home. People that hate Ingmar Bergman are far more clever and insightful than Bergman fans, apparently.; 8/8/07, 11:23 AM
paul a'barge said...: Feldstein is a moron.

TNR and Beauchamp are the accusers here. They need to prove their assertions, not the Army.

Why would anyone take the advice of someone who teaches Journalism these days anyway?; 8/8/07, 11:23 AM
Roger J. said...: Professor Feldman should turn in his credentials if he purports to be a professor of journalism--look at the trash his education produces. Journalistic ethics: an oxymoron; fact checking 101: "lets run this by one of our journo embeds and see if its plausible..." The army has done its thing; clearly Professor Feldman cannot bring himself to say TNR and Frank Foer screwed up.
What a joke--once again, Professor Feldman provide support for my view that journos are art history majors who couldnt hack graduate school (apologies to art history majors).; 8/8/07, 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: So. The WaPo and a journalism prof. Now there's a keen eyed, objective bunch. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their foul undergarments.; 8/8/07, 11:28 AM
Palladian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/07, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: If Feldstein is sincere in drawing his pat equivalence between the two institutions, why is he asking only one to disclose its internals? I for one would be fascinated to read TNR's e-mails.; 8/8/07, 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: And, as usual, Fen goes right to the right wing..."media distorting the news" talking point we hear day after day.

There has been no actual evidence of such, so I have no idea what this comment is based upon.

Here's an excerpt from the article in the Washington Post:

Foer said the New Republic had asked Maj. Steven Lamb, an Army spokesman, about the allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, and that Lamb had replied: "I have no knowledge of that." Before going incommunicado, Beauchamp "told us that he signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic," Foer said.

"Thus far," he added, "we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have."

But Weekly Standard writer Michael Goldfarb said: "We have full confidence in our reporting that Private Beauchamp recanted under oath."

It is not clear whether investigators might have pressured Beauchamp into disavowing the articles by indicating that charges might otherwise be filed against him under the military justice code. A military official said Beauchamp had committed two violations, making false statements and not obtaining permission to publish the articles, which were written under the name Scott Thomas.

The Army statement did not specify what were described as Beauchamp's falsehoods and does not plan to make its report public. "The matter is considered to be closed," said Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, an Army spokesman in Baghdad.; 8/8/07, 11:35 AM
baldilocks said...: The Army needs to produce Beauchamp's signed retraction.

If the Army did that, it would be violating the Privacy Rights that some folks are so fond of. (It helps to have a little inside knowledge.); 8/8/07, 11:36 AM
Roger J. said...: Hmmm--as I recall Beauchamp made at least three specific allegations (IED disfigured, Bradly-dog thing, and skull). The official army statement said the allegations made by Beauchamp were found to be false. That is in the public record. The TNRs little editorial spoke only about the alleged "recantation." That was not disclosed by the army. So the army has investigated, and found Beauchamps allegations false. The recantation is another issue altogether.; 8/8/07, 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: If this is the case, how would one ever prove or disprove Thomas's claims?

"The Army statement did not specify what were described as Beauchamp's falsehoods and does not plan to make its report public. "The matter is considered to be closed," said Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, an Army spokesman in Baghdad."

Merely saying the man is lying, but not providing any evidence of such behavior doesn't cut it.

The military also said there was no torture at Abu Grah, and were no civilians murdered or raped in Hadifa and other areas of Iraq, yet, when the cases came to court, there were convictions, with some still serving time.

This guy could be lying through his teeth, but based on past experiences via the military accounts, it's silly to not to ask a few more questions.; 8/8/07, 11:41 AM
Palladian said...: "Merely saying the man is lying, but not providing any evidence of such behavior doesn't cut it."

Why not? You do it all the time.; 8/8/07, 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: baldilocks said..."The Army needs to produce Beauchamp's signed retraction. If the Army did that, it would be violating the Privacy Rights that some folks are so fond of. (It helps to have a little inside knowledge.)"

I haven't read aything that relates to Beauchamp refusing to allow his "retraction" to be released.

Again, everybody here is relying exclusively on the military's account of the matter.

Can I assume you're all comfortable with the various explanations of how Tillman died, too?; 8/8/07, 11:46 AM
Roger J. said...: It is not Beauchamp's decision to make re the "recantation." As part of the investigation, Beauchamp would be asked to make a statement. If there is an article 32 investigation, that statement will come to light; if Beauchamp gets a DD that statement may not come to light unless Beauchamp chooses to release it.; 8/8/07, 11:49 AM
Fen said...: Lucky: And, as usual, Fen goes right to the right wing..."media distorting the news" talking point we hear day after day. There has been no actual evidence of such, so I have no idea what this comment is based upon.

There is evidence of it every day. The reason you have no idea what this evidence is based upon is because you are a mindless sheep who willing swallows the MSM propaganda being fed to you. Its why you are so ignorant re whats actually going on in Iraq - you only get the bad news, not the whole story.

Here's an excerpt from the article in the Washington Post:

As I said in the previous thread, I found this Wapo article to be fair and balanced to both sides.; 8/8/07, 12:12 PM
baldilocks said...: I haven't read aything that relates to Beauchamp refusing to allow his "retraction" to be released.

Neither have I and that's not what I was saying. What I'm saying is that the Army cannot do so.

Also, don't forget that part of STB's punishment is that he has no access to computer or cell. If he wanted to send a copy of his statement, he's have to do it by snail mail and there just hasn't be enought time for such a delivery to happen.

What does Tillman have to do with this?; 8/8/07, 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian,
I said: "Merely saying the man is lying, but not providing any evidence of such behavior doesn't cut it."

And you say: "Why not? You do it all the time."

Well, I have to believe you're referring to my questioning of truth regarding Bush and company's many claims relating to everything from WMD, Gonzales, etc.

My comments regarding Bush and company, and whether they're lying about a variety of charges, is based on the fact that in almost ALL cases, he won't let anybody associated with specific charges testify under oath or even with a transcript. (Rather suspicious, wouldn't you say?)

And, please...YOU tell me where you've ever heard of an investigation of wrongdoing where no oath of truthful testimony or even a transcript of the proceedings is accepted by a court of law or the offended party.

Accepting Bush's word because you support Bush's policies has nothing to do with truthfulness...it's nothing more than biased politics.

As for the Weekly Standard's side of this, I find it amusing that most here readily accept their version, yet constantly bash the Washington Post and NYT's as being too liberal to believe...as if the Weekly Standard is unbiased in any way, shape or form.

*You do remember them being the primary cheerleader regarding how wonderful everything would be in Iraq...right?; 8/8/07, 12:15 PM
Fen said...: Lucky: The military also said there was no torture at Abu Grah, and were no civilians murdered or raped in Hadifa and other areas of Iraq

Thats a lie. The military was investigating Abu Ghraib before it was in the newspapers. And they brought the Haditha case to court.

yet, when the cases came to court, there were convictions, with some still serving time.

Interesting double standard: you believe the military only when it suits your narrative - military prosecution of Abu Ghraib and Haditha is proof; military prosecution of Beauchamp is not proof.

Just another reason why no one takes your arguments seriously - you do not argue in good faith.; 8/8/07, 12:18 PM
Tibore said...: Interesting note from the previous thread that might figure into how a person evaluates this:

"Here’s the thing, if he was lying, there’s not much that he can be charged with. At most it would be some variant of an Article 92 violation for publication without permission or something similar (presuming such a prohibition existed within his command). At most, that’ll get him 2 years if it’s a general order, more than likely it’d be violation of an “other lawful order” which is 6 months max confinement.

Now some may argue that he’s lying to investigators but he told TNR the truth. Problem there is that the penalties for a False Official Statement are far harsher (7 5 yrs and a dishonorable discharge). Lying to investigators is often worse than the misconduct itself. So even if Beauchamp IS lying, he sure can’t ever say so while in uniform, as that subjects him to the more serious Article 107 charge."

Original source: http://armylawyer.blogsome.com/2007/08/07/the-further-adventures-of-beauchamp/#comments

That doesn't illuminate who's right, but it is something to take into account when considering the issue.; 8/8/07, 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
You're full of shit, as usual.
Seymour Hersh broke the Abu Grah story broke in the newspapers before any investigation was launched...much like the My Lai Massacre story he broke during Vietnam.

As for you claim that I only believe the military when it "suits your narrative" is a ridiculous and nonsensical comment.

My point is that when the "facts" are presented, in the right "forum," many things that YOU and your ilk don't want to believe...prove to be so.

The Weekly Standard, or any news organization for that matter, presenting their slant on anything..."without evidence to back it up"...means nada.; 8/8/07, 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Can you provide some details to your claim that there's some kind of "military prosecution of Beauchamp?"

You know, evidence, testimony...FACTS?; 8/8/07, 12:26 PM
Palladian said...: Is anyone else tired of the Luckyoldson-Fen-Sloanasaurus show? I mean, it has some interesting characters, but it's on like 5 times a day.; 8/8/07, 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: baldilocks said..."What does Tillman have to do with this?"

Well, military misdirection regarding what really happened comes to mind.

Until we hear from Beauchamp or see evidence...why does everybody here immediately accept the military or the Weekly Standard's version?; 8/8/07, 12:31 PM
Henry said...: From day one, TNR treated this story as a day in the life of Private Münchausen. Had they ever treated Beauchamp's stories as news, they wouldn't be hiding behind the excuse that the Army took away his cell phone. They would dispatch an actual reporter to actually investigate, name names, and raise hell about out-of-control soldiers.

Instead of focusing on the newsworthiness of Beauchamp's stories, they focused on defending themselves.

"Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests."

The problem with Professor Feldstein's statement above is that the Army and TNR did not investigate the same "this". For the Army "this" is a minor, unit-level personnel issue. Their "vested interest" is in ensuring good discipline in Beauchamp's unit. Beauchamp can be lying or telling the truth; the only difference lies in which soldiers require displinary action.

For TNR, "this" is the problem of whether or not they were printing fiction as truth. Their "vested interest" in Beauchamp's veracity is profound.; 8/8/07, 12:33 PM
Fen said...: why does everybody here immediately accept the military or the Weekly Standard's version?

Because they have more credibility than TNR, who has already been busted censoring info on the story twice now.

And, if you read the Weekly Standard you get both sides of the story. If you read TNR, you only get their side. That should tell you alot.; 8/8/07, 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Palladian,
Here's a suggestion that even YOU can understand.

If you don't like what someone has to say...DON'T READ THE COMMENTS...and DON'T RESPOND.

I skim or bypass half of what's said here, because I know I won't agree or it's not of interest to me.

This forum is a form of "free speech" and you don't have to read or agree with any of it...if you don't want to.; 8/8/07, 12:36 PM
Fen said...: Palladian: Is anyone else tired of the Luckyoldson-Fen-Sloanasaurus show? I mean, it has some interesting characters, but it's on like 5 times a day.

Sorry P. I can't speak for Sloan, but I'll start ignoring Lucky-troll for awhile. Season XXII cancelled; 8/8/07, 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I ask: "...why does everybody here immediately accept the military or the Weekly Standard's version?"

And Fen, in his ususal, unbiased manner responds: "Because they have more credibility than TNR, who has already been busted censoring info on the story twice now."

Why not provide some "evidence" or "facts" before making such a claim.

TNR stands by its story, just as the WS stands by theirs.

Blathering on about how "fair" the Weekly Standard is ridiculous. Anybody who actually reads, knows they're regarded as one of the very most conservative publications in the world.

Bill Kristol, one of the primary neocons behind the Iraqi plan of action established, along with neoconservative John Podhoretz and with financing from Rupert Murdoch, the conservative periodical The Weekly Standard.; 8/8/07, 12:41 PM
Fen said...: /sorry Lucky, your character has been replaced by a poo-flinging monkey; 8/8/07, 12:55 PM
Palladian said...: "If you don't like what someone has to say...DON'T READ THE COMMENTS...and DON'T RESPOND."

The problem is that I like to read some people's comments, just not yours. And you make so many comments that I'm developing carpal tunnel syndrome from all the scrolling past... expect to hear from my personal injury lawyer John Edwards.

"I skim or bypass half of what's said here, because I know I won't agree or it's not of interest to me."

You skim and bypass everything to get to the "post" box. You're only interested in "hearing" yourself talk.

"This forum is a form of "free speech" and you don't have to read or agree with any of it...if you don't want to."

This forum, such as it is, is not really a form of free speech. It's Althouse's weblog. That she allows people to communicate freely is a gift to her commenters, not a right held by them.

Assuming for a moment that this is a public forum, that doesn't grant you freedom from criticism, nor does it grant you the right to drown out other people's speech. The exchanges provoked by your comments are rarely interesting or on topic. They're repetitive and juvenile, mostly because people who choose to communicate with you eventually resort to your level of debate to get a word in edgewise. But all this logorrhea tends to choke these threads and drives away people who actually have something interesting to say.

Ann allows your posts to remain, so there's little any of us can do. I suggest ignoring you, as you advise, but you often make that very difficult.

Fen, no offense intended to you or Sloanasaurus. I just wish you guys wouldn't engage him all the time. You're wasting your valuable time and prolonging the misery of having him around.; 8/8/07, 12:59 PM
hdhouse said...: Fen said...
"And, if you read the Weekly Standard you get both sides of the story."

And you wonder why people think Fen is a moron.; 8/8/07, 1:01 PM
Roger J. said...: what Palladian said--honestly it is really easy to ignore the trolls--try my risk free plan for 7 days, and if you are not fully satisfied I will return your money; and if you act NOW, I will add a second troll ignoring package absolutely free. Remember what GB Shaw about wrestling with pigs.; 8/8/07, 1:04 PM
John Stodder said...: So, let me understand this.

Feldstein, and those who are taking TNR/Foer's side in this, want us to believe Beauchamp -- who has admitted lying about at least one significant fact* -- unless the Army produces his written recantation, even though doing so would violate its privacy regulations -- meaning the Army is in a box that only Beauchamp can get them out of.

But despite Beauchamp's admitted lie, you want to disbelieve the Army when it says it has investigated his charges and determined they are false.

I think you should be demanding Beauchamp's recantation statement from Beauchamp, or get him to deny on the record that he made it. It is his credibility in question on this matter, not the Army's, because he's the one who made the accusations and then backpedaled.

In sorting out the incentives-to-lie and incentives-to-truth in this story, who has the bigger motive to lie? Certainly the Army doesn't like this story, so that might be a point against them. But if the story stands, unrefuted, what are the real consequences? Some bad PR on a story that cannot be verified. The Army is an institution that has survived far worse accusations -- many of them true -- going back through its entire history.

Foer, on the other hand, is fighting for his job and his career. He is only 33, and TNR is the only world he knows. There aren't that many places to work like TNR Beauchamp, too, is fighting for his chosen career as a writer. He might still have a future, but not if he made this stuff up.

Foer and Beauchamp have a lot more to lose. The burden of proof is on them. We're way past the normal allowances given to journalists to protect anonymous sources and expect to be believed. It would be illogical to take Foer on face value on this or any other controversial editorial decision. Ergo, he's toast.

*(The fact that the disfigured woman was harassed was supposed to be an example of the dehumanizing effects of war. Beauchamp now says the story actually took place before he was deployed to Iraq, in Kuwait. That is a major data point, not an irrelevant detail.); 8/8/07, 1:05 PM
Jim Howard said...: If Beauchamp gets an Article 15 for publishing without prior approval that would be public record. This stikes me (as a retired officer)to be very improbable given the very minor violation he may have committed.

Beauchamp moral crime is very serious, bordering on treason, but his legal crime isn't a big deal. As someone who appreciates active duty bloggers I'd hate to see the book thrown at someone for something he's written that did not disclose classified information. Even if the writer is a subhuman piece of feces like Kerry or Beauchamp.

I suspect it is far more likely that Beauchamp will receive a letter of reprimand and a poor evaluation. These actions would lead to his seperation in the fullness of time, with an honorable discharge unless he violates the UCMJ in some other way.

These are HR type things that will not go into the public record.

The Army has an excellent record of investigating claims of solider misconduct and punishing those service people convicted after due process.

TNR does not have an excellent record of fact checking and objective investigation of misconduct by their employees.; 8/8/07, 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: John,
New Republic Editor Franklin Foer is standing his ground. "We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account," Foer said.

I haven't read everything associated with this story, but other and the unnamed military source and the Weekly Standard, I'm unaware of any direct evidence that Beauchamp admitted lying about anything.; 8/8/07, 1:15 PM
John Stodder said...: I'm unaware of any direct evidence that Beauchamp admitted lying about anything.

It's my understanding that Foer has corrected the significant detail of where the harassment of the disfigured woman occured. Beauchamp wrote, and Foer published, Iraq. Foer has now said, it was Kuwait.

That's not a minor detail. The context of that highly sensational tale was, "Here we are fighting a war in Iraq and human life is getting cheapened by it. Why just the other day, my pals and I made fun of a disfigured female soldier. That's how depraved we've become."

If Beauchamp now says the story occured in Kuwait, that context is removed. Kuwait is not where the war is. He might as well have said Ft. Dix. In addition, changing the locale suggests an evasion by diversion. "Oh, you talked to people in Iraq? Silly me, I meant Kuwait!"

All he's got left is the Steve Martin defense: "I forgot!"

It's been demonstrated time and again that our beliefs are completely conditioned by our biases. You want to believe TNR because you adhere to a larger belief system in which TNR's writing on this matter would have to be defended.; 8/8/07, 1:23 PM
Tim said...: 11:35 a.m. - Comments poisoned.

Otherwise, "moral equivalence" is always safe harbor for liberals like Feldstein.; 8/8/07, 1:23 PM
KCFleming said...: Military recruiting?
Holding steady.

The New Republic circulation?
By 2006, circulation had dropped by almost 40 percent in four years. It was published weekly before March 2007, then biweekly. As of the current issue, they're "taking a week off".

I beleive the market will speak louder than journalism prof Mark Feldstein.; 8/8/07, 1:26 PM
Roger J. said...: It looks to me like another interesting sub plot is the mano a mano going on between Foer and Goldfarb. To use the poker analogy, Foer raised the ante with his Friday speech and subsequent post on "the plank." Goldfarb called and raised with thus far anonymous sourced recantation. Both of those dudes have a lot of credibility to lose, and right now, I suspect Foer is the one who is the most puckered. He's the one who has been burned by Beauchamp, and Beauchamp, I sincerely, doubt wants to take the long course at Ft Leavenworth.; 8/8/07, 1:33 PM
KCFleming said...: Why Is The 'New Republic' Going Dark?
Gawker July 31, 2007
"A meandering, unsigned note in this week's New Republic informs readers that the magazine is going on vacation, and that the magazine will be published three weeks from now, instead of the "customary two." Err, okay! This raises a few questions for us, some of which are related to the fact that this week's issue is a scarily thin 48
pages"; 8/8/07, 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Jim Howard said..."Beauchamp moral crime is very serious, bordering on treason, but his legal crime isn't a big deal."

"Moral crimes" are in the eyes of the beholder.

Seymour Hersh was hammered for reporting the Abu Grah and The Mai Lai Massacre but was proven to be correct on both counts.

Until we really know what was said or not said by Beauchamp, it's up in the air.

But, if he indeed lied or put soldiers in harm's way...yes, that would certainly a "moral crime."; 8/8/07, 1:38 PM
1charlie2 said...: Hey, luckyoldson,

Seymour Hersh "busted the story" ??
I don't THINK so. See for example,
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3730

Seymour Hersh published about Abu G on April 30th. The Army issued it's first release over three months earlier about the investigation in January of that year. Is there something I am missing, or is time running backwards ?

I invite a rebuttal of their timeline, with a cite, please. Or an admission that Hersh did NOT "break" the story and that, in fact, the military investigation was fully underway by the time the newsies noticed.

There was misconduct. But (repeat after me)

THERE WAS NO COVERUP.

The Army was dealing with the problem already.

And the refusal to acknowledge that is an essential dishonesty that cranks me off.

======================================

To return the present, and more conspiracy lunacy:

"It is not clear whether investigators might have pressured Beauchamp into disavowing the articles by indicating that charges might otherwise be filed against him under the military justice code."

Are you insane ?

You really don't understand the UCMJ at all. Look up "Filing a false statement, penalties for" sometime. Compare to many other crimes in the military.

Art. 107 reads, in part, "It is not necessary that the false statement be material to the issue inquiry. If, however, the falsity is in respect to a material matter, it may be considered as some evidence of the intent to deceive, while immateriality may tend to show an absence of this intent."

Consider Dajani's conviction for -- you guessed it -- a false statement, followed by his 18 month sentence and a BCD. Much worse than any of the actions that Scotty detailed in his fantasies.

So, either a soldier saw bad things and didn't report it, and now is lying under oath to avoid an LOR and a small fine, or

a young, "bad-*ss wannabe" tells tall tales to puff up his ego, and get busted when (like most wannabes) he gets enough fine details wrong and gets called on it.

Either way, he makes some accusations that the Army must take note of. So they send some investigators over to chat.

Said chat begins with a recitation of his Article 32 rights (Miranda, for you civvies).

About this time, Scotty realizes that the doo-doo is a little deeper than he thought. He says "Hey guys, I was trying to impress some chick" or some such.

But by this time, the investigators are annoyed, and they so do not want a cover-up, so they turn up the heat.

They tell him, quite honestly, that the actions he described in his little account are not that big a deal, and that even if he DID see them, he'd get at most a minor bust. So he should just come clean, name names, etc.

Because.

If he lies, and signs off on "I made it all up," and the Army gets proof that even some of the accounts are true, he's filed a False Official Statement.

That action will NOT be handled administratively. Instead, it will be "Hello, General Court-Martial, how are you today."

Possibility 1: He saw the action, affirms it, and the Army goes on to investigate others. Scotty gets an Article 15, an LOR or LOA, and pays a fine. His time in the hot-seat is over.

Possibility 2. He made it all up, and admits it. The investigators get a sworn statement to satisfy the investigation, and Scotty gets handled "administratively," (non-judicially). Without a court-martial, there's not much the Army can really do to him.

Speculation Alert:

This is the situation I think occurred. The Army PAO is no longer saying "we can't find any evidence," but instead is saying "the claim was false." As a non-judicial personnel matter, I don't think they'll ever say anything more -- unless Scotty makes any future claim. Then I think the "signed statement" will re-emerge.

END SPECULATION

The third alternative is that he saw it and is not lying to cover it up. In so doing, he is risking years in prison and DD (by perjuring himself) to avoid a far lessor punishment (by admitting some misbehavior and backing it up with names, places, times, etc.)

For this possibility, you have to believe

A. the Army's mind-control rays are working well, or

B. Scotty is a complete idiot, and
C. not only do some bad apples exist in the Army, but they are the majority of its population

Hi, Occam, how's the razor ?; 8/8/07, 1:46 PM
Roger J. said...: I don't know if Jim is refering to this moral harm, but it is precisely this form of story that provides grist for AQ's propaganda apparatus. Think Koran flushing, think cartoons--The AQ propaganda effort is fairly sophisticated, and these kinds of stories inflame some arab opinion, and thus do put our soldiers in harms way. I suspect PVT B is in protetctive custody to keep his company mates from getting at him.; 8/8/07, 1:46 PM
Revenant said...: How is there a cloud over the Army? TNR has not offered any evidence that the events happened. They've just told us to take their word on it, and there's certainly no reason to do that.; 8/8/07, 1:57 PM
NSC said...: At some point the investigative file on this matter should be releasable under the Freedom of Information Act. It's not classified material and the case will be closed so absent some witness names that might be redacted, the whole world should be able to see what Beauchamp put in his statement.

I wonder if TNR will even be around then.; 8/8/07, 2:22 PM
cryptical said...: Jim,

If Beauchamp gets an Article 15 for publishing without prior approval that would be public record. This stikes me (as a retired officer)to be very improbable given the very minor violation he may have committed.

Are you sure Article 15s are public record? They're non-judicial and I think that the only record is in the persons service record.

At least that's the way it worked in the Navy back when I was active duty.; 8/8/07, 2:24 PM
Fen said...: John Stodder: It's my understanding that Foer has corrected the significant detail of where the harassment of the disfigured woman occured. Beauchamp wrote, and Foer published, Iraq. Foer has now said, it was Kuwait.

Which is related to TNR's two sins of censorship by omission:

1) TNR contacted Army PAOs in Kuwait to confirm the existence of the disfigured woman. Army claimed no record of any such female in Kuwait: "Right now it is considered to be a Urban Legend or Myth.". TNR had a duty to include that disqualifier when they "corrected" the article. They did not.

2) TNR quoted Maj Lamb to confirm that no one had talked to Weekly Standard in an official capacity, but ommited a quote by Lamb that Beaucamp's story had been proven false.

In short, Weekly Standard is reporting facts from both sides, while TNR is spinning ala Mapes.; 8/8/07, 2:49 PM
Fen said...: Palladian: Fen, no offense intended to you or Sloanasaurus. I just wish you guys wouldn't engage him all the time. You're wasting your valuable time and prolonging the misery of having him around.

No offense taken P. I will ignore Lucky from here on out.; 8/8/07, 2:53 PM
Fen said...: Fen: And, if you read the Weekly Standard you get both sides of the story.

hdhouse: And you wonder why people think Fen is a moron.

No hd, place WS & TNR accounts beside each other, read both as I have. TNR only presents their side of the story, while a reading of WS present both sides of the story in a fair and balanced manner.

Thats one of the ways I guage credibility - if one is distorting or censoring the facts, and the other is making a good faith effort to present both sides, I tend to find the latter more truthful.

I can read only WS and get all the information and argument that TNR has provided, and in their own words. But if I only read TNR, I don't get the information WS is presenting to support their points.; 8/8/07, 3:00 PM
Campesino said...: Fen,
You're full of shit, as usual.
Seymour Hersh broke the Abu Grah story broke in the newspapers before any investigation was launched...much like the My Lai Massacre story he broke during Vietnam.
***********************************
Hersh was a year late to the party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report a criminal investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since May 2003 where four Soldiers from the 320th MP Battalion had been formally charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with detainee abuse. In April 2004 reports of the abuse, as well as graphic pictures showing American military personnel in the act of abusing prisoners, came to public attention, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 28) and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story.[2]; 8/8/07, 3:12 PM
Hey said...: So much of the time, it seems like this is LO's blog, rather than Ann's. Fighting with liberals/trolls is occasionally fun, but it is getting out of hand. I've seen LO post 5 consecutive comments - what the hell?

This whole operation got STB what he wanted, and has helped the Left by dragging the Army into the mud with them. "There's a cloud on both of them" - exactly what the Stalinists and Salafists want. I do hope LO enjoys watching the caliph tossing homosexuals off the tallest building in his hometown when he gets what he wants.; 8/8/07, 3:19 PM
jeff said...: "Just another reason why no one takes your arguments seriously - you do not argue in good faith."

Pretty much sums it up.; 8/8/07, 3:21 PM
Jim Howard said...: "Are you sure Article 15s are public record? They're non-judicial and I think that the only record is in the persons service record.

At least that's the way it worked in the Navy back when I was active duty."

Article 15 punishments are public legal proceedings, just like a court case. In the Air Force article 15s are published regularly in the base daily bulletin.

The service doesn't shout about it from the rooftops, but there is public record of official non-judicial punishments.; 8/8/07, 3:48 PM
Joan said...: Fen, you're cracking me up. You know that every time you say "fair and balanced," certain other commenters are getting more and more red-faced. I think you need to limit yourself to one or two per comment thread, though -- it really wouldn't be right to push them completely over the edge.; 8/8/07, 3:59 PM
Revenant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/07, 4:03 PM
Fen said...: I think you need to limit yourself to one or two per comment thread, though -- it really wouldn't be right to push them completely over the edge.

Good point. Just let me sell off my Merck stock first ;); 8/8/07, 4:13 PM
1charlie2 said...: Woops! One small mispelling that makes a big difference:

My ranty paragraph should have read:

The third alternative is that he saw it and is now lying to cover it up. In so doing, he is risking years in prison and DD (by perjuring himself) to avoid a far lessor punishment (by admitting some misbehavior and backing it up with names, places, times, etc.)

Makes more sense when I spell correctly....

Also, re: Article 15's -- these are non-judicial punishments. Still punitive, but not invoking a court-martial, and more limited in punishment. Essentially, you are making your commanding officer your "judge, jury and executioner" (just kidding about the last part), allowing his/her judgement to rule, but the maximum punishment you can face is far less. When I was in, there was nothing "confidential" about them unless they revealed classified information or confidential informants.; 8/8/07, 4:14 PM
vet66 said...: Note to LOS;

I find you tedious and a major contributor to excess carbon dioxide emissions.

I will not engage you in conversation after this. I suggest others boycott you as well because you bring nothing to the debate other than hot air and noise.; 8/8/07, 4:41 PM
Revenant said...: I will not engage you in conversation after this. I suggest others boycott you as well

Lucky's a hard habit to kick, but it has been well worth the effort. Now if I can just get rid of my addiction to responding to Downtownlad...; 8/8/07, 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I've never heard so much WHINING in my life.

Out of about 20 people who post here, there may be 2-3 who aren't certifiable Bush sycophants, and whenever "we" post, the rest of you jump all over us like a bunch of crazed jackals.

Hey whines about how much I post. Fen basically throws any kind bullshit he can come up with against the wall. Palladian just doesn't want to hear anything other than what he already believes.

Kind of like a great big...right wing...circle-jerk.

As for Seymour Hersh's coverage of Abu Ghraib, I misspoke. I meant to say that he "broke the story" to the public before the military admitted it even existed...and would have never done so with a nudge from the press.

*Okay...now get ready, get set...PILE ON!!!; 8/8/07, 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Vet,
Aren't you the idiot who thinks Saudi Arabia is "secular?"

And you think I want to discuss something with you?; 8/8/07, 4:57 PM
dick said...: LOS,

Wrong again. When the military puts the story in their daily briefings and when the various dem congressmen and senators are handed the information and nobody reports it, then the fault is not with the military. The fault is with the media and the congressmen.

The military made the info available months before Seymour tried to take credit for breaking the story. Now the question is how are you going to try to slant that one to make it seem as if your position is worth even considering.

The problem with a lot of the stories is that the military reports them to the reporters daily and you can read them in the various blogs like Mudville Gazette. Whether the story gets into the media is then up to AP and AFP and Reuters and ABCCBSNBCMSNCBCNN, etc. The military cannot force the media to report the news. If they could we would have a lot more balanced view of Iraq and AFghanistan than we now have. Read the news headlines in the online press. If there are any US deaths or bombings that day we see the news from Iraq. If there is anything that is anti-military we see that in the news. If the US captures AQ leaders, then it might be reported but it will be in paragraph 15 after we read all about how the Surge is not working.

Then when someone like Seymour who occasionally gets a story right and most often gets it wrong gets publicized, we see Al Jazeera going ballistic and we see the MSM gear it up to spew the story hundreds of times. Let's take the Abu Ghraib case as an example. At the same time as this happened, AQ killed wives of Iraqis who had spent years working to bring education and healthcare to the people, very highly regarded in their communities. Their bodies were stabbed and mutilated all over the place and then cut up into pieces and left in the streets. That got about 10 minutes in the media. Some Army people played games with prisoners and we got 400 stories and the AQ press got a ton of free publicity. Now it is years later and LOS lies about the story and how it was reported as if he never knew that Seymour lied about his part in breaking the news. Typical.; 8/8/07, 5:06 PM
KCFleming said...: V
e t,Ar e n'tyo uth e idi otwho t hin ksSau diAra bi ai s"se cu la r?"A ndy out hi nkIw ant t od isc ussso me thin gwi t hyo u?

*How best to scan thru a LOS post*; 8/8/07, 5:11 PM
jeff said...: There are times when DTL has something interesting and thoughtful to say. True, most topics come around to gay rights, but he has shown the ability to debate. Debate not defined as ignoring opposing viewpoints in exchange for gratuitous insults. I have in the past thrown a few insults his way, but I think that tends to tear down the point I might be trying to make. The only reason I can see to try to debate those who will not reciprocate in good faith is to influence someone who might be on the fence about a particular topic who reads the thread. One side has reasoned debate, the other has nothing but insults.; 8/8/07, 5:13 PM
cryptical said...: Jim,

Thanks for the info.; 8/8/07, 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: dick,
The public was first shown the infamous photographs taken inside of the U.S. military run prison at Abu Ghraib in the CBS show 60 Minutes II aired on April 28, 2004.

Seymour Hersh's story broke in in the New Yorker on May 10th.; 8/8/07, 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeff,
You call what goes on here...a "debate?"

With the exception of a few nuanced presentations of opinion, 99% of the people here agree with 99% of everything the others say.

Today's "debate" centers around how right The Weekly Standard is and how wrong TNR is.

Guess who's winning?; 8/8/07, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeff,
You call what goes on here...a "debate?"

With the exception of a few nuanced presentations of opinion, 99% of the people here agree with 99% of everything the others say.

Today's "debate" centers around how right The Weekly Standard is and how wrong TNR is.

Guess who's winning?; 8/8/07, 5:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Jeff,
You call what goes on here...a "debate?"

With the exception of a few nuanced presentations of opinion, 99% of the people here agree with 99% of everything the others say.

Today's "debate" centers around how right The Weekly Standard is and how wrong TNR is.

Guess who's winning?; 8/8/07, 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry about that, for some reason my post went out more than once.

I'm sure everybody was happy about that.; 8/8/07, 5:43 PM
dick said...: Regardless of when the photos were shown to the public, they were made available to 20 congressmen and senators, all democratic, by the uncle of the maing perp at Abu Ghraib and all the congressmen and senators passed on publicizing them. The news story about the problems at Abu Ghraib were released to the media by the MNF-I in February and the media chose not to print them. All Seymour did was shove out the story he was handed and take credit for breaking the story. He did not. The military already had the people removed from Abu Ghraib and was preparing courts martial for them and that was months before Seymour did anything at all.

At what point do you think the MNF-I should step in and require the MSM to print the stories they provide for them? Do you think the military should refuse to put out news for the reporters to print? At what point should the reporters in Baghdad follow up on the stories their stringers give them to verify the truth of what the produce? How should the MSM handle stories that are phony (the destruction of the mosques and the killing of the Imams that for some miraculous reason were able to come back to life and preach the next day)? How should the media handle stories of the atrocities by the AQ (as in the murder of the Iraqi wives who were helping their neighbors build schools and health centers)?

Because right now the media is doing a p*ss poor job of printing about the atrocities by the AQ and a sterling job of pushing out the stories from their stringers without checking up on them. And you are also doing a sterling job of pushing the same stories for those who read the drivel you put out there.; 8/8/07, 5:47 PM
Cedarford said...: baldilocks said...
The Army needs to produce Beauchamp's signed retraction.

If the Army did that, it would be violating the Privacy Rights that some folks are so fond of. (It helps to have a little inside knowledge.)

Good point, and baldilocks is great for working as a "military spouse insider" and setting many wild-ass speculations to rest and speaking more freely than many military would prefer to.

I would point out that "privacy rights" do not prevent Beauchamps own fiancee whose job may be in jeopardy, from asking Beauchamp to release it.
Nor does Beauchamp's privacy rights extend to silence other members of Alpha Company 1/18 from speaking out. There have been at least 2 NCOs from his company that wrote milbloggers saying that they were not permittted to discuss specifics while the Beauchamp investigation was underway, but wanted to write with their names and rank included on their posts to assert that Beauchamps charges were a crock of shit and Alpha Company did nothing to dishonor itself.

As for Beauchamp himself, he is just a small fish, like "Col. Burnett" of the "Fake But Accurate" National Guard scandal. He escaped consequence for the forgeries activists made up for him, did the Lefties that used him as their tool. The crap dumped on the most deserving - Rather, Mapes, CBS's bottom line, Sumner Redstone knowing he was thought to be an out-of-touch schmuck for months...

But small fish sometimes need a serious blanket party or other consequences - for the good of the service and better unit discipline and cohesion. One reason the military works well in lower echelons is that the lawyers and lawyers in robes are generally kept out of it.
Messes like Beauchamp tend to be self-cleaning, self-correcting at the unit level. Makes it sooo much easier as an officer when your trusted NCOs stop by and tell you of a situation, no need to have Line command involved, it's being handled...
Unfortunately, with Beauchamp, he "skylined" himself and his fraud and deceit as surely as Ward Churchill did by trying to become famous - so the Unit internal methods are not available any more. So I disagree with Armylawyer.blog and another ex-officer poster speculating that punishment will be light.

It has to factor in that he did his damage in an active warzone and may have given aid and comfort to the enemy if his fraud about Army troops acting in a depraved way, uncorrected by command, had been accepted by Iraqi population like the false Qu'ran stories were before they were rebutted.
Also, bloggers have uncovered another significant violation of Beauchamps outside the TNR pieces. That he appeared to violate OPSEC (operational security) in an active war zone by posting his unit's deployment schedule, it's accompanying element force strength, and where they would be deployed while he was still in Germany.

The Army has the discretion to pursue OPSEC violations and really hammer the person up to and including court martial, jail, a BCD, or let them slide.

In any case, the Army can choose to make Beauchamps remaining time absolutely miserable for him without a big trip into the military justice system. Just carry him and let him slide as a small, insignificant little fish in semi-disgrace, an again busted and fined PVT1 doing the lowest of tasks and extra duties - shunned by comrades...until his enlistment runs out..; 8/8/07, 6:07 PM
From Inwood said...: If both sides “have a cloud hanging over them”, TNR is Joe Btfsplk.

Why do some want to switch the burden of proof from (a) the ones who have initiated this stuff to (b) the Army?

Why do some have such a vested interested in TNR & Scotty being correct in this instance? If he’s wrong, they can still hate Bush, The Army, The War, Big Oil, etc., etc., as they did before, no? There’ll be another Evil Claim, real or imagined, to bring forth all their arguments against all the Evil Ones. So why not let it go? Insecurity? Taking TNR’s defeat personally? Inability to let go? The need to be the last man standing? All of The Above?

Beats me.

Point of Order:

“Hey” points out that “so much of the time, it seems like this is LO's blog, rather than Ann's. Fighting with liberals/trolls is occasionally fun, but it is getting out of hand. I've seen LO post 5 consecutive comments - what the hell?”

(Click, click, go the steel balls for LOS.)

Right on, Hey. We’ve almost reached a Gresham’s law of blogging here, but I still scroll down past the usual, um, swine to find the occasional pearls of wisdom before them, like yours & here, my numero uno, 1charlie2. Lots of others come close, pearl-wise but this is not my Blog & so I’ll stop.; 8/8/07, 6:40 PM
Brent said...: Lucky,

You and I have gone a couple of rounds in the past.

The question that all us "Bush sycophants" and all of the others that you call derogatory names have is:

Can you make your points without name-calling?

All of the great commenters here (I don't include myself in that group) are able to do it without stating that the last person to disagree with them is - to borrow a couple of your terms - delusional or an idiot.

And Lucky do you - I'm serious here - truly believe that such posters as palladian, Simon, John Stodder, pogo, and beth (among many) actually agree even 50% of the time on political issues?

Even when there is some agreement on just ONE issue there's bound to be factions of disagreement.

I am strongly anti-abortion. Does that put me in sync with 99% of the commenters here?

How about gun control? I am a conservative who believes that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership rights. But, I also believe that the government should have a strong say in regulation. I just lost both sides right there.

On war? Supported it while Clinton was in office - he was right about Bosnia, as far as I'm concerned; I actually wish that he had acted sooner.

Dufar? I wish we would go in militarily. Is that a 99%er?

Here's a weird one for you:
I knew OJ Simpson, last seeing him 6 years before the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman murders. I believe that he killed them. When I ran into him at LAX on a flight to La Guardia 3 years after the trial, I shook his hand and asked how how was doing. He smiled and said "about as good as could be expected." I then waved bye as I walked to my seat. Isn't that what you would have done,Lucky? How about the other 99% of the commenters here?

Why do you believe that everyone here is so much the same?; 8/8/07, 6:59 PM
jeff said...: At this point it really will not matter what the army says or releases. Those who are emotionally invested in the military being full of psychos and George W Bush being either the Anti-Christ or the disciple of the same, will ignore or rationalize the armies case away and cling to their prejudices. For some here, no matter what evidence you produce, they will shift their argument or failing that will resort to name calling. When that behavior becomes a pattern, then the only point in engaging them is as I previously stated: for those on the fence who read the the thread can see which side debates in good faith and which side just throws mud and perhaps make a decision accordingly.; 8/8/07, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Lucky is right. He is one of the few people to actually have a different viewpoint, and the thought police here come down and try and have him banned for daring to think for himself.

In the meantime, The Weekly Standard has made charge after charge after charge on the Beauchamp case, and they have yet to produce one iota of evidence that any of it is true. Not one.

The one discrepency in Beauchamp's writing so far, the fact that he forgot which cafeteria he insulted a woman in (as if the location was the main point he was trying to make). And who released that bit of info to the public - that it was Kuwait and not Iraq. Why that was The New Republic of course.

And the army punishes Beauchamp by removing all forms of communication from him. In other words, the military doesn't give a damn about this case. They just want to make it go away.; 8/8/07, 8:43 PM
jeff said...: DTL.
"He is one of the few people to actually have a different viewpoint, and the thought police here come down and try and have him banned for daring to think for himself."

No, he is one of the few people who will not honestly debate his viewpoint. When called on a factual issue, or even presented with a viewpoint other than his own, he responds with insults.

"In the meantime, The Weekly Standard has made charge after charge after charge on the Beauchamp case, and they have yet to produce one iota of evidence that any of it is true."

What charges are you talking about? The only charges I have seen is that TNR didnt fact check the stories. Which seems to be the case.

"The one discrepency in Beauchamp's writing so far, the fact that he forgot which cafeteria he insulted a woman in (as if the location was the main point he was trying to make)"

Actually pretty much everything he said has been disputed, but referring to the cafeteria story, the main point he was trying to make was that he had been transformed by combat into this callous monster. But it turned out this was before he was exposed to any combat. Not to mention the story has been disputed by the folks in Kuwait.

"And the army punishes Beauchamp by removing all forms of communication from him."

After an investigation where Beauchamp signed a sworn statement that none of this was true.

"n other words, the military doesn't give a damn about this case. They just want to make it go away."

Assuming facts not in evidence. I would argue that they care very much how people misrepresent them which is why they investigated and interviewed everyone in the unit. However, since neither of us can do anything more than speculate, we would just have to disagree on that.; 8/8/07, 9:03 PM
Revenant said...: [Lucky] is one of the few people to actually have a different viewpoint

Different, eh? Bet you can't name a topic he disagrees with AlphaLiberal and "The Exalted" on, or a topic other than Imus he disagrees with hdhouse on. In any case, the thing about that "viewpoint" (which could be more accurately described as "a motif") is that Lucky doesn't actually have to be here to present it. We know exactly what his opinion will be on any topic before he actually posts anything.

To wit: "In any conflict between two entities, the more left-wing of them is right about everything, while the more right-wing of the two is wrong about everything and supported by people who are evil, ignorant, stupid, and unwilling to listen to him."

Its a riff on your answer to every issue, which is to identify the side that most strongly opposes gay rights and immediate start agreeing with their opponents. This works in the 5% or so of cases where gay rights actually relate to the topic at hand, but yields embarrassing results the rest of the time (e.g., in discussions of the Beauchamp fiasco or FISA warrants).

With the exception of Cedarford (who can be counted on to somehow relate everything to a Jewish conspiracy), none of the right-of-center posters here share your monomania and predicatability.; 8/8/07, 9:22 PM
Fen said...: dtl: The one discrepency in Beauchamp's writing so far, the fact that he forgot which cafeteria he insulted a woman in (as if the location was the main point he was trying to make).

Thats a very dishonest argument dtl. As noted several times here, moving the location to Kuwait [and you try to make it sound like neighboring cafeterias] changes the entire ancedote. The location was central to the point he was trying to make, because if he's not yet made it to the FEBA, he can't blame his behavior on the "dehumanizing" influence of war.

And who released that bit of info to the public - that it was Kuwait and not Iraq. Why that was The New Republic of course.

Only after they were confronted by milbloggers who found there was no record of any such woman in Iraq.

BTW, there is also no record of any such woman in Kuwait.

Think about it dtl, the odds of someone recalling such a disfigured woman are equivalent to the odds of someone recalling a guy who walked through the chow hall everyday wearing buttless chaps, ie. 100%.

You want me to find TNR credible? Link to a TNR release that quotes Major Lamb saying: "An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false." Or provide a reasonable explanation why they chose to omit it.; 8/8/07, 10:53 PM
Cedarford said...: Revenent - With the exception of Cedarford (who can be counted on to somehow relate everything to a Jewish conspiracy), none of the right-of-center posters here share your monomania and predicatability.

A great flaw of right-of-center people is a general unwillingness to believe well-networked, aspiring string-pullers on the Left, trial lawyers associations, black affirmative action groups, in government unions, in business actually do do. Or that lobbies for India outsourcing, the China Free Trade Lobby, the Open Borders Lobby, the Israel Lobby, the Saudi Lobby are in any way effective.

Many of these aspiring string-pullers seek to immunize themselves from criticism by calling critics of their efforts "hateful, biased" which of course is meant to shut up people who are concerned that other people will think they are "Islamophobic", "white racists", "fear gays and the gay agenda", "anti-Semitic", "hate children because they oppose new massive concessions to teachers unions", "hate poor people and wish to block efforts to sue McDonalds for fast food fatties".

None have been more successful in stifling criticism of aggressive group advancement than Jews with the hoary "anti-Semitism" charge which is the preferred way of attacking any who question the Jews role in advancing Communism, social progressivism, the war with Iraq, Israel's actions, dominance of critical American industries like media...

Like with the surge in inner city black pathologies that took off in the 50s and became so bad that the taboo against discussing them began to fall away in the 80s, the Jews efforts to milk past grievances for current advantage & quash all criticism of such a powerful, influential group. A group with the habit of attempting to transform majority cultures they move into with behind the scenes activities with other elites, courtiers to rulers, lawsuits, and manipulation (well meaning or not) - tends to drive criticism and open animosity underground. Then it flares up into serious resentment and the Jewish people are told they wore out their welcome and face peaceful demands to move on or face violence. Same pattern in country after country since ancient times...

But today, it is not a problem limited to Jews or the ones the media feels comfortable&PC talking about, like the Saudi Lobby. The well-organized networked special interest group has spread and advantaged certain "tribes" of Americans so much that others have to weigh that the only way to preserve their place or advance it is not to think of themselves as Americans, but say, as white tradesmen, evangelicals, Cuban-Americans, or Mormons 1st, and take up the motto of other networks "to ourselves everything, to others, nothing!"; 8/9/07, 12:48 AM
Revenant said...: Thats a very dishonest argument dtl.

It is also flat-out wrong, since there is also a "discrepancy" between *everything* Beauchamp alleged and what the soldiers in his unit went on record as saying happened.; 8/9/07, 1:04 AM
Revenant said...: A great flaw of right-of-center people is a general unwillingness to believe [in the International Jewish Conspiracy, blah blah blah]

That's not so much a "flaw" as the result of mainstream conservatives deliberately ostracizing people like yourself and purging you from their ranks, post-WW2.; 8/9/07, 1:05 AM