Thursday, July 26, 2007
|
|
The Thomas Affair - The End of the Beginning
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
1:19 PM
|
Finally, we have reached the end of the beginning of the “Scott Thomas” affair. Of all the sad media misadventures we’ve seen over the past four years, this one will almost surely go down as the most pathetic.
Here’s one thing we know for sure about Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He went off to war to become a writer. Earlier today, I suggested that he might be this war’s John Kerry. But from reading Beauchamp’s blog, that’s clearly not what he had in mind. As a commenter in a previous post noted, he wanted to be this war’s Oliver Stone or Anthony Swofford – a guy who emerged from his time at war as an artiste in full flower.
I must note how much Beauchamp’s blogging confessionals differ from the comments of the many soldiers I interviewed for “The 9/11 Generation.” To a man, the men I interviewed joined the Armed Forces to serve their country. Beauchamp seems more like the poster-boy for the self-esteem generation as it heads off to war. It was all about him, and his simultaneous quests for legitimacy and artist-hood.
The war-bound artiste had a decided predisposition to what kind of stories he was going to tell. Following in Swofford’s and Stone’s footsteps, he was going to document the absurdity and barbarism of war. It’s a measure of Beauchamp’s immaturity that he decided what his autobiographical story would be before he actually lived it. This is one seriously pitiable individual.
Lest you think I’m going all mushy on you in terms of appraising Beauchamp, let’s be clear – Scott Thomas Beauchamp went to war with the specific goal of ridiculing and belittling the war effort. Yes, he wore the uniform. In virtually all cases, that’s praiseworthy. But in Beauchamp’s case, he wore the uniform as a means by which to make his artistic bones; he knew that in making those artistic bones, he would undermine the efforts of his brothers in arms. In short, he went to war with the specific purpose of weakening the war effort. I doubt he ever thought it through to that extent. In spite of his pretensions to the contrary, he doesn’t seem like a deep thinker who gets off on serious introspection. Nevertheless, there are words that describe his intentions in going to war – very serious words.
These are the acts of not only a pathetic individual, but a morally obtuse one as well. I don’t need to perform a semiotics-based analysis to predict with some confidence that Scott Thomas Beauchamp will turn out to be a sorry figure, albeit an unsympathetic one.
THE REAL VILLAIN OF THE PIECE so far is The New Republic. We still don’t know how TNR and Beauchamp hooked up, but we do know that TNR enabled Beauchamp’s descent into highly publicized pathos. The stuff TNR published will greatly complicate Beauchamp’s immediate future; they’ll probably detrimentally affect the rest of his life. TNR’s role here as regards Beauchamp could be compared to a full-grown adult giving a gun to suicidal grad student.
As for what happens with TNR from this point forward, there are two possible scenarios:
1) Beauchamp’s tales are proven; or
2) Beauchamp’s tales are disproven.
Either way, as I’ve been saying all along, TNR’s conduct here is reprehensible. As regards the potential veracity of Beauchamp’s Diarists, the people at TNR knew that they had a not-particularly-reliable narrator working for them in Baghdad. Or given their rigorous fact checking procedures, they should have known. The fact that they ran his stories with minimal if any corroboration, especially in light of TNR’s recent history with stories that were too delicious to check, can’t be chalked up as a coincidence.
TNR employed as its Baghdad correspondent a guy who was there specifically to mock the war effort while he hopefully advanced his own career as a writer by doing so. Beauchamp’s champions (not that I’m aware of any) have the potential defense that he was a young man who didn’t know any better. TNR’s editors do not. They gravitated to Scott Thomas Beauchamp because he would have the “moral authority” necessary to slander the troops with impunity, a moral authority that Franklin Foer and company of course lack.
One other note: Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s life will be a smoldering ruin when this affair has run its course. His partners in crime at The New Republic will still have jobs and careers. Will they see Scott Beauchamp in their nightmares? And will they see the 160,000 honorable and noble troops that together they conspired to malign?
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
Correction needed,Buck-o. I 'pop up' to Insult You and once in a while somebody else--Kimber is too lithium deprived to much bother with. Pretty much everybody else knows me as an adorable little fuzz ball. Honest. |
|
The Army will deny (and in fact already has denied) it, but that won't wash given their track record with regard to facts in Iraq. Maybe Beauchamp has pictures of all these things, but I doubt it. Therefore, it will be a mystery and mysteries are great Rorschach tests.
What's telling is the degree of hyperventilation among the wingnuts. There was nothing terribly shocking or unbelievable about what Beauchamp wrote: it's the stuff of war. Among other things, American marines brought home body parts from the Pacific.
Running over dogs? Only in America, where this is something of a capital crime in certain circles, would this be seen as so heinous. Mocking a wounded woman? Gallows humor; stateside, firefighters call those trapped in burning buildings "crispy critters."
But the attack machine swings into full throttle against a private who may or may not have invented or embellished an account of battle. As if THAT hasn't been happening since time began, too.
I think the craziness from your camp is displaced rage and shame over your glorious adventure going down in flames. The wingnuts are piling their angst onto the one guy who wrote an otherwise unremarkable account.
Have you ever seen cattle in a chute at the slaughterhouse? They're nervous, too. |
|
"Seems the blogosphere can be pretty damn accurate, if you know who to listen to."
...or whom you decide is telling the truth. |
|
but this Dimwit is just too tempting. Impossible for me to take any of his Roach Droppings seriously or to remotely respect them. He & the Delicate Kimberkos drink from the same bottle.
Not serious and not to be taken thus. Shrinker & a couple of other Lefties on Hugh's Site seem bright,sharp & capable of 'getting it.' They get my nod. Vortex is simply nuthin' but an appetite.
41mag...Way too painful to shoot. Even sounds excruciating. Model'55 Smith, just plain wonderful. |
|
Mike Lep u: "I'm not interested in addressing the substantive questions brought up by Beauchamp's articles""
Yes, just like TNR, can't seem to come up with anything uof substance.
Gee, they told us days ago they had all kinds of cooboration, but there was the whole issue of keeping the source secret...well that issues gone away.
Milbloggers had already nailed the guy so he had to come forward.
Now they've gone silent again. Still Googling for that Square casing Glock shell.... |
|
|
You can quit the military any time you want. Yes, you'll get a less than honorable discharge, but you are free to quit. They aren't slaves Manfred. They make their own decisions. |
|
you said: "Given that many troops volunteered before the war -- before 9/11 -- the President has a responsibility to send them only to necessary wars."
Problem is, EVERYONE who is currently in the active military either volunteered or reenlisted KNOWING we were at war, and the Bush administration would be setting foreign policy. The only exceptions would be the VERY few who have been called up from ready reserve, and they tend to be from specialized MOSs of one sort or another, and not simple infantry.
If you understood more about the military, perhaps you wouldn't need to keep up the charade of being 'for' the troops. They want your support of the mission, if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops. If you just think you know better than those poor kids in the military, well, John Kerry comes to mind. |
|
I don't disagree with that, although I have to say I picture New writing these things with a big grin on his face.....not out of some bent sense of vengeance. He's just having fun with it
I'm the same. In most cases, if I insult someone, it's tongue in cheek and I fully expect to be repaid in kind. I am still Irish, however.... :-)
If that's how you intended your remark about (I assume) Animal Farm, then I am mistaken. |
|
|
I try to treat people as they should -- Neo essentially just pops up to insult people, sounding much like Augustin Bizimungo, calling people Roaches. He is a jerk, and when he throws out 8th grade reading lists as though it is instructive, it shows he is a doofus, too. I don't think calling a bully a bully is classless. The posters who demonstrate respect for people -- I respect them and write respectfully. There are two kinds of discussions on this board -- meetings of the mind and insult-fests. I am willing to take part in either, though I prefer the former. |
|
"Orwell's homage to Catalonia? " I take back what I said before about you having class....that was out of line.
Neo- Ever notice people with Magnum's would rather hold them than shoot them? :-)
.45 is plenty.....and lots of Raid! |
|
the Left,silly lil' Roach. Kosmeister has y'all
(that's Southern,'Tweety..)really haunting Hugh's Site gooooood. Your "reeeetorts" are 1st grade remedial level.Yep,got me on de'ropes. |
|
|
...is that Franklin Foer, Editor at TNR, apparently didn't even bother to Google "Scott Thomas Beauchamp" to vet him as a freelance writer before signing him on for the series. Unbelievable. Five minutes research would have shown him that this guy was anything but a good writer, and was already writing atrocity stories BEFORE going to Iraq- not a good sign of reliability. He also would have seen what a deluded, self-centered dope this guy was. Could've saved himself, and his magazine, a lot of grief. I guess when someone you trust inside your staff recommends someone, he didn't realize that you'd still better check them out- BEFORE publishing them. |
|
"every journalist knows to protect their sources in the wilderness that is Washington D.C. by keeping them anonymous. I hope The New Republic didn't push the egress, because that would be positively nauseating. Unless Beauchamp made the decision on his own, TNR are comprised of people with unquestionably crappy journalistic ethos"
Given that Milblogger J.D. Johannes had already figured out what unit he was in, down to Company level (that reduced the field to about 100 persons), he pretty much had to come out. It wouldn't have been long till someone else outed him. And yeah, John Barnes Amazon Blog had him dead to rights on the MFA Student bit. He was a student at MU, and editor-in-chief of Prospectus, a liberal campus news magazine. Bingo!
Seems the blogosphere can be pretty damn accurate, if you know who to listen to. |
|
Pvt Beauchamp is damned if he did it and damned if he didn't. "Conduct unbecoming" is appropriate in either case, at a minimum! Personally, I'd ship him out and discharge him on a "Bad Conduct" or perhaps a "Dishonorable!" BTW, always follow due process in these cases!
However, first FOB Falcon's command, or higher, has to determine what in fact did happen and then report it, openly and candidly. Might take a while so hang loose there, chums.
Personally, I doubt if that "melted" face woman soldier or contractor existed, that the in fact skull "head piece" event occurred, or that the Bradley driver waged open season on dogs. but, things happen and it's the duty of the US Army to determine the truth of the matter; the Army will, bet on it!
Someone wisely pointed out that, to date, horrific events resulting in charges or investigation have all been reported by fellow soldiers! I believe that the Army of today hasn't changed from 46-years ago and can clearly recall that the old cold war army policed its own.
|
|
While many rabid right-wingers attempt to use the from ignorance argument ( http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ig.htm ) to discredit Scott Thomas Beauchamp, arguing that The New Republic acted irresponsible isn't far off the mark, actually:
With quotes, every journalist knows to use the person's full name for the sake of credibility. Yet the reverse is true for well-established publications who use sources that may be hit for being whistle-blowers; every journalist knows to protect their sources in the wilderness that is Washington D.C. by keeping them anonymous. I hope The New Republic didn't push the egress, because that would be positively nauseating. Unless Beauchamp made the decision on his own, TNR are comprised of people with unquestionably crappy journalistic ethos. |
|
|
I was worried that you'd lost contact with Osama -- but I'm glad to see your orders keep coming in. And you've read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia? Wow! That is soooooo obscure!!! (I kid, of course. I'm glad to see you've completed 8th grade). |
|
Paddy & Dusty...May I throw in my Rugar 41mag &
S & W Model 1955/45acp to your cache ? The former hurts like hell,but VERY impressive on the delivery end.
Gracey: THANK YOU & Your Husband !!
Catalonia: Have you read Orwell's wonderful memoir from the Spanish Civil War..."Homage to Catalonia"? A lovely evisceration of his Old
Left comrades. |
|
|
When the opinion folks at Townhall publish questionable stories as fact, fire the offenders, publish more questionable material as fact, fire the offenders, and do that several more times over the course of 12 years and THEN attempt to defame the fine people of the U.S. military with yet another crackpot story then, yes, I promise to apply the same standard. |
|
I take it from the ridiculous repatition of your none point, you simply are incapable of addressing any of the substantive questions brought up regarding Beachamps articles.
I take it you have thrown in the towel and will not even attempt a defense because you know the guys a liar and your not up to the job.
|
|
Mike LeP,
Insufficient. Asking for verification that Scott Thomas is a soldier, and wondering whether or not he is one, is not the same as accusing TNR of fabricating him, as you claimed Dean and Hugh have been doing, or stating definitively that Scott Thomas is not a soldier. Nothing you posted verified your claim. Dean did link to John Barnes, and John Barnes believed Thomas showed the signs of being an MFA creative writing student, but Dean stated in that post “I found it fascinating but, as the author concedes, [is] proof of nothing.” That hardly qualifies as supporting the theory that Thomas was made up by the TNR or definitively not a soldier. (Strangely, it was later shown that Beauchamp really DID have aspirations of being a creative writer. Mmm ....)
Additionally, I care not a whit about what other sites in the "right wing blogosphere" claimed -- your accusations were specific to this site, so I cry foul on that puerile tactic, as well.
There are problems with Beauchamp's accounts of events. Given the sorts of errors he made, it's quite reasonable to have doubted whether he's a real soldier, particularly given the fact that 'false soldier' stories seem to crop up every now and again. Given TNR's late and only tepid verification of Beauchamp's status, it's little wonder that people were left to speculate about it for a week or so. That's hardly equivalent to going "on and on" about how Thomas clearly wasn’t a soldier. And it says absolutely nothing about conservatives, Republicans, the universe, or anything else.
By the way, the last passage you attribute to Hugh actually came from Dean. You seem to have a problem with sourcing, or understanding sourcing. |
|
Yeah, it sure must have been hell there in Iraq, because old Beauchamp wrote this on his blog in Germany:
Monday, May 08, 2006
i make me feel stupid
"Sh-t, I don't know...put a 556 in his head"
On the street below the mans brown face dissolves into a thick red mist. The lights in the cities houses shut off in unison. Elecricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in hundred and twenty degree weather without water? In the streets the kids bodies start convulsing in semi-orgasmic rhythms. Their pants fill up with sh-t and p-ss and the smart ones sneak out to the fields to hidden caches of water jugs and trinkets of candy from the american soldiers.
"See that sarge, kids digging or something?"
"Well, better safe then sorry. Cap his -ss Leclaire."
"You sure sarge?"
"Well, im either right or wrong. And if I'm wrong im still right because i could have been right even though i was wrong."
They watch the sliver of red sun fall slower and slower, silhouetting the little barbarians falling bodies. The Chaplain turns and walks back towards the FOB in contemplation. Gotta rack out early tonight. Handing out bibles in the marketplace tomorrow, early. Unintelligible rap blares out of the open doors of the HUMVEE.
posted by Scott Thomas at 12:59 PM
--------------------------------------
Handing out Bibles in the market place? You gullible ones believe that too??
|
|
"I don't see what Stephen Glass has to do with Townhall implying that "Scott Thomas" was not a soldier, but it's interesting info nontheless."
Was the entire Townhall site doubting he was a soldier? I probably included the Charles Lane quotes to highlight that maybe perhaps a certain magazine's credibility has not changed in almost a decade, or something like that? I forget.
P.S. Thanks, but I pretty much only watch B&W noir crime thrillers and WWII movies these days. Although, I thought Transformers was OK, but that's only because I had a free pass. Looking forward to Harry Potter in IMAX 3D this weekend. Got any more movie suggestions? |
|
Your forgetting even the TNR Frank Foer was quoted by the New York Times as not being sure the guy was a soldier.
And that's all the news that's fit to print.
It would be nice if the TNR identified him as:
A artist and writer who joined the Army to bring credibility to his made up stories, per his own writings; Oh, and he's also engaged to one of our other employees. |
|
More Lane for Mike LeP:
"It was really the magazine's responsibility to ensure that the stuff went in was good journalism. And it totally failed in that respect,” says Lane. “The only thing I think you can say in defense of The New Republic was that we were up against somebody, at the time, who was really determined to deceive the magazine. And that is quite unusual.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/07/60minutes/main552819.shtml
Oh yeah. Once-in-a-lifetime. Couldn't happen more than one time. Maybe twice. OK, but definitely not more than, say, three times.
" 'The stories, in hindsight, seem so ludicrous,' Lane said in a recent interview."
http://www.post-gazette.com/movies/20031122glass1122fnp4.asp
Yeah, I know, they were just so CRAZY! TNR was so stupid back then. Thankfully, they have learned their lesson. Maybe had to re-learn it. OK, but definitely they did not have to re-re-learn it more than once. |
|
Gee, let's see what a quick search for "Charles Lane Stephen Glass" immediately yielded this interview with the former editor of TNR:
"Did the New Republic change a lot after what happened?
"Yeah. We put in a lot of new procedures and practices. I think a lot of people who worked there changed individually. There were a lot of young people who really liked Steve and admired him and were his friends, and I think for them it was a very chastening and searing personal experience. I don't think any of them will ever be the same again. They just realized that the person you trust, who lives in your house, could turn out to be robbing you blind and that's a sobering thing to go through. And in a way maybe that was a good thing. We should all be taught that lesson at some point."
Here, here! Hold up your wine glass and toast me, Mike. |
|
I wouldn't really call Scott Thomas a 'soldier', he's more of an artist in training.
But for those who insist he is telling the truth, let's put his writings to a test:
1. Find me a square Glock shell casing?
Shouldn't take you long...should be able to google it pretty quick. According to Scott, they must litter the streets of Baghdad. Someone must have one or a picture of one.
2. Find me any confirming article that only Iraqi police carry Glocks and I will try to find an article that states all kinds of civilians have Glocks in Iraq. Guess who would win that bet?
3. From his blog, please cite for me how it is that people committ suicide using hot ovens and not just the gas from the oven.
4. Please find one other soldier that would change a run-flat tire in knee deep sewage. One guy, somewhere that says, no don't move the Humvee to high ground, let's change it under sewage.
5. Please find me one Bradley driver that says he can see things near his vehicles tracks. Just one, I'm not asking for 20 or 40, or just show me a picture of a Bradley and draw the line of sight where the driver can see anything near the sides of the Bradley.
I have more if you finish these as quickly as your sure you can. |
|
Dustoff-507,
I think you misunderstand. I am asking MikeLeP, who serves as a useful proxy for like-minded individuals, for proof that Dean, Hugh, and the posters to their forums went "on and on" about how TNR fabricated Scott Thomas.
There's a big difference between asking the reasonable question, "Is this guy a real soldier?", and stating definitely that you think TNR fabricated Scott Thomas, or that Scott Thomas most definitely isn't a soldier.
I'm sure a few posters made that claim, here and there, but they were relatively few, and Dean and Hugh made no such claim -- I reviewed all of their main postings and found nothing of the sort (thus my request for proof).
To characterize this as going "on and on" is simply untrue, and as it turns out, dismantles the various and sundry 'arguments' MikeLeP and others make about how the debate has progressed, and what it means re:conservatism and the general state of the universe at large.
In short, MikeLeP and others defending Mr. Beauchamp got nothin', and they are looking quite foolish for even trying to defend this story.
Side note: The fact that so many people wondered whether Scott Thomas was even a soldier gives testament to how horribly he wrote his little dispatches. Remember the first rule of creative writing: It is never the reader's fault for how he reacts to your writings. If he reacts differently than how you expected, then it is your fault, and only your fault. |
|
That thank you at the end was the classiest thing I've ever seen you post.
Good on ya man! |
|
Marine when you are attached to them. My husband is with the Grunts and he does the same things they do, as well as medical.
___________________________________________
I should have known. One of my Fire fighter/ Medic's is Navy Reserve. He's been to Iraq twice.
More coffie |
|
|
Yeah Navy, but your pretty much are treated like a Marine when you are attached to them. My husband is with the Grunts and he does the same things they do, as well as medical. |
|
I didn't say you questioned those other things -- I just figured they'd come next, since we'd begun to work our way through patriotism etc. Citoyen du Monde? Moi? Merci, oui. Not approving of nationalism doesn't necessarily mean one disowns one's citizenship. While I don't have a Bush lied, Soldiers died sticker, were I to see someone with that sticker, I would consider that person as supporting troops. Given that many troops volunteered before the war -- before 9/11 -- the President has a responsibility to send them only to necessary wars. I don't think this one was, so I think HE has let the troops down.
But, I am glad to see, on the major issue we agree. Rather than attacking the author of TNRs's piece, we should withhold judgment, and, if it proves true, heads should roll. Good. I am glad we can come together in the end.
Thank you for your service, and all my -- and, I am sure, our -- best wishes to your husband. |
|
I'm thinking about going back in to become a dime novelist.....
I hear a lot of fun stuff happens at the "chow hall...."
I'm trying to decide whether to bring my dog.... |
|
|
Gezz I'm dumb... Navy right. |
|
Catalonia
__________________________________
I guess you didn't read what most people said.
We were not sure if Thomas was in the Army or not. And yes, we still question what he said he saw. So far (as it should be) The proof is on him.
He made these statements, now he needs to back them up. |
|
|
Happy anniversary! You too, have a great Navy Day!!!!!!!!! |
|
Kimbers
Nice, seen and shot a few. |
|
"Is there anything else about me you'd like to question? My bravery? My sexuality? My citizenship? My intellect?"
- Yeah, don't know how I implied that I was questioning any of that.
"Well, I loathe nationalism and patriotism too often strikes me as a dangerous thing. "
- So I take it you are a citizen of the world?
"I don't have the yellow ribbons, cause I think it is sorta stupid to put a yellow ribbon on my car -- it seems a bit showy."
-How is that showy? It would seem to me just a small gesture of support. Maybe you could just put a Bush lied, Soldiers died sicker on your car.
"So, I think we should appreciate the great things our country has done. But BECAUSE of those great things, and BECAUSE of our great potential, we should be EVEN MORE diligent about weeding out those things that degrade us."
-When did I once mention that I think the ones who degrade the military shouldn't be weeded out? Believe me I agree with you, I don't want them in either. And you know what? Scott Thomas is one of the guys that should be weeded out. If any of this happened, then he should be punished as well as the people who knew about it too.
|
|
That occurred to me too.
I'm 2 Sigs and 2 Kimbers; working on a Wilson Combat.
For some reason, I'm a better shot since reading this post.... :-) |
|
"When the story broke, you and the partisan flunky echo chamber you operate here went on and on about how TNR fabricated this author."
On and on, eh?
OK, fine. I've reviewed all of Dean's and Hugh's posts regarding this matter, and the closest thing I can find to support your accusation is that Dean several times wondered whether this guy was really a soldier, and each time offered with a qualifier.
I'm calling you on it.
Provide proof. Not Scott Thomas / TNR style proof, actual proof. |
|
..or should I say "Doc?," Today happens to be the anniversary of the day I went into USN.
Manfred has met his match in you. Way to square him away, shipmate! Have a great Navy day! |
|
Love it....
Funny that a medic carries. 0-: |
|
I have a question....
Sig, Glock, or Kimber.....? |
|
Is there anything else about me you'd like to question? My bravery? My sexuality? My citizenship? My intellect?
______________________________________
Gezzz get over yourself. |
|
Aahhhh...Just love it when the MANHEIM VORTEX proves my point--Every Time--as per above Bloviating Endlessly.
Paddy,Gracey,Dusty,Lads....Roach Spray immediately, Bitte!! |
|
|
I was a Medevac Medic 57th medical. Nice to meet you sister. |
|
|
HM2, Hospital Corpsman, which we call an MOS a rate. (: My husband is also an HM2. |
|
Good, now that you admit that you are questioning my patriotism, I can answer the question -- what have I -- unpatriotic Manfred -- ever said or done to support the military? I don't have the yellow ribbons, cause I think it is sorta stupid to put a yellow ribbon on my car -- it seems a bit showy. I did agitate against the war in large part because I don't want our troops to die senselessly. I grieve to hear of every one who dies or is wounded -- I think far too little is done for them, and I have written a powerful Senator inquiring after the poor VA treatment.
I admit, I am falling into a trap even bothering to answer the question, though. For one thing, it doesn't matter what I have or haven't done. The point is about the war, this story, etc. For another, I am sure that my opposing the war -- which I consider to be ON BEHALF of the troops -- won't be viewed as favorably patriotic or supportive by most people on the blog. It is hard for me to imagine that telling a child or a spouse that I want his or her father, husband, or wife to come home as soon as possible and whole could be viewed as a stab in that soldier, marine, or sailor's back.
As for the patriotism thing. Well, I loathe nationalism and patriotism too often strikes me as a dangerous thing. I do, however, literally get teary at times thinking of the great things America has done and stood for. I recall standing in Dachau looking at a picture of an American flag flying over the liberated camp and crying -- but I refuse a) to fall into the my-country-right-or-wrong camp; or b) believe that we are any less capable of losing our way than any other country. Germany has a history of the best culture, the deepest thought, the most powerful humanism, the most profound faith -- and yet, they embodied the worst evil. Are we any less susceptible to sliding into evil? I don't think so. So, I think we should appreciate the great things our country has done. But BECAUSE of those great things, and BECAUSE of our great potential, we should be EVEN MORE diligent about weeding out those things that degrade us.
Is there anything else about me you'd like to question? My bravery? My sexuality? My citizenship? My intellect? |
|
|
If she actually believed this guy behaves in the sociopathic way he claims to behave, she’d have to be crazy herself to want to marry him (and maybe even have children with him.) |
|
Side note - wonder what this jerk's wife thinks of her prized catch when she read his comments about the injured woman?
_____________________________________________
Lib's never care who they hurt.
let's see GW is Hilter, murderer, lier should I keep going. (-:
|
|
|
|
Says FF: "Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published..."
Does anyone actually believe this? The number of questions and discrepancies surrounding that Shock Troops story are practically unending.
Since this Scott Thomas guy is married or getting married to a TNR staffer, why was there that "near certainty" problem with the NYT of knowing he was a soldier?
Jonah Goldberg said he thought Foer was an honorable guy. I cannot see how that is possible.
Side note - wonder what this jerk's wife thinks of her prized catch when she read his comments about the injured woman?
|
|
|
It is not only that we don't like what he said - we are challenging the veracity of the stories in question. |
|
"The military either protects freedoms -- including questioning the manner in which they protect them -- or it doesn't. "
Well, I believe it does, and I think eleven years gives me a little leeway on the subject.
And if you "feel" like I'm implying that your being unpatriotic, well maybe your sensitivities are correct. I'm sure if I read the history of your comments I wouldn't find one positive thing.
Once again, what positive thing have you done or said to support the military, instead of smearing it? Maybe you could actually answer the question, but I'm sure you'll just go on some diatribe again that avoids my question. |
|
Coincidence?
--------------------------------------
From:
Beauchamp's Blog
http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/
About:
Scott Beauchamp
Location: Schweinfurt, Bavaria, Germany
--------------------------------------
From:
Der Spiegel (Germany), October 27, 2006
SKULL SCANDAL EXPANDS: More Images Implicate German Soldiers in Afghanistan
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445133,00.html
excerpt:
"More images showing German soldiers playing with skulls and bones in Afghanistan have surfaced. The site had been a regular stopping point for patrols. Those who didn't play along were considered wimps. The skull scandal in Germany refuses to go away. Two days after tabloid Bild Zeitung published photos showing German soldiers playing with a skull in Afghanistan, the paper now says it has dozens more photos in its possession -- some of which it plans to publish on Saturday. The new images, the paper says, show soldiers staging an execution with a soldier pointing his pistol at an assembled skeleton. An additional picture shows a skull wearing a German army beret and another shows bones arranged to spell out "CSR-Team" -- the abbreviation for the unit which patrols the area surrounding the German camp. The German television station RTL has also come into possession of new images, including one of a soldier apparently kissing a skull mounted on his left bicep."
|
|
|
He say he's in Maintance as a Mech. Wait, did he say he was working on a Bradley yet he had no idea how to work on it. |
|
is not a bad thing - going into the Army with a mindset that you are going to trash your bothers and sisters in arms is.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven - now more than ever, even before I thought Scott Thomas was fictional, I think that all three of his stories are rumor based fiction. It is clear his intent is to trash everyone in the military, despite his claims to the contrary. If he knows these stories are not true he has an obligation to post a retraction, as these stories are being used to paint all service members as cruel, heartless, defilers of the dead. Surely he has seen members of his squad or company help provide medical attention to civilians, surely he has seen men or women with injuries being treated with the utmost of respect and honor. I just received a picture of a purple heart ceremony and the hospital room is overflowing with buddies there to see the guy get his medal. I have first hand accounts of memorials to fallen soldiers that were SRO - beautiful tributes to the fallen - if Beauchamps stories are true, and I sincerely doubt they are, they are minority reports - in order to be a journalist, you should tell the good with the bad - if your objective is to be a fiction writer, you are under no such obligation - the only obligation you have is to admit it is fiction. |
|
when is the last time you have said or done something positive about or for the troops? What have you done to serve your Nation (the military isn't the only way)?
_____________________________________
No she was asking you a direct question. |
|
Actually, you did imply I was unpatriotic -- you wrote:
when is the last time you have said or done something positive about or for the troops? What have you done to serve your Nation (the military isn't the only way)?
I think the implication is that you assume I have absolutely nothing good to say about the military, and I have probably done little to serve "my Nation" (in caps -- perhaps somewhat like "die Volk"). Neither, obviously, is the case. Then, in this post, you write that people like me feel our patriotism is being questioned when you "question our motives." Well, if you are questioning my motives, isn't that merely way of saying you doubt if I am patriotically making inquiries about the military? If not, what motives do you think I have? How am I both in the wrong and, at the same time, patriotic?
Anyway, I hardly see how turning the question to ME is relevant to the larger issues. The military either protects freedoms -- including questioning the manner in which they protect them -- or it doesn't.
In closing, I will promise to try to grow up and cease any form of sarcasm, as per the friendly advice of "my dear friend" Gracey. Much appreciated. |
|
|
Nice one, I had no idea you could change a tire in RIVER OF CR*P when we know it's mixed with water and everything else. Would not the jack sink into it? |
|
Something is SERIOUSLY wrong on the right wing!
_________________________________________
Sorry but this a LEFT WING problem. This joker makes statements that he so far hasn't backed up.
Now we learn he's seeing a women who works for TNR.
It smells and smells bad! |
|
The story about them changing a flat on the HMMWV is a stream of sewage is, if not fabricated, then a stinging indictment of some critical thinking skills. It would be an indication that this clown might get us all killed.
"Hey, I think we have the right front going flat."
"Well, Beauchamp, I think we need to dismount and change it hear in this river of $h!t. Or we could just get back to the perimeter SINCE THESE ARE EFFING RUN FLATS!" |
|
Manfred,
You’re not very intelligent. I noted that Bob makes good points re:speculation on Beauchamp’s motivations, then followed with a “just for fun” ribbing, ending my post with a smiley face.
Everything else was a joke. What I highlighted was supposed to be illogical, and it points out the silliness of those who think the burden of ‘proof’ is on those asking for proof of the veracity of Thomas’ claims.
It’s not complicated.
At least, it’s not supposed to be complicated.
p.s. Boo! |
|
Grow up, if all you can do to address the few questions I asked is to answer with sarcasm, well my point is made. Isinutating that I am saying your evil, even FURTHER proves my point. People like you always act as if, someone is calling you evil or unpatriotic if you motives are questioned. I'm sure you like kids and dogs, just not the military itself, but hey you have that right.
I never said that the military was perfect (please point out where I did). Just wondering Manfred, do you say all this silly stuff to your "best friend"? |
|
Yep buddy, great American lover.
Were so blessed! |
|
|
|
|
run down the veracity of his story, bo be sure, but there is no good reason to launch a preemptive characer assassination of Beauchamp. So he wanted to be a writer. So what? We all have different motivations when we sign up. The fact is, he is there. Unless and until you prove fabrication, this personal attack horsesh!t is beyond the pale. If it doesn't get proven false, then I think this episode should be enough for Hugh to cut his ties to you. |
|
|
Are you back? As Osama bin Laden issued another communique? So you know now how to proceed? |
|
Ah, we've spent a good deal of time here on the classic "what-have-you-ever-done" question. Me, I've done literally nothing. Not a thing. In fact, I was born with so keen an instinct to undermine America, that even as a small child I used to do things like rob other kids' lemonade stands -- some voice inside my head used to say, "undermine capitalism" -- not that I knew what capitalism is, mind you, when I was 4.
When was the last time I said or did anything postive about the troops. Never. My best friend from college is a Marine, and when we talk, I usually refer to him as "baby-killer," or "old-woman-rapist" or something like that. I also like to push down his kids whenever I get the chance, because, you know, they are growing up on Marine bases, so they are probably goodie-two-shoes, also. Oh, their all girls, too, so they cry, which just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh. (I wish he'd buy a dog -- I could kick it, too).
I suppose it is sort of a good and evil thing -- I am pure evil, and the military is the sole example of a government branch that is flawlessly good. It is amazing that its bureaucracy is so efficient, so without any bumps -- if only every other bureaucracy in the world could follow suit. |
|
...to answer in UNDER 900 words! Good Gawd,these
roaches are WINDY! Self-Important Bloviating, thy name is Bob...errr...Manny...errr....Kimber.
Brevity. |
|
|
|
Okay, since you seem to know ALL about the UCMJ, let me break down your "examples".
1. The CPL (that would be Corporal, because I'm sure you wouldn't know) got a BCD. The JURY heard all the evidence and acquitted him of the premeditated murder charge, but I guess you probably think they are dumb bacause they joined, so they couldn't possible make the right decision. HE DID SERVE JAIL TIME about 14 months to be exact.
2. As for Abu Ghraib, all of the people that participated in the acts were charged and sent to jail. A COLONEL IS a HIGH-RANKING official, but once again you wouldn't get it it, would you? Would you like everyone that is attached to the Unit that was never there charged too? The whole world was watching this case and Army Inspector as well as Congress did an investigation. Some charges were dropped against certain people because of insufficient evidence. Lastly, something else you wouldn't get is that Generals and above just don't hang around the lower enlisted on a day to day basis.
3. The General in the Tilman case, well if you haven't heard, just lost a star for the incident and rightly so. I guess you want prison time too?
What gets me most about people like you, is that you thrive on anything negative about the military which protects you without prejudice. Honestly, when is the last time you have said or done something positive about or for the troops? What have you done to serve your Nation (the military isn't the only way)? Maybe you should spend a little more time being thankful for the freedom we provide, and less trying to smear us. |
|
|
By that logic, we shouldn't believe any news story. If TNR or any other mag cites, say, 3 sources by name, you could just say all 3 of them are lying. We most certainly shouldn't believe any blogger who writes what he or she sees without any confirmation, even if said person is in Iraq. Video can be faked, doctored, edited, so it is out. Audio, same. So why should we believe anything? I'm not even sure TNR really published this story, come to think of it! You can't prove THAT to me either. And, since the entire world is just a figment of my imagination, I don't see how you can prove that you are trying to prove something to me at all. |
|
|
Someone tell James Joyce over there in Iraq that to get to a good, stateside writer's workshop he doesn't need to take a $3 million, infantry squad carrying, dog-stomping tank killer. And I know this sounds totally crazy, but human skull caps are optional, too. |
|
If (and I know it's a big IF) you are not completely impervious to anything that does not conform perfectly to your predispositions and prejudices (that is, if you don't want to be ignored and/or ridiculed as trolls), try informing yourself just a tad before posting at length and repeatedly. In this case, try sampling STB's own blog posts on his ambitions and his personal struggle over whether it would be better not to serve (consistent with his feelings about the war) or better to serve (to gain experience that would lend "authority" to his future writings and opinions).
These statements have already been widely disseminated and dissected - see above posts or, also, for example:
"I know that NOT participating in a war (and such a misguided one at that) should be considered better than wanting to be in one just to write a book...but you know, maybe id rather be a good man than a good artist...be both? Some can and some cant...i guess it all depends on how great an artist, or how great a man they want to be. Sometimes it feels like i have to choose between being totally loyal to thoughts of my future family OR totally loayl to chasing down the muse. must find a middle ground."
Grabbed that from Ace of Spades (http://ace.mu.nu), but you can find your way, if you care to, via michellemalkin.com or hotair.com or Google or lots of other places. I suspect it will be a complete waste of time in your cases, but on the other hand you'll probably find Scott Thomas Beauchamp a congenial spirit.
|
|
Bob,
Fair questions, all. But just to have a little fun, and to apply the standard by which so many seem to defend Scott Thomas Beauchamp's writings:
Please provide proof that what Dean posted is untrue.
Or better yet, I claim now that I am Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Prove that I am not.
;-) |
|
They're fighting to make Iraq a free society after all. But if one of them dares actually exercise their right to free speech and writes something critical, then throw the book at them, question their motives for being in the military in the first place, and try and character assassinate them. No, that's not *too* hypocritical...
|
|
Rip's Flagon says: "[I]t is not much of a stretch for Dean to say [Beauchamp] joined the military to become a writer. Maybe it would have been more accurate for Dean to say that he went to war to bolster his writing. Either way, it's the wrong reason to join the military."
Rip, I joined the military because I was drafted in 5/66 and decided I didn't want to be cannon fodder in Vietnam. So I enlisted for 4 years in order to have some choice as to what I would do in the Army, with the goal of being stationed as far from Southeast Asia as possible. It worked out fine for me: I went to language school, learned German, served for 34 months in what used to be called West Berlin, and came out an E-6, platoon sergeant and section chief. Was my reason for joining the military -- no interest in being shot at -- also a "wrong reason"?
What about all those folks who join because they want to have a college fund after they serve? "Wrong reason"?
What about those who just want to get away from their home towns and see something of the world? "Wrong reason"?
What's the RIGHT reason, Rip? And if there's more than one right reason, who are you to say that the desire to become a writer, or to bolster one's writing skills, isn't one of them?
And by the way, Rip: what, exactly, was YOUR "right reason" for enlisting? (You DID enlist, didn't you?) |
|
How long has young Beauchamp been on active duty? And he is still an E-1? That, my friends, speaks volumes. I suggest NOT using this line and saluting to the crowds:
"Private Scott Beauchamp, reporting for duty!" |
|
1. "Here’s one thing we know for sure about Scott Thomas Beauchamp. He went off to war to become a writer." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS this to be the case? And if there is anything in his writings that shows he "went off to war to become a writer", can you cite anything from his writings that SHOWS he didn't join the Army for any other reason(s) -- e.g., because he wanted to serve his country, because he wanted to travel, because he wanted to obtain (well-hyped) benefits after separation? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
2. "Beauchamp seems more like the poster-boy for the self-esteem generation as it heads off to war. It was all about him, and his simultaneous quests for legitimacy and artist-hood." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS it was "ALL about him and his ... quests"? Again, can you cite anything from his writings that shows he didn't join the Army for any other reason(s)? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
3. Beauchamp "had a decided predisposition to what kind of stories he was going to tell." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS he had this predisposition before he went to Iraq? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
4. Beauchamp "was going to document the absurdity and barbarism of war." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS that before he went to Iraq he had decided to document war's "absurdity and barbarism"? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
5. Beauchamp "decided what his autobiographical story would be before he actually lived it." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS he had decided on his "autobiographical story" before he went to Iraq? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
6. Beauchamp "went to war with the specific goal of ridiculing and belittling the war effort." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS that before he went to Iraq he had formulated this goal? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
7. Beauchamp "wore the uniform as a means by which to make his artistic bones." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS that this was Beauchamp's purpose in joining the Army? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
8. Beauchamp "knew that in making those artistic bones, he would undermine the efforts of his brothers in arms." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS that he knew (or even thought about) undermining his fellow soldiers' efforts? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself.
9. Beauchamp "went to war with the specific purpose of weakening the war effort." Dean -- or anyone else -- can you cite anything from Beauchamp's writings that SHOWS that this was Beauchamp's specific (or even general) purpose in going to Iraq? Please provide precise citations, so anyone who is interested can check for himself. (And Dean, if you can't come up with facts to back this up, you are accusing Beauchamp of treason. Is that what you are inmplying when you say, "there are words that describe his intentions in going to war – very serious words"? An accusation of treason is itself very serious, and not to leveled lightly.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
people who joined the military to make money for college, are they worthy of inclusion in dean's "9/11 generation"? if not, i hope he writes a blog piece -- or better yet, a formal letter to secretary gates -- asking the military to stop using this as an advertising tool. |
|
Obviously he was never alone during any of the "events" that he describes. The truth will come out and it will not be good for Beauchamp no matter what is proven. If any of it turns out to be true, whoever was with him will go down as well. Saying that, I don't know of ANY NCO that would put his career on the line for some PFC that obviously loathes his job and his unit. See, if he had any pride in himself or his unit (if the story was true) he would'nt have acted like that and would have reported everything.
The thing that most of civilians out there don't understand, is that the Military punishes bad behavior ALL the time and yes, even when there isn't a controversy. The Army will go back and investigate all of his written peices and he will be held accountable for ALL of it. Sadly, in the eleven years I was in, I ran into a few Beauchamp types and they hated the military and couldn't wait to get out. No I don't know him, but I know his type. I'm sure he has some bone to pick with his chain of command and selfishly thought that he could write these "stories" for shock value.
Beauchamp will be alone and an outcast, I can assure you of that, and The New Republic will suffer no consequences for it's actions.
Lastly, EVERYONE in the military know that they will be held accountable for what they SAY and what they DO, unlike the civilian world.
P.S. A note to those of you who might say I have no right to say what I'm saying or that I don't know what I'm saying...
I served 11 years in the Navy and served in OIF in 2005 for 8 months(not on a ship), and my husband is there on his second deployment. |
|
MoJOEses,
Don't have to mindread.
--------------------------
From:
"Sir Real Scott Thomas" Blog
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/04/ill-return-to-america-author.html
Excerpt:
"i'll return to america an author: bavarian stories in some sort of rounded metaphysical order...personality death stories intersecting with poesy home memory reflections. You begin with a place and an action and let it carry in every direction till the words are vibrating on the page, dripping in thick robust delapidated barnhouses of adjectives and pronouns...no time for the subtle gray faced calculations of a PERFORMED intimacy...go...but remember what Kerouac forgot: revision is spontaneous also.
a brief coming back to america introduction, stories about soldiers, prositutes, innocent students rendered featherless by dark rivets of experience and the decadence of human pursuits in every vein...and then there's the veins...follow 'em. Cut your wrist let it bleed onto the paper in unique soulpatterns of mindthoughts. after the coming back to america introduction theres sgt. Leclaire with his dick blown off and the house 12 working girl with her stuff blown out in the other direction and both lost darkeyes brooding on prisonfleshes of human animal bodies the bridge across being only that connection spark instant also lost as quickly. a revery of mothertalk and love looks back in the soft american night. the awol in bamberg lying to make himself into someone who can actually touch another persons lips to his heart to feel. a grandma memeory of cracked heavy crystal balls and smoke serpitine around stacks of tarot cards. the smell of the antiseptic physical therapy room filled with limbless veterans, some missing half a face, and one wearing a god bless america t-shirt...of course this was all before the war, but the war is closer here and an everlengthening shadow over my half closed eyes...but this is all in our time, here and coming back to america..." |
|
|
From Scott Thomas' blog: "but I cant do it without getting through this army experience first, which will add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense, etc, " Before the quote he was talking about what he wanted to do with his life: teach history, study etc. So I think it is safe to say that he believed being in the military would further his goals in life by adding "legitimacy." So I think it is not much of a stretch for Dean to say he joined the military to become a writer. Maybe it would have been more accurate for Dean to say that he went to war to bolster his writing. Either way, it's the wrong reason to join the military. Not to mention that if he observed the things he wrote about, he should have gone through chain of command rather than writing about it for TNR. |
|
|
Even if this is proven false, this guy is the new Joe Wilson..... |
|
This seems to fall into the not-supporting-the-troops category. You complain about the left not supporting the troops, well, all the time -- just about anything they do. Now, here is a guy who volunteered, served, risked his life, and his motivation was allegedly to get the life experience you have written is so vital to becoming a writer (which you now treat as an ignoble trade), and he is presented in a somewhat paradoxical way: on the one hand, he is some Machiavellian schemer with a very long-term plan to be a 5th (newspaper) columnist; on the other hand, he is so naive (dare I say stupid) that the poor lad has been taken in by the big, bad leftist media elites. In short, you seem to be lashing out in all directions hoping to connect with one of your wild blows.
So, when it comes to supporting the troops, we mean the ones who clam up and toe the party (literally) line. This guy reports (alleged) atrocities and is instantly vilified. Yet, at each step, his story pans out. Not a soldier, you write. He is. No mass grave you write. Not exactly what he said, and there was a graveyard. He doesn't know anyhing about Bradleys, someone wrote. But his is the unit at FOB Falcon with Bradleys. It does start to sound increasingly difficult to deny. If what he wrote turns out to be true, shouldn't your ire be directed in other directions? Who is the villain -- those who commit atrocities or those who report them? Do you view the people pictured at abu Ghraib as good 'mericans and those who printed the pictures as the bad guys?
I prefer to support the troops who behave honorably -- and those who hold the ones who don't accountable. The latter seem to be rare, especially at the top. |
|
The left. This guy will become a regular writer for any given lefty news, whether it is a blog like the DK or a mag rag like TNR.
Can he write? NO.. Should he be a writer? NO, but is not the criterion for the left. Do you write according to the leftist agend? You are a journalist, an investigative journalist at that... |
|
I think there’s some big middle ground not covered in your two absolute choices:
“…there are two possible scenarios:
1) Beauchamp’s tales are proven; or
2) Beauchamp’s tales are disproven.”
And given the near-impossibility of achieving 2), proving a negative, and the unlikelihood of 1) being the case, 3) seems the most likely:
3) Beauchamp’s tales are never categorically disproven, and he goes on to be a hero of the left like Jesse MacBeth.
I don’t see the whole thing wrecking his life; it’ll make him rich, famous, and much-caressed by the anti-war crowd. So what if he gets a dishonorable discharge? |
|
|
Are you positing that this Beauchamp character and TNR lied? |
|
|
|