John Cole, hate-filled wretch, asks why the right-side bloggers aren’t still dogpiling Scott Beauchamp. Beauchamp is the soldier who wrote several anonymous pieces for the New Republic alleging firsthand witness accounts of our soldiers engaging in rank cruelty and corpse desecration. Righty bloggers immediately jumped on the story, found out Beauchamp’s real identity and that his stories don’t appear to have actually happened.
I don’t have much to say abvout the pieces except that when I first saw them my BS meter exploded. Beauchamp’s stories were exactly the sort of things that give people like Cole that delicious frission that makes them stay in bed just a little bit longer in the morning. When something is that perfect, it’s probably bogus. And, as it happens, Matt Sanchez, who gets a suspicious amount of attention from Cole for a role he once played in a gay porn video (speaking of frission, eh John? Not that there’s anything wrong with that ya big bear ya!), actually went to the nexus of these stories and…well…reported. He asked around and found out two things: 1) One of the stories seems to be a fabrication, and 2) The military is formally investigating at least one of the other stories.
So, Cole’s question, supercilious as it is, has at least one obvious answer. We on the right aren’t neglecting the Beauchamp story. It’s being investigated and we’re content to let the investigation run its course. Simple answer for a simple-minded Cole, right?
For the rest of us there’s a slightly longer answer. See, Beauchamp was never really the story. The story was that it appears The New Republic was for the third time printing things as facts that they has not vetted as factual. Now the reason that particular line of inquiry, which is far from ended, has slowed down is that the folks who can answer those questions have decided to go on vacation for a couple weeks. Franklin Foer, the guy most on the hook for Beauchamp’s stories, is sunning himself on a beach somewhere or doing whatever else he does when he heads away from the office for a while. I’m quite sure when he returns the questions that have already been asked will be pointedly re-asked.
I realize that accepting that the right can be patient and rational in its criticisms is an alien thought to Cole. Then again, having watched him descend into blithering idiocy for a couple years now, I’m not surprised that such a simple concept would have so much trouble finding traction in his brain.
Then again, what do I know? I’m only here because I’m taking a brief break from my service to the “American Taliban”. Now I must really get back to suppressing speech and crushing gay people under walls. Those brave dissenters won’t oppress themselves, right, John?
Twit.
(Via memeorandum – forgot to credit that earlier)
UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein gets up in Cole’s grill. So does Ace. Goldstein is his usual erudite and scathing self. Ace just slices like a hammer.
For my part, well, I rated two updates to Cole’s original post, which is probably not something I should take as a point of pride. Especially since I seem to have made him all tired and, from this sentence, nearly incoherent.
You see, that is how it works- first you deny, then you smear, then you have a linkfest attacking the person, then you shift the goalposts on your accusations, then you smear some more, AND THEN you investigate.
Someone needs a nap! I’d expect an expert like Cole to remember that the investigation in question is a military investigation, and a fairly serious one, that’s barely a week old. I’d expect someone who wants to mock my “patient and rational” contention to know something like that. I suppose I’ll have to live with lowered expectations.
You may notice also that I’m not bothering to contend with whatever Cole’s actually asserting. I applaud Goldstein for his enduring patience in doing so, but you just can’t refute the kind of crazy that Cole’s peddling over there. Sure, you can try but it’s like boxing an armless masochist. You just get tired of beating the stuffing out of them and they like it.
[...] Having served as judge, jury, and executioneer after deeming everything Beauchamp said as a lie, The Sundries Shack claims that they are merely waiting for the investigation to [...]
“The story was that it appears The New Republic was for the third time printing things as facts that they has not vetted as factual.”
Except they weren’t. Try again.
Hilarious. See, Beauchamp was never really the story. Absolutely hilarious.
“I realize that accepting that the right can be patient and rationial in its criticisms is an alien thought to Cole.”
Yes, those sandbox dioramas and claims that is unpossible to run over a dog in a tracked vehicle were very convinving.
Ah yes, the John Cole Brigade. Welcome in, guys. Do forgive me for not addressing your comments in great detail. I’m not sure they’re worth the time to rebut.
And send my best to Mr. “Really Occupied with that Sanchez Video” Cole, would you?
EDIT: Well, there’s one I’ll rebut. Xanthippas, you’re wrong. Stephen Glass is one. Ruth Shalit is two. Looks like Beauchamp is becoming number three.
I don’t have much to say abvout the pieces except that when I first them my BS meter exploded.
Are you quite sure your BS meter is properly calibrated? What did you think of Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN on Saddam’s WMD, for instance?
You may recall that the unanimous UN resolution passed shortly thereafter stipulated Powell’s central argument as fact. Thus, I think the argument, based as it was on the intelligence of a dozen nations and the UN, was pretty compelling.
“I don’t have much to say abvout the pieces except that when I first saw them my BS meter exploded. Beauchamp’s stories were exactly the sort of things that give people like Cole that delicious frission that makes them stay in bed just a little bit longer in the morning. When something is that perfect, it’s probably bogus.”
Hmm – well, TNR has corroborated with 5 other soldiers. See here
And now, a soldier serving his country, putting his life at risk, writing TRUE articles, is prevented from even communicating with his family, because of you and your group’s intimidation.
congrats on that.
Corroborated, huh?
Like they corroborated the story that Beauchamp said took place in Iraq, but actually took place months before in Kuwait and involved one other person instead of a whole bunch?
Yeah…some corroboration.
BY any chance, are those five different soldiers, or the same soldier five separate times?
I tell you what. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to our soldiers that they’re not cruel-hearted monsters. You give the benefit of the doubt to a publication that’s been burned big-time by liars twice that they didn’t get burned again.
I don’t have much to say abvout the pieces except that when I first them my BS meter exploded.
It looks like your BS meter needs recalibrating. TNR has just posted that everything Beauchamp wrote has been confirmed by five soldiers in his unit.
I assume you’ll be apologising for slandering TNR and Beauchamp? Or will you spin away desperately and breathlessly tell us that the real story all along was…wait, what’s your storyline again? The unpatriotic font TNR used?
Apparently, merely enlisting in the Army is enough to make the nicest boy mock a disfigured woman just for fun. I recommend the immediate dismantling of our armed forces.
Some sort of mind-control must be at work, I suspect. Maybe something sprayed onto the uniform fabric?
BTW, I always laugh when I hit the Daily Gut. You guys deserve to be a lot bigger than you are.
Like they corroborated the story that Beauchamp said took place in Iraq, but actually took place months before in Kuwait and involved one other person instead of a whole bunch?
More hilarity. Cole predicted this was exactly the line you would take.
I agree that our soldiers aren’t all cold hearted monsters.
I’m not so sure about you.
Well, if the story is about how the horrors of war deadened this young man’s mind and turned him into some kind of savage, wouldn’t it help if that incident had occurred AFTER he went to Iraq? If that’s the wrong “line” to take, you’d be doing us a favor by specifying the correct one.
Yeah, Cole’s a wonder, all right.
Of course that’s the line I’d take because that’s the only line that makes sense. Sure, you could get me to believe something else, but you’d have to lobotomize me first.
But tell me which “line” is the correct one? Or ask Cole and come back here and tell me what you’re supposed to say.
Yet To Be Answered Questions:
Assuming that there was a corpse-desecrating soldier, did he wear the “skullcap” all day? Did he wear it underneath his helmet? Debunkers of the story contend that that detail is impossible because of the helmet’s tight fit.
Is it possible to deliberately run over a dog in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle using the maneuver described in Foer’s latest posting?
How does an impartial observer validate the existence of the five other anonymous corroborators? How do you know that they corroborate Beauchamp if you don’t print their statements?
I’ve avoided this whole thing until tonight — pressed for time. So I need some help understanding, based on what I’ve seen, why anyone would think the TNR is not either completely red-handed guilty of fabrication or/and red-faced about being either duped and lazyu or at being caught at it. It boggles the mind that people would actually be excusing them. It’s legit to point out overreaction, if there is any, but I mean really …. the benefit of the doubt has to stop SOMEWHERE, huh? If not here, then where?
“It boggles the mind that people would actually be excusing them.”
You’re a trusting soul.
So one incident happened in Kuwait rather than Iraq. But it happened. It makes Private Beuachamp guilty of what? Misplacement? Poor editing? Bad memory?
His memory is rock solid compared to the likes of Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and pretty much every Bush Administration Justice Department official who appeared on television in the past year.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i.....rial080207
The New Republic’s statement on this.
jon – That’s the thing. It happened in Kuwait. It involves the author and one other soldier, not an entire mess tent full of soldiers. It happened before the author ever went “to war” instead of being a result of what war does to the soul of a soldier which was the whole freaking point of the piece.
It was a fairy tale. An exaggeration whose details were changed to deceive.
In short. It was a lie. Are you getting that yet?
I’m aware that TNR has issued a statement. I don’t particularly care about it. Did you not get that I’ve written exactly one post about this whole thing because I found the whole thing to be an invention from the very beginning? But please, feel free to accept the word of a publication that’s twice been deceived by journalists making stuff up. While yuo’re doing that, though, let me hold your wallet, okay?
The Right supports the troops, but hate the soldiers.
They also love corporations, but hate the workers.
Ditto for America and Americans.
Accurate and relevant!
Exactly, Robert. You have hit upon the very center of the entire issue. Republicans hate soldiers and workers!
Did you take a break from curing cancer and putting the finishing polish on the Theory of Everything to comment here?
I’ve been watching Dean Barnett’s “patient rationale” of Scott Beauchamp over at TownHall.com and it. is. HILARIOUS. The spin! The contortion! The equivocating! It’s all right there in loud rightwing glory-hounding, and then……nuthin’.
Could it be the fact that their only non-anonymous counter to Beauchamp is under investigation by the military for FRAUD and LYING? I mean, besides being a gay porn star who is given a pass from the right so as to smear a REAL soldier.
OR is it because Dean can’t follow through on anything that involves lugging his fat …..well, can’t follow through on anything that involves actual fact-finding and investigating before he piles on.
And I thank Cole for linking to this site. I always get a kick out of reading what Wingnuttiites are spinning out of whole cloth (usually it’s hateful and tantrummy, but never dull).
Kimberly, you’ll have to tell me exactly what I’m making up “whole cloth” because, to my knowledge, not a single thing I’ve written is a fabrication.
Unlike a certain soldier’s alleged “reporting”.
Oh, and how is it important that Matt Sanchez was in a gay porn video? Your hero Cole is the one who squawks about folks like me being the “American Taliban” yet he seems mighty darned quick to point out Sanchez’ sexual proclivities. Projecting, perhaps? Or just a hypocrite.