Archive for the ‘Nutroots’ Category

The TNR shuffle

August 22, 2007

H/T to Brennan at The American Pundit.

Well, The New Republic has finally said something about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle.  But, don’t get your hopes up.  They aren’t confessing their failings.  

Nope.  Instead, Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at TNR, decided to come out taking shots at Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard for one of his editorials on 7/30/07, “They Don’t Really Support the Troops.”

Two progressive magazines have taken complementary approaches in this effort. In its July 30 issue, the Nation has a 24-page article based on interviews with 50 Iraq veterans. The piece allegedly reveals “disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq”–indeed, it claims that the war has “led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis.” Needless to say, the anecdotal evidence in the article comes nowhere close to supporting this claim. There are a few instances of out-of-control behavior, some routine fog-of-war and brutality-of-war incidents, and much that is simply trivial. The picture is unpleasant, as one would expect–but it comes nowhere close to living up to the authors’ billing: “The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise.”

Since the Nation has held this view of every American war (except when we were fighting side-by-side with Stalin’s Soviet Union), and loves nothing more than accounts of American war crimes, its story is no surprise. At least they interviewed real soldiers on the record. The New Republic, in its July 23 issue, takes a different tack. Its slander of American soldiers appears to be fiction presented as fact, behind a convenient screen of anonymity.   more… 

And, how does TNR, via Chait, respond?  I suppose it is all in how he wraps up his diatribe (emphasis mine)…

Kristol’s good standing in the Washington establishment depends on the wink-and-nod awareness that he’s too smart to believe his own agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing.

I know the irony can’t be lost on readers that Chait has the audacity to speak of “a fake thug” after the discredited Scottie Beauchamp by whom TNR was duped.

Hello!  Jonathan?  Do you care to finally confess to the fact that you were duped by Beauchamp?

My previous posts on TNR and Scottie are here, here, here, here, here and here.

How to dupe The New Republic…

August 20, 2007

Scott Thomas Beauchamp via Gateway Pundit Elspeth Reeve from her time at the Missouri School of Journalism? Franklin Foer  by Taisie Berkely via HarperCollins

Scott Beauchamp – Elspeth Reeve – Franklin Foer

H/T to Brennan at The American Pundit. 

Richard Miniter at Pajamas Media has the scoop on how Scott Thomas Beauchamp took TNR for a ride.  

An insider-turned-whistleblower and the fabricator’s former fiancée, as well as other sources, have spoken to PajamasMedia.com—providing a plethora of new details that raise new questions.

Those questions include: Did the fabricator’s wife, Elspeth Reeve, fact-check her husband’s articles? Did her staff position make other fact-checkers go easy on him? Why didn’t Reeve’s knowledge of Beauchamp’s character and history make her skeptical of his work? (Remember the old journalist saw: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”) Did Foer’s friendship with Beauchamp affect the fact-checkers or provoke Foer to defend him in the face of mounting evidence? And, why was the whistle-blower the only New Republic staffer to be fired? Finally, what does the magazine intend to do to ensure that it does not get fooled again?   more…

Come to think of it, since Franklin Foer still refuses to own up to the debacle that is so clear to everyone but most of his TNR staff and him, I guess you could say that Scottie is still taking them for a ride.

Richard’s article at Pajamas Media is kind of long but it is full of interesting details that I am sure many readers will find interesting.

So many questions, so few answers.  Hello, Franklin?  Any response for us on how you can get duped so easily and so many times?  Or, is refusing to admit that it happened to you going to be the plan going forward still?

VOJ prior posts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp are here, here, here, here, here and here.

Others posting on this:  Michelle Malkin /

Beauchamp: No! I was lying to TNR, not to the U.S. Army, really!

August 7, 2007

 

UPDATE:  Op-For has another e-mail from Col. Steven Boylan regarding the findings of the military investigation.  Yes.  It is a “He said, she said” sort of thing, because it is now all internal.

Michael Goldfarb responds to the TNR excuse with questions that still beg to be answered.  Come on TNR.  He only asks for three points to be clarified.  You can do it.

The Army disputes all of Scottie’s claims as Dan Riehl points out. 

The U.S. Army is disputing all of the claims made by former University of Missouri-Columbia student Scott Beauchamp in essays for The New Republic about his experiences in the Iraq war, according to the results of the military’s internal investigation. 

Now, Dan, why wouldn’t TNR want to let the Chicago Tribune article “stand as the definitive mainstream media record on the Scott Beauchamp affair”?  It’s not like they have anything to hide after their rigorous “fact-checking”.  Or, is it that they don’t have anything to lose now that they have ridden this into the ground? Hmmmm?

************************************

UPDATE:   Well, TNR has responded to the news, in typical TNR fashion.  I would expect no less.

We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”

The Editors

And, that’s that – hold on until the bitter end and go down with the ship.

Hot Air has a Fox News video on the news on Scott Beauchamp.

Bob Owens has some parting thoughts on TNR’s excuses.

***********************************

UPDATE:  Click over an d read Black Five.

********************************

UPDATE:  Ace of Spades has the inside track on Scott Beauchamp’s memoirs, with reviews no less, that he got from Jessica’s Well

Ross Douthat holds a different view than others looking over the Beauchamp controversy.  I don’t really agree with much he is saying.  But, it is a different perspective, I guess.

Anybody heard from the Leftosphere, yet, like DU, DK, HuffiPo, FDL, etc.?

***********************************

UPDATE:  Is it just me or is everyone else having a hard time finding a response from the Leftosphere on Scottie’s recantation?  I’ve looked at the DKos, HuffiPo, DU, FDL, etc.  Is it taking them that long to carefully word their story.  Well, maybe it will be more plausible than Scottie’s was, when they get finished.  I’m not holding out too much hope for that.  But, they could surprise me.

********************************** 

TNR 2-DVD Set 

Cool PhotoShop via Suitability Flip.  I suspect, quantities may be limited.

While TNR folks are still on a sabatical, possibly contemplating how they could save some face on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga, the wannabe-author has recanted his stories.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.

Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”     more…

Michael Goldfarb leaves us with parting questions…

Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?

Yes.  Now, let’s think about this.  Did Scottie lie to TNR, who likely paid him a token amount for his creative writing and cannot prosecute him for lying to them?  Or, did he lie to the United States Army, by whom he is employed and can jail his sorry butt, if he does not tell them the truth? 

As for me, my money is on him having lied to TNR.  Like Michelle Malkin asks: “How’s that vacation going, TNR editors?”  Restful, I hope.  It looks like you are going to need it.

I wonder if Phoenix Woman and the rest of her cohorts at FDL are reading up on Scottie’s admissions.  Strangely enough, I bet they smell a conspiracy and have convinced themselves that he was coerced into making a damning admission.  It would be right down their leftist alley.

Ace of Spades makes a pretty good summation, along with breaking out the cool flaming skull

The “ludicrous” Goldfarb/Michelle Malkin/Ace of Spades front ludicrously blundered into the ludicrous truth of the ludicrous matter. 

Yep.  I bet more than just that skull will be smoking in the Leftosphere for a bit.

Baldilocks weighs in:

May we who doubted Scott Beauchamp’s stories be allowed a snarky “we told you so?” Yes, I think so. 

Allahpundit is still not satisfied with the status of this issue.

According to Goldfarb. No independent evidence is offered aside from the recantation itself so we’re where I thought we’d be two days ago — with a confirmed liar and no way of proving which side he’s lying to.

Non-Party Politics offers a quote from Al Franken (How ironic is it that Franken’s words come back on a fellow Lefty?).

“Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them.”

An Army Lawyer weighs in with the legal aspects of it, or lack thereof for Scottie.

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.

And since the PAO has said that it found no evidence of criminal conduct (again, fakey stories about misconduct is harder to quantify as criminal than is a failure to report ACTUAL misconduct), that whatever happens will be administrative in nature.  more…

What will eventually happen to Beauchamp?  Your guess may be as good as mine.  But, I would like to hear the Leftosphere’s spin on Scottie’s recantation.  Maybe they will surprise me.  I doubt it.  But, maybe they will.

Others posting on this topic:  Bill’s Bites / Protein Wisdom / The Fighting GOP / The Fighting GOP / Cao’s Blog / Getting Paid to Watch / Instapundit / Mark Steyn / John Podhertz / Bill Quick / Cadillac Tight / Confederate Yankee / Lifelike PunditsFlopping Aces / Power Line / Law Hawk / Patterico / Little Green Footbals / Gay Patriot / Ross Douthat / Rick Moran / Ann Althouse / Don Surber

Dick Durbin’s disappearing YouTube video to YearlyKos

August 6, 2007

H/T to Michelle Malkin

Sen. Dick Durbin 

It would seem that Sen. Dick “Dastardly” Durbin sent a video presentation to the nutroots at the YearlyKos, soon to the be the Netroots Nutroots Nation.  The problem is, the second-ranking Democrat leader in the Senate used the official seal of the U.S. Senate, a no-no for Senate members.  And, to make matters worse, it is using Durbin’s campaign website address for the video.  Tsk, tsk, Senator!

Anne Leary has more on it. 

In his video presentation to the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL),the second-ranking Dem leader in the Senate, appears to have violated Senate ethics rules. Dick Durbin either broke Senate ethics rules by improperly using the Senate seal on a campaign video, or he used official resources to produce the video and then his campaign used that video.

And apparently our stellar Senator Durbin has now realized this himself, as he has changed the wording on his YouTube channel after the fact. Look at the before screenshot campaign wording on the channel title “Dick Durbin for Senate” and the page says “All the latest videos from Senator Dick Durbin’s election campaign”. The url is the campaign website, not the official one, and you can see the U.S. Senate seal superimposed on the frozen video screen.

So, can you check out the video on YouTube for yourself.  Nope.  It seems that it disappeared.  Now you see it!  Now you don’t! 

Ah!  But, it hasn’t all gone away…

Durbin's YouTube webpage capture

So much for those pesky Senate Ethics Rules:

Official resources may only be used for official purposes. This principle derives in large part from 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), providing that official funds are to be used only for the purposes for which appropriated, as well as from statutory authorizations for allowances. 418 It is thus inappropriate to use any official resources to conduct campaign or political activities. (Senate Ethics Manual, Chapter 6, Campaign Use of Official Resources, p 153)

Others posting on this topic: Dan Curry / No Agenda / American Pundit /

Well, at least the Leftosphere is a consistent lot

August 6, 2007

UPDATE:  Instapundit on the Washington Post article in the last update:

A “sea of middle-aged white males.”  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

Nope.  Nothing wrong with it, I don’t guess, Doc.  But, the Instawife may want to keep an eye on you if you get the hankering to go to the Netroots Nutroots Nation convention next year.  😉

Apparently, Ann Althouse liked Instapundit’s blurb too.  The photo of which Ann and her readers are speaking…

via LaShawn Barber

Is it just me or does the young lady in the center front (in front of Clinton) look like she just got groped by the former-president?  Maybe the lady to her right too? 

*****************************

UPDATE:    Jose Antonio Vargas at the Washington Post has an article out today titled “A Diversity of Opinion, if Not Opinionators.”   One of the more interesting things I found in the article was a statement on the makeup of the YearlyKos group.

It’s Sunday, day 4 of Yearly Kos, the major conference for progressive bloggers, and Gina Cooper, the confab’s organizer-in-chief, surveys the ballroom of the massive McCormick Place Convention Center. A few hundred remaining conventioneers are having brunch, dining on eggs, bagels and sausage.

Seven of the eight Democratic presidential candidates have paid their respects this weekend, and some 200 members of the credentialed press have filed their stories. A mere curiosity just two years ago, the progressive blogosphere has gone mainstream. But Cooper sees a problem.

“It’s mostly white. More male than female,” says the former high school math and science teacher turned activist. “It’s not very diverse.”

There goes the open secret of the netroots, or those who make up the community of the Internet grass-roots movement.   read more…

So, let me get this straight.  The progressive blog movement is comprised, for the most part, by white, middle-aged men?  What are they, a bunch of guys suffering a mid-life crisis hoping to pick up hot young liberal women casting their inhibitions to the wind?  Well, I guess it is a movement reminiscent of the 60’s.  Okay.  That answered that question for me.

And, this according to the same Washington Post article…

…Markos “Kos” Moulitsas Zuniga did five years ago, and bloggers either join the discussion or not. For two years now, Moulitsas has lent his name to the conference. But on Saturday, Cooper announced that next year the event will be called “Netroots Nation.”   read more…

Now, why would Markos decide to take his name out of such obvious association with the gathering?  In all reality, the Nutroots Nation is a movement that is moving more into the mainstream.  It makes me curious, I guess, why he is backing away from it.

LaShawn Barber shares his thoughts on the matter of “liberals complaining about the lack of skin color-only diversity at their own gatherings.”

******************************

H/T to Michelle Malkin

Did you think the nutroots would tone back their anti-military rhetoric, after seeing TNR taking a tumble with the Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle?  Well, they didn’t.  But, at least they are consistent in voicing their disdain for our troops.

A. Whitney Brown, a reject from Saturday Night Live and Kos Diarist, has felt compelled to share his diatribe against our troops.  Here are some of the more defining excerpts (emphasis mine):

“Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex.” 

“I mean I am involuntarily, under threat of prison, forced to pay for their support.” 

“Other countries pay taxes, but they get something for it, like health care. What do I get? I get to kill a bunch of Iraqis.” 

“But I have paid hundreds of dollars in taxes over my lifetime, hundreds of dollars, and I don’t have so much as a single picture of an Iraqi child that I paid to have killed. It would be nice to just have something, you know,  to remember them by…. a picture, a lock of hair, perhaps a necklace of ears… So yes, I resent my support for the killing of Iraqis for which I get not even a memento or trophy.” 

“But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.” 

“So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country.”

Yes, Mr. Brown, it is a good thing you “live in a free country.” 

Were he to live in a socialist country, like he obviously wants America to be, he would have already been shot, hanged, etc.  In America, we get to listen to him bash the men and women in uniform that keep this country free and our nation sovereign, so he can spread his hatred for his protectors. 

Of course, Brown isn’t the only nutroot over at the Daily Kos demeaning our men and women in uniform.  The Angry Rakkasan, who intimates that the soldier that Jon Soltz shouted down at the YearlyKos convention was somehow a poster child for the “lowering of Army enlistment standards”.   And, it just so happens that the diarist works for Soltz at VoteVets.org.

All of this, even after Markos himself has tried to reign in the nutroots diarists at the Daily Kos.

I’m with Michelle on this one: “Hillary? Obama? John Edwards? Any comment?”

One of my favorite t-shirts comes to mind, as I read over all of this insanity from the Lefotshpere:

via ThoseShirts.com

Yes.  Just imagine. 

For some reason, it just brings this image to mind, when I keep reading up on all of the stuff from the YearlyKos.

via 0cents Images

****************************** 

Others posting on this topic:  Rick Moran / Alexander / Did You See This? / Hennessy’s View / Bill’s Bites / InstapunditIMAO / Blogs of War / Mudville Gazette / Political Party Poop / Right Truth / Political Vindication / Webloggin’ / Captain’s Quarters / Conservative Times / Michael P.F. Van Der Galien / Blue Crab Boulevard /

Did global warming impact the YearlyKos?

August 3, 2007

UPDATE:  Pajamas Media has exclusive video of the soldier and his time at the YearlyKos.  It’s a good thing.  Kos’ own recording of the incident wasn’t very good on quality, making it hard to hear just how the soldier was treated.

 *****************************************

It must have, based on the “[m]eltdown at the YearlyKos“.  From The American Prospect:

As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage,

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you’re not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn’t, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can’t speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice.

It’s amazing how Kos’ opinion changed on the wearing of the military uniform at such an event, after a post last month in favor of it.  I guess the wind had changed directions again and they needed to go the other way on the issue, to suit their immediate situation.

Others posting on this topic:  Allahpundit, Little Green Footballs, Jawa Report, ExUrbanLeague, This Ain’t Hell, Instapundit (and here), Pajamas Media

TNR finally realizes that Scott Beauchamp wasn’t telling it quite like it happened

August 2, 2007

UPDATE:  H/T to Michelle Malkin for this update.   

Father Paul McNellis details options for Scott Beauchamp at The Democracy Project

Black Five concurs with the Father McNellis.

Confederate Yankee reports that the U.S. Army is still trying to find that elusive “disfigured woman” of whom Beauchamp wrote. 

Where?  Oh, where could she be?  Have they looked inside Beauchamp’s head?

Do you think TNR staff will come back from the important vacation in time to help find her?  Don’t hold your breath.

******************************** 

UPDATE: Power Line weighs in on Scottie’s literary license. 

********************************

UPDATE: Well, it’s official, folks.  We right-wingers have overreacted.  HuffiPo has found Beauchamp’s mystery woman to be “only one minor error” in his story.  Thank goodness for Max Blumenthal and the folks at HuffiPo to show us the errors in our critique of Scottie’s journalistic ethics and letting us know that we shouldn’t be concerned with such a “minor” oversight on his part, at least the one that TNR has admitted, so far.

This reminds me of a post I had on 7/23/07 about Penelope Trunk, another HuffiPo contributor, educating us on how “it’s always in the context of the journalist’s story, not the speaker’s story.”  In other words, it’s not always the truth, as long as it is the writer’s truth. 

Now do you get it?  Apparently we are just being too critical of Scottie.  His truth doesn’t have to be the way it actually happened, as long as it is his “story”.

***********************************

UPDATE:  Myra Langerhas, a reader/commenter at Michelle Malkin’s site, has a good interpretation of TNR’s supposed “fact-checking” abilities.

TNR also established that some troops did, in fact, run over and kill a dog with a Bradley. How, you ask? Well after consultation with Bradley manufacturers and with numerous veterinarians, they have determined that if you run over a dog with a Bradley, it will die.

They also confirmed the existence of a mass children’s grave after finding 2 yo-yo’s, a popped balloon and a Kurdish edition of Dr. Seuss.

These guys are the pros, people, don’t question them.

*********************************

(H/T to Michelle Malkin)

Well, at least they realize part of it.  TNR does admit that at least one fact slipped past their fact-checkers (emphasis mine). 

Beauchamp’s essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: “We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right.”

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

Ooops!  I hate that the folks at TNR missed that minor substantial point in the grand scheme of Scottie’s…..errr…..reporting.

Camp Buehring is just slightly removed from where Beauchamp was to have allegedly seen and mocked a “disfigured woman”, like a whole other country removed.  That darned geography.  It must not have been Scottie’s forte in school.

Even in TNR’s latest statement, they say that Beauchamp’s writing “was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war.”  Well, there goes that idea, TNR!

Let’s break this down even farther.  Shall we?  TNR also comes clean and tells us that “the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq.” 

Hello!?  Beauchamp had not even gotten to FOB Falcon.  He was still in a staging area, waiting to go into Iraq.  So, his vile and reprehensible behavior towards an unknown “disfigured woman” he claims to have seen “nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq”, if not a fictional character, was in another country, well before he was “morally” and “emotionally” distorted by the “effects of war”, a war which is not being fought in Kuwait.  You understand the significance of this little fallacy in his writing for TNR, right?

Yo, Scottie!  When you ask yourself that question about being a “monster”, you may want to answer in the affirmative but not because of the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”, just too much time on your nut-root hands at Camp Buehring.

One of Michelle’s Active-duty Army readers shares his thoughts on why the “disfigured woman” is now, suddenly in Camp Buehring, instead of the Forward Operating Base, since no one else could “corroborate” her being there.

There is a good reason why Beauchamp chose Camp Buehring as the place to relocate his “disfigured woman” tale: it is a way station for units deploying into Iraq, and, besides a small cadre, very few people spend more than 2-3 weeks there, making it difficult for anyone to contradict him and the buddy who backs him up. It is silly, of course, since it means his cruelty towards his fellow man began before he heard his first shot, but most civilians would not know the transient nature of Buehring and it makes the water cloudier for those who wish to defend him.

TNR considers this “error” outright fabrication a slight “mistake”?  So much for TNR’s “rigorous editing and fact-checking.”  It makes one wonder what they think it would take to constitute a real screw-up on their part. 

Another country?  Before deployment to the theater of war?  Mistake?  Error? 

Do you think Scottie is sitting there scratching his head wondering why “fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters”?  I don’t think it would take a genius to figure that one out, Scottie.

I’m with Ace of Spades.  What would this alleged disfigured woman be doing in a Forward Operating Base? 

Bryan Preston asks a good question too – “Where is that stratified mass grave?”

Like Matt Sanchez points out, “I’d like to see the list of military experts TNR consulted prior to publishing the story”, since Matt “spoke with the Army PAO, they confirmed that prior to the publication in The New Republic, the PAO had never spoken to anyone from that publications editorial staff.”

There’s that “rigorous editing and fact-checking” that makes the folks at TNR “place great weight on the corroborations” they have received. 

I can’t imagine why the Army would cut the liberal press’ investigation short.  TNR did such an awesome job from the start on this one. 

Yeah, boy!  Uh-huh! 

And, just as an aside………… Hello, Phoenix Woman?  In this blog post are some more of my “thoughts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp“.  I didn’t want you to run into the problem of having to be “poking about the VOJ” to find the links to them, like you did last time, and feel the need to confuse me with a purveyor of hate-speech, again, because you could not locate them.  Enjoy the read!

Prior posts from me on Scott Thomas Beauchamp are herehere and here.

Others posting on this issue: Stephen Spruiell, John Noonan, Junkyard Blog, Michael Goldfarb, Dean Barnett, Baldilocks, Political Animal, Bill’s Bites, Wake up America, Solomonia, Bookworm Room, Steven Spruiell, Mark Steyn

You’re off the hook, Michelle. Now, I’m supposed to be the purveyor of hate speech.

August 1, 2007

UPDATE:

Now I have been moved from the status of Michelle Malkin’s “good friend” to that of a “little one“.  I wish the left could get this straight, give me a descriptor and stick with it. 

Of course, my new handle comes from the Culture Warriors.  Check out their bios.  They look to be an impressive lot.  

Enjoy the reading.  It doesn’t appear that you will find any sorrow for the “hate speech” that generated from the left-nuts over John Roberts illness, just smirks because the left’s actions were pointed out for everyone to see. 

******************************* 

Well, it looks as though I am off the Christmas card list of the Phoenix Woman and the other fine compassionate souls over at her blog. 

Ooops!  Wait a moment.  There I am, in my vast right-wing, fundamentalist mind, jumping to conclusions that they even believe in Christ and Christmas.  Would it be a winter solstice card list or something then?  Hmmm?

But, I digress.  Back to the rat killin’, so to speak, from this “nameless fellow.”   Yes, Phoenix Woman, it is in the singular.  😉

So, it appear that Phoenix Woman is upset because she has “gone poking about” my blog looking for my insights on Scott Thomas Beauchamp and ended up at one of my posts on the debunked wannabe “author”.  Too bad she didn’t find her way on down to the bottom of that post to find links to some of my other posting on Scottie.  From there she might have found another of my posts on the significant other (a.k.a. Scottie) of a TNR staffer. 

Did Phoenix Woman make the extra few clicks of the mouse to get to anything else on my blog?  I’m afraid not.  Instead, she used her allusion to research as some uncorroborated segue into how I  and the “the right-wing blog aggregators” haven’t told conservatives to not speak of Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s articles stories lies about what is going on in Iraq.  Poor research?  Should I have expected more?  Probably not but, naively, I did.

Phoenix Woman has also decided that I am a purveyor of hate speech and refers to me as Michelle Malkin’s “good friend”. I suppose she makes this allusion, because Michelle regularly gets accused of being such by the left-nuts.  Of course, Michelle, unlike me, gets hate mail from left-nuts making lewd references to her race, religion, sexual practices, etc.  Rick Moran and she are accused of allowing hate filled comments on her blog by readers.  Not that one might not slip through now and then.  But, they are usually on top of monitoring what is allowed as offensive comments go. 

But, again, I am digressing.  As for me being Michelle’s “good friend”, we have neither met nor spoken to one another.  We do have similar views on some issues and diverging opinions on others, which get linked through trackbacks between our blogs.  I certainly take no offense in being considered her “good friend.”  She is an intelligent, articulate lady that knows how to research her topics, unlike the futile attempts of some that will remain unnamed. 

Now, did I allow any comments on my site wishing ill will toward Scottie Beauchamp?  None that I can remember.  Did I make any allusion to bad things I would like to see happen to him?  No. 

But, you have the links above for my posts on “Scott Thomas”, later determined, after coming out of hiding, to be Scott Thomas Beauchamp.  Check for yourself. 

Can I speak for anyone else on the right side of the blogosphere?  No.

Oh, yes.  It almost slipped my mind that I was also chastized by Phoenix Woman for my post on Justice John Roberts‘ recent trip to the hospital, after suffering a benign idiopathic seizure.  Why?  Well, by chance, I ran across hate-filled diatribes by leftist nuts commenting at Dem Und, Wonkette, Think Progress about the evils they were wishing would befall the Chief Justice of the United States.  I guess I did allude to the supposed compassion, tolerance, etc. that the leftist always dribble on about that was not apparent in the rantings I cited. 

That link from Instapundit, referencing what I had found, drove quite a bit of traffic to my post on the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, the one Phoenix Woman found so offensive. 

Why did she find it so offensive?  I don’t know.  Look for yourself and see if you can figure it out.  Do you suppose she thinks Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. Instapundit) is an outlet for “hate speech” too?  I wouldn’t be surprised if she does.  But, alas, Professor Reynolds has not been named by her as such, yet. 

Will I apologize for citing the “hate speech” comments made by their cohorts?  Uh, no. 

I can just feel the love and compassion in some of them.  Can’t you?

Dear God,

Please release Satan’s hand-maiden, John Roberts, from his worldly cares and allow him to join once again with the Prince of Darkness in the lowest reaches of Hell.

We pray this in the name of your son, our lord, Jesus.

Amen.

Did I mention a little blasphemy that was thrown in there from time to time? 

Does that mean I am part of “the Republican base”, as Phoenix Woman intimates?  I guess, if she had “gone poking about” my blog a little more, she would see that I condemn any politician, Democrat or Republican, for their misdeeds.  But, I don’t suppose that would have been convenient for a half-baked argument to try to paint me as a Republican hack, now would it? 

Now, in the interest of disclosure, I am a very staunch conservative, socially and fiscally.  By platform, more than anything partisan, I tend to have to agree with Republicans more than Democrats. 

Do I vote Republican?  More so than not, but I vote my conscience and with whom I believe most closely aligns with my conservative beliefs.  

Do I end up voting for non-Republican candidates?  Yep. 

Do I end up voting for the lesser of two evils a lot?  You betcha, just like a lot of others.

All this said and done, hate speech by anyone is wrong – left or right, Democrat or Republican or Independent – but it does seem to generate much more frequently from the left than the right.  But, again, it is wrong, no matter from whom it comes.

By the way, Phoenix Woman, thanks for visiting the Volunteer Opinion Journal!  Come on back now.  Ya hear?  🙂

Stupidity is not an excuse… a symptom, maybe, but not an excuse

July 31, 2007

UPDATE: Lt. Col. Patrick wrote me with a correction, because he had been credited with something for whom credit should go to Mr. Terry Trippany with his NewsBuster article. 

A correction. The quote attributed to me is actually from Mr. Terry Trippany and his NewsBuster piece. My insight on this issue was this portion from my milblog:“Poor judgement by choreographer Robson to use the show to express anti-war opinion. People tuned in to watch dancers and escape the war news. As for Michaels, I think she honestly just didn’t know the significance of the uniform or even know that she was wearing a part of the Marine tradition and history. I heard her apology last night and think she just made a mistake and meant no offense to The Corps. But that doesn’t excuse her or all the people who saw her wearing it and didn’t step in and let her know about the mistake.

Props to the TV audience for not letting these inappropriate displays go unchecked”.

Thanks for the opportunity to give credit where credit is due.

Patrick

Thank you for the correction, Colonel.  You are an honorable man to make sure credit is distributed properly.  We need more men like you in this world.

******************************************************************

H/T to Terry Trippany at NewsBusters.

According to the NB post, the Fox Network show “So You Think You Can Dance?” aired with Mia Michaels, one of the judges, wearing a blouse with an upside down Marine emblem on the sleeves. 

Much to her supposed surprise, people were offended by her wearing the symbols upside down.  Mia tries to make amends via TV Guide (emphasis mine).

Emmy-nominated choreographer Mia Michaels thought she was going to have a wonderful day. She woke up this morning to find hundreds of messages posted on her website. “And I thought, wow, I must’ve been a really good judge last night,” says Michaels. But then she opened the messages and was shocked by their tone and content. “It was hate mail,” she says simply. “Saying things like, ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.’ It was really intense. It was awful.”

The writers were responding to a jacket worn by Michaels on Wednesday’s show. She had no idea that anyone would be offended by it, she says. She simply thought she was being fashionable by wearing a navy blue military jacket that happened to have a Marine emblem, upside down, on the sleeves.

After hearing the feedback, Michaels tried to make amends on the air. “I understand why people were upset and I respect that,” she says. “That symbol is sacred to the Marines, it’s what they earned. The problem needed to be addressed and I’m glad we addressed it. That’s why I made a public apology.”

Can you feel the heartfelt intent of that “apology”?  No?  Good!  I thought it was just me.  Hello, Mia?!  When someone says, “You should be ashamed of yourself.”, that is not “hate”.   Now, had they said they wanted you to “go render and torture yourself anally with a large object, because you are too stupid to be let loose in society”, that might be considered hateful.  But, what you have cited is someone disagreeing with your disparaging misrepresentation of the Marines.

And, on the same night, to add insult to injury, and I am sure by some strange shear coincidence, Wade Robeson and Mia Michaels had 10 anti-war dance solos by the contestants. 

Now, you know it had to be a coincidence that Mia wore something offensive to military personnel on the same night that they had anti-war dance solos.  Let’s keep an open mind, folks…  Just kidding!  Sounds pretty open and shut to me.

Video from the show circus is available at Weblogging, if you want to check it out. 

Michelle Malkin has more, along with the an image of Mia wearing the garment in question.

Lt. Col. Patrick at Duty in the Desert shares his insights with us (correction to this original post is above).

I accept the fact that perhaps Michaels’ didn’t realize how strongly people would feel about the issue but this goes beyond a simple upside down emblem. The dress blues themselves are sacred to the men and women who have earned the right to wear them. Military personnel follow strict guidelines pertaining to dress codes. Even more importantly, fallen Marines are often buried in their dress blues. The uniform is important to the families and members of the U.S. military and it should be respected. The fact that Mia Michaels wore the blouse (not jacket) with an upside down Marine emblem on the same night that Wade Robson choreographed an anti-war dance solo is not some mere coincidence in my estimation. Getting angry e-mails from people who are sensitive to these facts should be expected.”   read more… 

Wade Robeson had some blathering on his site about the incidents on the show circus (emphasis, again, mine). 

“This was a cry for peace and nothing more.In the video package they had a clip of Wade Robson saying that this was “antiwar.” We want to make sure that it is clear that Wade’s statement was in no way meant to be disrespectful to our men and women in the military, putting their lives on the line everyday for a lot of us. Wade and Amanda strongly believe that the selfless sacrifices of every one of the military’s men and women are incomprehensibly courageous.If Wade’s statement did offend anybody in any way, we sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.All we were trying to say in this piece is that we don’t want anymore innocent lives to be lost on either side.That being said, this statement is not an apology in any way for the number and its message. It is a clarification of its intention.Peace & Love.”Yours truly,
Wade & Amanda Robson.

A “cry for peace”?  Hmmm?  Do those have to be done in such an openly mocking manner toward our troops? 

Does anyone, besides me, wonder which “lot of us” they believe that to include?  Now, from my interpretation, I get the feeling that someone like me, who is not making a mockery of the military by wearing their uniforms in a disparaging manner, are not included in that. 

And, besides that, this was a non-apology, apology.  In other words, he’s sorry but not sorry.  The only thing missing, as far as I can see if the middle finger on his hand extended to our military personnel, as it is read.

Others posting on this: Michelle Malkin, Bill’s Bites, Hennessy’s View, politicalpartypoop.com, Thoughts of a Conservative Christian 

Michelle Malkin, purveyor of “hate speech”? Hmmm? I think not.

July 26, 2007

Does Glenn Greenwald really take his own accusation seriously that Michelle Malkin is a purveyor of “hate speech”?  Come on, Glenn.  Even if Michelle were such an outlet of odious oratories, your finger pointing is surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Don’t ya think?

I think Rick Moran does a great job moderating the comments on MichelleMalkin.com to weed out anything that might be overtly offensive to the blog’s readers.  Michelle’s terms of use are very explicit on what will and will not be allowed.  And, I have not noticed any questionable deviation from those terms in my reading.

Now, were one to click over and read some of the vile commentary at the Daily Kos and blogs of similar political leanings, the feedback can get pretty rank, not to mention some of the posts on a few of the blogs.

I regularly have to cull lewd and impertinent comments from my blog.  I have no issue with someone disagreeing with me on an issue and voicing such.  But, I do expect it to be done in a reasonable and suitable method.  We should just agree to disagree in a mature fashion.

All this said and done, keep up the good work, Michelle.  Your “hate speech” can’t hold a candle to the other vile rhetoric spewed about the blogs and other venues of the internet.

Others posting on this topic: Hennessy’s View