NationStates Jolt Archive

Shorter RO: "Support the troops" only applies to the troops I like.

Also...Ace "Heterosexual Emperor Of Teh Interwebs" of Spades as a source?

Edit: Bottle for the steal!

Well, well, well.

Let's see - the New Republic posts for an anonymous blogger who they say is a soldier in the Army in Iraq...

Turns out he IS a soldier in Iraq...

From his AKO online profile (directly from his Army records online - sorry, you can't log on there...)

AKO ID: scott.beauchamp
Service: Army
Account Type: Active Army
Rank: PV2
Army Basic Branch: 11
Organization: 1/18th INF
Street Address:
City: Schweinfurt
State: Germany
Zip Code:
Phone:
Fax:
Email: scott.beauchamp@us.army.mil
IM Status: Offline

Oh, on that other forum I'm on, we were onto him within seconds of him doing his anonymous postings of false stories about FOB Falcon...

We even have people who know him directly in his company.

He wrote this sort of stuff for the New Republic:

He wrote this kind of stuff:

We were already halfway through our meals when she arrived. After a minute or two of eating in silence, one of my friends stabbed his spoon violently into his pile of mashed potatoes and left it there.
“Man, I can’t eat like this,” he said.
“Like what?” I said. “Chow hall food getting to you?”
“No—with that fucking freak behind us!” he exclaimed, loud enough for not only her to hear us, but everyone at the surrounding tables. I looked over at the woman, and she was intently staring into each forkful of food before it entered her half-melted mouth.
“Are you kidding? I think she’s fucking hot!” I blurted out.
“What?” said my friend, half-smiling.
“Yeah man,” I continued. “I love chicks that have been intimate—with IEDs. It really turns me on—melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses . . . .”
“You’re crazy, man!” my friend said, doubling over with laughter. I took it as my cue to continue.
“In fact, I was thinking of getting some girls together and doing a photo shoot. Maybe for a calendar? ‘IED Babes.’ We could have them pose in thongs and bikinis on top of the hoods of their blown-up vehicles.”
My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing. The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall, her half-finished tray of food nearly falling to the ground.

and this:

About six months into our deployment, we were assigned a new area to patrol, southwest of Baghdad. We spent a few weeks constructing a combat outpost, and, in the process, we did a lot of digging. At first, we found only household objects like silverware and cups. Then we dug deeper and found children’s clothes: sandals, sweatpants, sweaters. Like a strange archeological dig of the recent past, the deeper we went, the more personal the objects we discovered. And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children’s bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.

One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.

The private wore the skull for the rest of the day and night. Even on a mission, he put his helmet over the skull. He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut—since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.

Turns out that the dining facility where he ate, and supposedly saw this woman is a room about 20 ft x 50 ft. No one on the FOB has ever seen this woman, and it's highly unlikely that in that small a space, where everyone knows one another, that troops would openly insult someone that was maimed by an IED - not only because you would be punished, but because everyone else would see you. Funny, there's no one to corroborate his story there.

His story about the dumping ground has already been publicly debunked.

Oh, and he's posted a story about a Bradley driver who cut a dog neatly in two by driving over it - a fundamentally impossible event because the track on a 25-ton Bradley is 533mm wide - maybe a squished dog, but not a neatly cut dog. And supposedly this driver made a habit of intentionally swerving to drive over things - a practice that is guaranteed to get you an IED - it's not credible to believe that a driver would intentionally do this when already trained to know that this is suicidal - and since the driver is not in command of the vehicle (that's a senior NCO or officer) the story is even more unlikely.

Well, we see his "stories" elsewhere on the Internet.

His blog:
http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/

His Myspace page:
http://www.myspace.com/ghostswatchingtv

Here's a neat one:

Every morning I get up and feel retarded for joining the army.
Every morning I get up and feel proud for serving my country.
Every morning I get up and dont want to get up.
Every morning I get up and wish that I was back in college.
Every morning I get up and appreciate everything that I'm learning here.
Every morning I get up and wish my roomate wasnt such a big fan of Disturbed...
Every morning I get up and I'm a little more liberal than the day before
Every morning I get up and try to recite a fact from something I read last night.
Every morning I get up and wish I was as free as the people that I'm "fighting for"
Every morning I get up and think I'm a tool for global corporations
Every morning I get up and miss my mother
Every morning I get up and shave
Every morning I get up and realize how much I love my comrades
Every morning I get up and say I'm Scott Beauchamp, in the army, living in Germany, and this is my life, and I'm going to be treated like shit today and do landscaping and janitorial work and practice killing people and there could be no other way to appreciate what I had or what I'm going to have once I get out other than enduring this now when all I really want to do is teach history and lay around and read and hustle around and repair the world (tikkun olam) and sift through knowledge and improve culture and learn how to sail and work in soup kitchens and start a family and really, I mean REALLY study the best the western civilization has to offer and facilitiate the mystery and power through everything I do, 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, and of course its making me a lot less lazy, just because im not use to being lazy any more, etc.
Every morning I get up

at http://ghostsonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/05/bob-dylans-49th-beard.html

Looks like he needed the "street cred" of having been a soldier over there to bolster his lies. Otherwise, he has nothing to complain about - there's no draft, and no one MADE him join the Army.

And, from Ace of Spades (I'm sure you can Google the place yourself).

July 26, 2007
Source: TNR Is A Lot More Worried Than They're Letting On; Scott Thomas Got His Job For Plame-ish Reasons: "Frankln Foer Doesn't Want To Tell TNR Staffer Elspeth Reeve Her Husband Is A Liar"

Reorganized, Re-edited, Corrected Post.

The actual quote was "Frank doesn't want to tell ___ her husband is a liar," offered up not by my source but by someone else. The blank has now been confirmed as TNR staffer Elspeth Reeve, and even though the quote was "husband," there's some question about that: weddingchannel.com says their wedding is coming in October. Though perhaps they had a quickie civil ceremony before his last deployment or something, with the formal ceremony to occur later.

Look, husband/fiancee, not sure it matters. It certainly seems that everyone in the TNR offices were under the impression they'd already been married.

I was going to let this slide and not report it but then TNR played the hard guys and fired the guy actually sharing information about this with people. Meanwhile Foer and Beuchamp are still drawing paychecks.

Needless to say, Elspeth Reeve has nothing in particular to do with this, other than, I guess, some guy who walked by in the hallway suggesting her husband for the Niger Iraq mission. Gracie's pretty firm on her innocence, and, even if he weren't, this was Foer's call, not hers.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp was not chosen for this job because he had some terrific amount of experience or credentials or integrity. He was picked for Plame-type reasons: He's married or engaged to someone at TNR.

As Gracie reported to me, this is openly discussed in the TNR offices. One representative quote: "Frank[lin Foer] doesn't want to call [woman's] husband a liar." That wasn't Gracie saying that, that was someone else in the office, explaining the inter-office politics of this.

Gracie: Okay: Although I'm 100% certain that the husband of a staff member is central to this, I'm only about 90% certain that the husband IS Scott Thomas -- the alternative possibility is that the husband is one of the soldiers vouching for Scott Thomas

me: okay.

well I was going to stay off of that anyway.
I was more asking about:
1) The fact it's an open secret in the office
2:30 AM 2) your opinion that "Scott Thomas" was chosen for poor reasons, having to do with personal familiarity, rather than obvious journalistic credentials
3) that it's your opinion foer is the real screw-up here.

Note: I'm including that to prove I wasn't super-eager to mention that Beauchamp only got the job through his engagement to a staffer. I was going to say merely that he got the job due more to personal familiarity and connections than any obvious qualifications.

I was going to hold off on that. Until they pissed me off.

It's all so Plame-ish. As Gracie wrote to me, of all the embeds and milbloggers and real journalists they could have picked for the job, they instead chose to go with a very partisan, very inexperienced blogger just out of "laziness." Just because they knew him. Just because it was easy.

I actually think part of the reason was that they knew Beauchamp's politics -- he having put them on display on his goofy blog -- and so, just like with Valerie Plame, they knew the report was going to come back the way they wanted it when they sent him. But Gracie says it's just Occam's razor: Laziness.

His connection to the TNR staffer is proven by their weddingchannel.com posting.

Oh, and as to his credibility?

In a blog entry for May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp describes an atrocity: "'Put a 556 in his head.' (The caliber of an M-16 rifle is 5.56 millimeters.) On the street below, the man's brown face dissolves in a thick red mist. The lights in the city's houses shut off in unison. Electricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in 120 degree weather?"

According to his online military record (sorry if you can't log in to AKO), on May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp was in Germany, where temperatures rarely reach 120 degrees, and the electricity and water work just fine.

He hadn't even been deployed to Iraq - ever - at the time he wrote that.

Even funnier - it's apparent from his blog postings (if they are to be believed at all) that he has had some college. That automatically gets you the rank of Private First Class during basic training (E-3), and Specialist (E-4) when you graduate from basic.

Apparently, he was reduced in rank to Private (E-2) during his posting in Germany (once again according to AKO). You have to be a complete fuckup with a major attitude problem to get into that kind of trouble.

Looks like the New Republic paid for a lot of lies. In any case, if the stories are "true", and he participated in some of them according to his account (the insults against the scarred woman, for instance), then he's in a fuckload of trouble - and so are his platoon sergeant and his platoon leader. We're talking about court martials.

If they are false (which appears to be likely), he's also in trouble. We're talking about court martial.

What a fucktard.

That's a disgrace. Disgrace to America and the Armed Forces.

Edit: Bottle for the steal!:fluffle:

Wait, did you just post Ace "Heterosexual Emperor Of Teh Interwebs" of Spades as a source?

Why don't you read what he linked to.

Look at the weddingchannel.com.

Oh, and you are sooooo pwned.

He admits himself that he's the "anonymous" blogger.

Didn't take but 30 minutes for the people on the other forum to find him in person, and get this information out of him.

Here's his own admission:

My Diarist, “Shock Troops,” and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier’s view of events in Iraq.

It’s been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.


Actually, the "plausibility" of his stories have been questioned not only by people who served in Iraq, but by the very people he's serving WITH.

Sickening.

Shorter RO: "Support the troops" only applies to the troops I like.

Also...Ace "Heterosexual Emperor Of Teh Interwebs" of Spades as a source?

Edit: Bottle for the steal!

"Support the troops" does not include "support fucktards who make up atrocity stories".

Why don't you read what he linked to.

Look at the weddingchannel.com.

Oh, and you are sooooo pwned.

He admits himself that he's the "anonymous" blogger.

Didn't take but 30 minutes for the people on the other forum to find him in person, and get this information out of him.

Dude, Scott Thomas Beauchamp used the pseudonym "Scott Thomas." Seriously, if it took 30 minutes to track him down, that's just plain sad.


Actually, the "plausibility" of his stories have been questioned not only by people who served in Iraq, but by the very people he's serving WITH.
So?

I'm more than willing to question the AUTHENTICITY of his stories, but their plausibility is unquestionable. All that, and worse, has happened countless times throughout human history.

Visit the blog Sadly, No for a timeline of the wingnuttery on this subject.

It's funny, but not funny-ha-ha.

Dude, Scott Thomas Beauchamp used the pseudonym "Scott Thomas." Seriously, if it took 30 minutes to track him down, that's just plain sad.


Funny, no civilian was able to. It took people in the military to do it - and to find him at his exact location.

I'm more than willing to question the AUTHENTICITY of his stories, but their plausibility is unquestionable. All that, and worse, has happened countless times throughout human history.

Sorry - he's a fucktard for trying to sell stories that are complete bullshit. And Franklin Foer at the New Republic is a fucking idiot for publishing them without verifying that he was a good source and verifying the story through other contacts.

Funny how Mr. Foer can't do that.

Oh, on that other forum I'm on,
Read: A forum full of asshole "veterans" who sit around and verbally assaults anyone who doesn't agree with them or they can't prove is in the army.

we were onto him within seconds
I bet you where.

Turns out that the dining facility where he ate, and supposedly saw this woman is a room about 20 ft x 50 ft. No one on the FOB has ever seen this woman, and it's highly unlikely that in that small a space, where everyone knows one another, that troops would openly insult someone that was maimed by an IED - not only because you would be punished, but because everyone else would see you. Funny, there's no one to corroborate his story there.
Of course we have to trust you or him. I'm not inclined to believe him and definitely not inclined to trust you.

Even funnier - it's apparent from his blog postings (if they are to be believed at all) that he has had some college. That automatically gets you the rank of Private First Class during basic training (E-3), and Specialist (E-4) when you graduate from basic.
I was under the impression that was only if you had ROTC.

I was under the impression that was only if you had ROTC.

ROTC thru college nets you a rank of Lt (2nd class), I believe. Can't remember for sure.

Read: A forum full of asshole "veterans" who sit around and verbally assaults anyone who doesn't agree with them or they can't prove is in the army.

Not just "veterans". People actually on active duty.

We have members who are in his unit.

Of course we have to trust you or him. I'm not inclined to believe him and definitely not inclined to trust you.

Then you're an idiot for not trusting me on this.

I was under the impression that was only if you had ROTC.

Nope. See how wrong you are?

ROTC thru college nets you a rank of Lt (2nd class), I believe. Can't remember for sure.

Exactly.

Edit: Bottle for the steal!
...the most note-worthy event mentioned in the entire thread.
On ur threadz, stealin ur OPs.....

It would only be funny if he was involved in counter-intelligence/undercover work.

Then you're an idiot for not trusting me on this.
And that would make you an idiot for expecting me to.

Nope. See how wrong you are?
See how wrong I am with what? Did you provide white colored evidence to support your position?

Yes I was wrong, I looked it up on Wikipedia, but you didn't prove me wrong by saying "nope." And I was half right - you can get PFC by being in JROTC, I think ROTC can net you a commissioned rank. I havn't discussed it in 6 years so I'm a bit fuzzy.

let me get this straight:
someone who's in the army posts stuff that RO is offended and morally outraged by (though why exactly I'm not sure - he's making fun of dead and mutliated Muslims after all - not exactly something one would expect RO to be offended at).
RO claims said army guy made it all up and thus is a liar. His 'proof' that it's all made up is dependent on some other army guy claiming it didn't happen.

Thus, we're to trust 2nd army guy is telling the truth because his accounts is more settling to RO and 1st army guy is lying because his accounts RO didn't like.

Thus, we're to trust 2nd army guy is telling the truth because his accounts is more settling to RO and 1st army guy is lying because his accounts RO didn't like.

Don't you recognize the typical tactics of RO?

let me get this straight:
someone who's in the army posts stuff that RO is offended and morally outraged by (though why exactly I'm not sure - he's making fun of dead and mutliated Muslims after all - not exactly something one would expect RO to be offended at).
RO claims said army guy made it all up and thus is a liar. His 'proof' that it's all made up is dependent on some other army guy claiming it didn't happen.

Thus, we're to trust 2nd army guy is telling the truth because his accounts is more settling to RO and 1st army guy is lying because his accounts RO didn't like.

That about sums it up. Well done.

Don't you recognize the typical tactics of RO?
yes, yes I do.
I was just distilling it down to it's most basic.
Why?
I could say out of public service but...eh...I'm bored.

Let's put it in small words so you'll understand.

Either he's lying, or he's telling the truth.

If he's lying (and his previous blogging about action in Iraq posted while he was actually in Germany and never having been to Iraq yet makes me think he's lying without any other evidence), then he's going to get burned.

If he's telling the truth (say, about personally making fun of an injured woman), then he's going to get burned.

He's obviously made his intentions about using the army to gain street cred in the service of the left quite plain. That in and of itself seems pretty stupid. See his remarks about "janitorial" work while in the Army. What did he think would happen? Hey, didn't your mom make you clean your own room?

He comes off as completely stupid. What's even stupider is that the New Republic bought him hook, line, and sinker, just like they did Stephen Glass.

Or don't you remember who Stephen Glass was? See also the Jayson Blair school of Journalism...
I agree, the New Republic is stupid. We done?

let me get this straight:
someone who's in the army posts stuff that RO is offended and morally outraged by (though why exactly I'm not sure - he's making fun of dead and mutliated Muslims after all - not exactly something one would expect RO to be offended at).
RO claims said army guy made it all up and thus is a liar. His 'proof' that it's all made up is dependent on some other army guy claiming it didn't happen.

Thus, we're to trust 2nd army guy is telling the truth because his accounts is more settling to RO and 1st army guy is lying because his accounts RO didn't like.

Let's put it in small words so you'll understand.

Either he's lying, or he's telling the truth.

If he's lying (and his previous blogging about action in Iraq posted while he was actually in Germany and never having been to Iraq yet makes me think he's lying without any other evidence), then he's going to get burned.

If he's telling the truth (say, about personally making fun of an injured woman), then he's going to get burned.

He's obviously made his intentions about using the army to gain street cred in the service of the left quite plain. That in and of itself seems pretty stupid. See his remarks about "janitorial" work while in the Army. What did he think would happen? Hey, didn't your mom make you clean your own room?

He comes off as completely stupid. What's even stupider is that the New Republic bought him hook, line, and sinker, just like they did Stephen Glass.

Or don't you remember who Stephen Glass was? See also the Jayson Blair school of Journalism...

I hope that reply isn't supposed to increase you credibility because if so, it failed.

However, it did prove that this thread is irrelevant because either way, the same thing happens to him, lying or telling the truth.

I hope that reply isn't supposed to increase you credibility because if so, it failed.

However, it did prove that this thread is irrelevant because either way, the same thing happens to him, lying or telling the truth.

Ah, so it's irrelevant to point out he's fucking stupid.

It's irrelevant to point out that an attempt by The New Republic to make up shit and make the military look bad turned out to be fucking stupid.

They're still defending him now. Even more stupid.

But, in your mind, I guess it's ok to pay for made up shit and publish it, as long as it makes the military look bad.

Why would they do that? Isn't there enough bad shit already, without having to pull complete crap out of their ass?

But, in your mind, I guess it's ok to pay for made up shit and publish it, as long as it makes the military look bad.
Being some one who touts his other military forum's assholish and elitist behavior, I don't think you are qualified to make the point you are trying to make.

It's irrelevant to point out that an attempt by The New Republic to make up shit and make the military look bad turned out to be fucking stupid.


Firstly it has yet to be proved conclusively hes making it up, and secondly -why are you now accussing the "New Republic" of making it up when in fact they may have been misled by the individual in question?

Being some one who touts his other military forum's assholish and elitist behavior, I don't think you are qualified to make the point you are trying to make.

Ah, I get your point. You think that it's irrelevant that the New Republic has been caught paying for bullshit, because that's what you have to do in the cause of being against the military.

It doesn't matter to you if my view of the story checks out with links to that person's own blogs and bullshit - you're just going to believe that a man who was at the time sitting in Germany and had never been to Iraq was posting real stories about shooting people in the head in Iraq.

Your reaction, instead of reading the links, is to say, "well, it's irrelevant".

And when I point out that it's not irrelevant, you say I'm not qualified to make that point.

Tell you what - maybe you should go to a forum where identities are checked, service records are online and known, and see what credibility means.

You have none at all - because you can't prove who you are at all. You could be the garbage man, for all we know.

It's not elitist to go to a forum where we check the stories - in person. It makes far more sense that the "it's irrelevant" stuff you post here.

Ah, I get your point. You think that it's irrelevant that the New Republic has been caught paying for bullshit, because that's what you have to do in the cause of being against the military.


A moment ago they were making it up. And anyone can make a mistake. Even some amongst your many lies here may have been honest mistakes.

Firstly it has yet to be proved conclusively hes making it up, and secondly -why are you now accussing the "New Republic" of making it up when in fact they may have been misled by the individual in question?

"May have been misled"

Oh, you know that traditional journalism has the idea that you check the story that your source tells you.

Obviously, since the New Republic had the Stephen Glass thing, they still do it the Stephen Glass way.

Snip

Then you're an idiot for not trusting me on this.



snip

With your history not trusting your word on something is not an idiotic move in the slightest.

You arn't qualified to deride some one for claims of actions or the actions of another online site because you disagree with their position. You can go huff and puff somewhere else and stop giving the military a bad name here with your own actions. You don't need to pay some one to make up stories if you want to military to look like elitist assholes, all they need to do is turn to people like you.

Firstly it has yet to be proved conclusively hes making it up, and secondly -why are you now accussing the "New Republic" of making it up when in fact they may have been misled by the individual in question?

While we're at it, let's consider one of his stories, that the New Republic ran with.

He talks of a Bradley driver who neatly cuts a dog in two with the vehicle.

Now - facts:

The track on a Bradley is 533mm wide, and the vehicle weighs 25 tons.

Tell me - in a strictly physical sense, how a dog can turn into two neatly separated pieces without being crushed?

You don't have to be a military expert to know the story is bullshit.

"May have been misled"

Oh, you know that traditional journalism has the idea that you check the story that your source tells you.

Obviously, since the New Republic had the Stephen Glass thing, they still do it the Stephen Glass way.

I've no idea what they did or did not do. It is true that it is yet to be proven conclusively that hes making it up. As it seems hes of little prominence, its makes little odds - nobody was waving him in your face here. I suspect the screaming about this is an attempt to drown out the harsh sounds about Iraq generally.

His squadmates should "tillman" him for that.

You don't have to be a military expert to know the story is bullshit.

...according to you. Now Mr Thomas' honesty or lack thereof is an unknown quantity, to me at least. You, however, are well known to most who post here, and we have few delusions of integrity where you're concerned. Therefore, I will wait and see.

His squadmates should "tillman" him for that.

Thats a rather disgusting suggestion. And one that if came true would really justify some of the things people have been saying about people in the military.

Not trusting links to the guy's own bullshit.

There's a reason that I posted links. You're saying that you don't trust any links either?

Ah, I see... put your head in the sand, and keep it there.

There is more then a little bit of "information" that is in the OP but not covered by your links.

With your history not trusting your word on something is not an idiotic move in the slightest.

Not trusting links to the guy's own bullshit.

There's a reason that I posted links. You're saying that you don't trust any links either?

Ah, I see... put your head in the sand, and keep it there.

Not trusting links to the guy's own bullshit.

There's a reason that I posted links. You're saying that you don't trust any links either?

Ah, I see... put your head in the sand, and keep it there.
I can link to Oliver Twist on the Gutenberg Project, doesn't mean anyone is going to believe me when I say it is really Pinocchio.

I can link to Oliver Twist on the Gutenberg Project, doesn't mean anyone is going to believe me when I say it is really Pinocchio.

Now you're pulling stuff out of your ass.

Explain his story about the dog. Go ahead.

Tell me how it's possible that a dog is neatly cut into two pieces by a half-meter wide track.

Go ahead, I have all day.

Thats a rather disgusting suggestion. And one that if came true would really justify some of the things people have been saying about people in the military.

Yes, but it would learn him not to be a prick.

Now you're pulling stuff out of your ass.

Explain his story about the dog. Go ahead.

Tell me how it's possible that a dog is neatly cut into two pieces by a half-meter wide track.

Go ahead, I have all day.
I don't have to explain anything. Technical inaccuracies in his stories don't make you any more trustworthy which is the whole point here.

Go ahead, I have all day.

Yes, you usally do. Like the bullshit about the prayers and supposed removal of pork from that school menu 'just to keep the muslims happy', for instance....Quite clear it was bullshit on page one but you were still happy to crap on regardless of the fact.

I don't have to explain anything. Technical inaccuracies in his stories don't make you any more trustworthy which is the whole point here.

The question we're asking is, "is the New Republic's blogger telling the truth".

That's a question I invite you to answer. And it's the thread topic.

So, go ahead.

If you can prove that a dog can be cleanly cut in half by a half-meter wide track as he says (in the blog - you can read HIS posts, not mine), then you can say that I'm wrong.

It's not a "technical inaccuracy".

The question we're asking is, "is the New Republic's blogger telling the truth".

That's a question I invite you to answer. And it's the thread topic.
The thread hinges on who is more trustworthy, some one we don't know or you, whom we do know. We know enough about you to not trust you on this subject but not enough about him to trust him on it.

If you can prove that a dog can be cleanly cut in half by a half-meter wide track as he says (in the blog - you can read HIS posts, not mine), then you can say that I'm wrong.

It's not a "technical inaccuracy".
Isn't it? What kind of dog was cut in half, do you actually know the distance of a meter, or the standard length of a dog?

Another classic Kimchi tactic at work. Biased Sample I believe.

"One person who may or may not be misrepresenting himself to paint the military in Iraq in a negative light = Every critic of the Iraq policy is a liar with an ulterior motive"

I think this falls under "Defending Beloved Dear Leader" in the Kimchi Dichotomy.

Yes, but it would learn him not to be a prick.

Ok maybe I am getting confused at what you meant by that, I assumed you were referring to tillman's murder (claimed murder or whatever).

If so I do not think he will "learn" anything as he will be dead

The question we're asking is, "is the New Republic's blogger telling the truth".

That's a question I invite you to answer. And it's the thread topic.

So, go ahead.

If you can prove that a dog can be cleanly cut in half by a half-meter wide track as he says (in the blog - you can read HIS posts, not mine), then you can say that I'm wrong.

It's not a "technical inaccuracy".
basically, you're entire argument boils down to what the blogger meant by "Cut in half".
Here's an idea for you: Maybe they ran over the dog, but only the front end. Turned that into a bloody red smear yet left the back end perfectly intact and kicking (for a second or two).
In other (simple) words: Cut. In. Half.

Because the term, "cut in half" can have many meanings, depending on context and situation.
RO is just rather pathetically sticking to one extremely narrow and literal term because that way he can, in his own mind at least, dismiss everything the blogger wrote.

Rather ironic really, considering how much ire and degradation RO directs towards Clinton for his fastidious and persnickety use of what the term "sexual relationship" meant.


The blogger could well be b/s'ing, but to state categorically that he is just because one has decided upon a literal meaning of a common phrase is, well, just silly and unbecoming.

Just as silly and unbecoming as blindly accepting a 2nd blogger stating the 1st blogger is lying, just because this is more acceptable to one's own personal beliefs.

From his AKO online profile (directly from his Army records online - sorry, you can't log on there...)

Can too :p

Anyway, it sounds like the kid is a PX Ranger who happens to be on the left and discovered the Internet to tell his fake ass war stories. You seem to be implying that he's a leftist who happens to be a PX Ranger. He's probably in S3 or something and started telling his stories because he wanted somebody to think he's a high speed infantryman and just kept telling more and more of them.

So, douchebag all around, but not part of some "vast left wing conspiracy".

My word, aren't people even trying anymore? Making such a thread... No zazz, no sparkle...

All this makes me think of is how RO has wasted his time making the OP.

Precious, precious time :(

Also: What Demented Hamsters said above...

The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html

Ah, so you're "credible" if you marry a staffer at the New Republic...:rolleyes:

Oh and this from the Washington Post as well...

Maj. Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the base, said by e-mail: "We are conducting a formal investigation into the allegations made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic, so given that situation, I am unable to comment on the matter until the investigation is complete."

He's going to be smoked like a cheap cigar either way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037.html

Ah, so you're "credible" if you marry a staffer at the New Republic...:rolleyes:
That would give him more credibility than just sitting around on the internet declaring one's self credible. Maybe you should marry some one here, DK. If anyone would take you.

Can too :p

Anyway, it sounds like the kid is a PX Ranger who happens to be on the left and discovered the Internet to tell his fake ass war stories. You seem to be implying that he's a leftist who happens to be a PX Ranger. He's probably in S3 or something and started telling his stories because he wanted somebody to think he's a high speed infantryman and just kept telling more and more of them.

So, douchebag all around, but not part of some "vast left wing conspiracy".

Probably the real truth behind things.

@ the OP

Hah. Another aspiring John Kerry at work, I guess. :p It's nice that the internet has increased the speed at which these guys can be exposed, rather than trying to piece it together a decade down the road.