Beauchamp Quickie
The other day Drudge (note: not an actual news source) released some transcripts that were supposed to show that Beauchamp lied and TNR (note: looking less and less like an actual news source these days) was irresponsible in printing his story. But the 'scripts did no such thing. (More on that later.) I mean, I don't really have a position on this, and TNR is definitely only semi-reliable these days, but the transcripts just don't say what some on the right are saying that they say.
But, anyway, TNR printed this today on their site. They're sticking by their story, and claiming that Beauchamp wanted to stick by his story, but folded under pressure from the army.
Here's a relevant fact I haven't seen anyone point out yet:
Many on the right claimed that Beauchamp's story just couldn't be true because our troops just wouldn't do such things (e.g. desecrate the remains of a dead baby). But that is obviously false. Our troops have done things far, far worse than anything Beauchamp reported. Some of our troops, you might recall, tortured prisoners at Abu Graib, some of them have murdered innocent Iraqis, and some of them murdered an entire family so that they could rape and murder their young daughter. So, while it might be unlikely that Beauchamp's stories are true (and I fervently hope the are not only unlikely but false), it is absurd to claim that they just couldn't be true because our boys just wouldn't do such things. Some of them would, some of them have, and some of them have done worse. All evidence indicates that our soldiers are exemplary by the standards of history...but if you think that our armed forces are 100% psycho free...well, you're probably living in a fantasy world.
The other day Drudge (note: not an actual news source) released some transcripts that were supposed to show that Beauchamp lied and TNR (note: looking less and less like an actual news source these days) was irresponsible in printing his story. But the 'scripts did no such thing. (More on that later.) I mean, I don't really have a position on this, and TNR is definitely only semi-reliable these days, but the transcripts just don't say what some on the right are saying that they say.
But, anyway, TNR printed this today on their site. They're sticking by their story, and claiming that Beauchamp wanted to stick by his story, but folded under pressure from the army.
Here's a relevant fact I haven't seen anyone point out yet:
Many on the right claimed that Beauchamp's story just couldn't be true because our troops just wouldn't do such things (e.g. desecrate the remains of a dead baby). But that is obviously false. Our troops have done things far, far worse than anything Beauchamp reported. Some of our troops, you might recall, tortured prisoners at Abu Graib, some of them have murdered innocent Iraqis, and some of them murdered an entire family so that they could rape and murder their young daughter. So, while it might be unlikely that Beauchamp's stories are true (and I fervently hope the are not only unlikely but false), it is absurd to claim that they just couldn't be true because our boys just wouldn't do such things. Some of them would, some of them have, and some of them have done worse. All evidence indicates that our soldiers are exemplary by the standards of history...but if you think that our armed forces are 100% psycho free...well, you're probably living in a fantasy world.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:22 PM
27 Comments:
Many on the right claimed that Beauchamp's story just couldn't be true because our troops just wouldn't do such things (e.g. desecrate the remains of a dead baby).
I wondered if this is so. I googled the worst of the rightosphere, an honor now held by Michelle Malkin (please feel free to correct me on this, DA), and found only this:
“Scott Thomas:” The new Winter Soldier?
By Michelle Malkin • July 20, 2007 11:27 AM
Let me make one thing clear at the outset: To question the veracity of a soldier’s accounts of war atrocities in Iraq is not to question that such atrocities ever happen. They do. But when such accusations are made pseudonymously, punctuated with red flags and adorned with incredible embellishment, the only responsible thing to do is to raise questions about his identity and agenda without fear or apology–and demand answers.
Not unreasonable, in my view.
Did Beauchamp do any harm? TNR? Are we angry at him? Them? Did the leftosphere defend him at first? Run with his charges? I dunno, just askin'. Did anyone look? Does anyone care?
(The last two are rhetorical questions, of course.)
Keep lookin', Tom. There were plenty of people (largely in comments, though) who claimed that it just couldn't have happened. (One particularly long feud sprang up about whether one could, in fact, run over a dog with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.) Without the "our boys would never do such a thing" premise it's very difficult to explain the right's reaction.
It's really weird that *the only thing you could find* was one quote from someone who said exactly the right thing! So...you found no other Beauchamp comments? No "it can't be true"s? None? Really? Very odd given how many of them were flying around back at the height of the Beauchamp affair. If you're really interested, I'd google again.
Well, many on the right were furious at Beauchamp. Many on the left seemed to eat his story up. Me, I always thought what I said here: I thought his story sounded fishy, but knew it was well within the realm of possibility.
Do people care? Er, apparently. A quick Google should reveal the relevant data...
Tom, I'm typing this extra slowly in your honor.
Anyhoo, Googling "Beauchamp run dog" yielded several conservative blogs commenting on this issue in the first 10 results, including Confederate Yankee, the blog for conservatives with frontal lobe issues, along with the Weekly Standard, for those who like their conservatism straight from the paymaster.
Any other requests, Legate Van Dyke?
All evidence indicates that our soldiers are exemplary by the standards of history.
Excuse me?
Animus apparently tends to reduce reading comprehension, DA. You were invited to correct me if Michelle Malkin isn't the worst of the rightosphere. I was under the impression she's the enemy du jour.
Your google recommendation didn't turn up much except that some people think it's hard to run over a dog with a Bradley.
No, I'm not terribly interested, WS. The blogosphere is the toy store, remember, the comments sections even more so. Anything and everything appears in a comments section somewhere, even here, where one fellow predicts America's right wing will rise up in civil insurrection if they don't get their way, and nobody raises an eyebrow or utters a peep in demurral.
I took a quick look at Malkin, and reported the results. Found much the same from the Fox/Weekly Standard crew, didn't mention it. Even the exhaustingly thorough DA turns up nothing of import, and disputing me has become his mission in life. I didn't even check the left, altho things being what they are, I rather suspected an embrace and defense of Beauchamp. (We do not expect DA to turn his truth-seeking efforts in that direction, just as we would not expect a Clinton-Gore administration to have put out arguments against Kyoto under its own auspices.)
But we are not concerned about them. Some folks on the left tried to pull a fast one but the real villains here are, predictably, on the right. OK.
As to the underlying matter, it's perhaps true, Mr. Doyle, that the US military is the best in history. For one thing, they're volunteers---conscripts have notoriously bad attitudes. I'd guess there's virtually nobody who did not enlist or re-enlist without full knowledge their ticket was already punched for Iraq [or Afghanistan].
Now, there are those who believe our military has a lot of psychos in it, who yearn for blood and guts and veins in their teeth. Ted Rall comes to mind.
Regardless, on the whole we do not judge the worthiness of a military intervention by those who fight it, right? After all, there was some unpleasantness in Africa with UN troops raping and sexually abusing children, but that influences their continued presence not a whit.
No, the real question here is one of a Rorschach test---was one disposed to believe Beauchamp's stories or not? The patriotic first response would be, "Gee, I hope it's not true, and those rightosphere wingnuts are right for a change." (Outrage that a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth puts on its combat boots: optional.)
Facts not yet in evidence, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised. We expect our usual correspondents to perform their usual due diligence, if not for all our edification, at least for their own.
Well, Tom, I'm not interested in doing the Googling. I'm perfectly willing to concede that the rightosphere may not have actually SAID that our soldiers wouldn't do such a thing, but that belief or something like it was clearly presupposed by much of what was written. I could, of course, be wrong about that, but I'm a little doubtful that I am. If we really want to get serious about that, we can do the actual research.
As I've said, most of the overt stuff was in comments. You could look it up. As you've rightly noted, comments sections are e-Bedlam. So it's not quite sporting to pick on them...
I do see we're back to the patriotism issue again...which refuge is that supposed to be again, and of whom? Maybe, though, you didn't mean it the way it came across, so I'll suspend judgment...
I do have to agree with the Roschach test thing, though. As I've said many times, I think that's what much of all this comes down to. Things happen fast, and lots of them, now that the stoopeed blogosphere hurls them at us nonstop. We make judgments, and they're fast. To Beauchamp, the right said, in effect, "can't be!" The left said "I knew it" (or "synecdoche!") I find myself doing this all the time.
This is one reason I worry about the web and it's polarizing/balkanizing influence (despite having been chastised by some other bloggers for buying into the thesis of cyberbalkanization).
The web exposes me to crazier righties than I'd normally be exposed to. I avoid the crazy lefty cites, of course, like one avoids one's crazy cousins. Day after day I see crazy excuses for inexcusable actions by the administration, and every day inches me a little farther from the right. And that means that every day I'm inclined to see more swastikas (and fewer hammers-and-sickles) in the Rorschach test of current events....
(Actually, it's not really a Rorschach test, since there really are facts of the matter about what's going on, and usually about who's right and who's wrong...but it's got a Rorschachy aspect...)
Animus apparently tends to reduce reading comprehension, DA.
I don't think that this is the appropriate forum to discuss your problems here, Legate Van Dyke.
You were invited to correct me if Michelle Malkin isn't the worst of the rightosphere. I was under the impression she's the enemy du jour.
That isn't a question of fact, and I wasn't interested in correcting or affirming your impression.
I merely performed a Google search, and discovered the results were as I reported them.
Even the exhaustingly thorough DA turns up nothing of import, and disputing me has become his mission in life.
I did find that there were mostly conservative blogs that came up in the first 10 items of the search, which would tend towards WSs' hypothesis about the difference between the Left and the Right in this area, that there is more screaming by the latter than approval by the former.
You ignore this and attempt to divert with some good old-fashioned snark instead of honest discussion, which is nothing new for you, I must admit.
Also, you shouldn't feel so paranoid about me, as I'm sure that you have the intelligence to refrain from making falsifiable remarks, that you've yet to demonstrate an actual capacity to do so doesn't discourage me from believing that you may choose to be more precise in your remarks in the future, just that I shouldn't hold my breath in the meanwhile.
I did find that there were mostly conservative blogs that came up in the first 10 items of the search, which would tend towards WSs' hypothesis about the difference between the Left and the Right in this area, that there is more screaming by the latter than approval by the former.
Actually, you found nothing relevant or of interest, which didn't stop you from posting a comment and snarking on me anyway.
Now, boys, this is a simple question of fact that I'm sure we can settle like gentlepersons...
Ah, he's on this "falsifiability" kick. Everything I write gets a colonoscopy lately. We just spent two days on that I should have added the word "mostly" to something I wrote.
Tellya the truth, WS, I don't come out so well when you play moderator. I feel safer when we're in our separate corners. At least we know what's what, and so does the (sometimes un-)gentle reader.
As for the actual discussion at hand, Media Matters or somebody was pooh-poohing the whole Beauchamp affair (surprise!) and trumpeting The Nation's extensive roundup of atrocity testimony. A 2-year old gets hit by a stray bullet, a dog gets shot, some guy gets the bejesus scared out of him in the middle of the night. Innocent Iraqi citizens were indeed killed, although mostly through panic and accident when an IED went off.
All regrettable---I expected much worse---and still not of a fabric with Beauchamp's fabrications. The dog was killed in a stress situation, not for amusement. A terrorist's body was mocked, but not an innocent victim's disfigurement.
The Nation's failure (and Lord knows they tried) to turn up more horror indeed indicates that our troops have as a whole been exemplary. It appears Beauchamp has slandered them, and our anger should be reserved for him and TNR.
The always-fresh Michael Yon on Beauchamp---his fellow soldiers forgive him and so does Yon. TNR, not so much.
Like most things these days, there's probably more than meets the eye. Are his fellow troops easy on Beauchamp because he told the truth? [Yon didn't think so.] Or are they just that cool?
Did the military really offer Beauchamp his walking papers, and he declined, choosing to stay on? Or are they pressuring him to recant and the whole bloody mess won't come out for years?
Hell, I dunno. But I think our first impulse should always be to give our troops the benefit of the doubt. These are, almost to a man (woman), brave and good people. That is all.
Well, Tom, I'm just not sure. As TNR has pointed out, the Army has refused to release the information. I think that TNR or somebody has already FOIA'd 'em, so we may eventually know.
Are our soldiers, "almost to a man," good and brave people? I dunno. But a friend of mine who's whole family (except for him) is in the military, and his dad and grandfather were both generals, and who has a level-headed kind of respect for the institution, once told me that this isn't true (as I was waxing poetical around him about the virtues of our military.)
An almost-direct quote from years ago: 'some of those people are in there because they like the idea of killing'. Upon reflection, this should come as no surprise. No institution is made up only of the pure of heart.
And now we're accepting some of the dregs, including white supremacists.
I've got a lot of respect for the military, but one's respect has to be clear-eyed and consistent with the facts.
In a military containing people who would kill a whole family in order to kill and rape a young girl, there are going to be far *more* people who would be willing to do the kinds of things Beauchamp described. That what he described is within the horizon of the possible is clear. What we want to know is whether it actually happened.
The _Nation_ round-up is interesting, but doesn't bear on the case at hand. It's irrelevant.
Fulminate all you want about this, we won't know the answer until the Army coughs up the info or Beauchamp is discharged and can speak freely. TNR is, to its belated credit, trying to get at the facts. And it IS a little fishy that the Army is being so cagey and secretive about it all.
Still, I'm willing to wait on the actual, ya know, facts.
My only point in the post was that, given what we know for certain about the army, what Beauchamp wrote is well within the realm of possibility. And that is obviously true. Nothing you've said here in any way casts that into doubt. So as far as I'm concerned, that's an end on it.
We just spent two days on that I should have added the word "mostly" to something I wrote.
Perhaps a response more substantial than "Huh?" to a commentators comment might avoid such entanglements in the future.
Am I typing too fast for you, Legate Van Dyke?
As for falsifiability, I've used the concept for more than 2 years on this blog, as here.
I am grateful that you've stopped complaining about drive-bys, so you are making progress here, of a sort.
That you don't see it worthy of consideration when composing your posts here is to your detriment, not mine, as a reasonable observer could look to the thread in question and determine that the only surgery committed was neither invasive or illogical.
I think our first impulse should always be to give our troops the benefit of the doubt.
"It is a sin to think ill of others. It is seldom a mistake."
H. L. Mencken.
Insisting that "mostly" was missing isn't falsification, it's niggling. When done with ill will and lacking good cheer, it's harassment, and clogs the pipes of honest inquiry.
Interesting link, tho. In the conversation, I defend John Kerry over some stupid remark he made.
It's quite rational to believe the worst: his record does not lend itself to any benefit of the doubt. I just gave it to him because that's the kind of guy I am.
Rorshach-ish indeed. Our reactions at any given time say more about us than about the issue at hand. I'm a lover, you're a fighter.
If you were interested in inquiry, then perhaps a greater level of precision in your statements might help you towards that end in your future postings.
Am I typing slow enough for you this time?
Our reactions at any given time say more about us than about the issue at hand. I'm a lover, you're a fighter.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis. Do you have a paypal account to which I can forward the 10 cents I now owe you?
Well, you're certainly not a lover.
Too much Superman TV and comic books in my youth, so I got to thinking that fighting for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" was the right thing to do.
If the truth isn't worth fighting for, why bother with anything else, including love?
You still aren't making sense, Legate Van Dyke.
Until you apply your prodigious red pen to everyone here and not just me, you're only fighting for the Democratic Party and partisanship, with truth, justice and the American Way way back in the mix. That doesn't make you Superman, just one more member of the jackal pack.
As for love, it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock'n'roll.
For the record, this is a comments section, where I informally try out ideas. When I post at my blog, or am published online, I write more formally, and if niggling on every single word is what floats your boat, I am more properly subject to your proctology then.
But keep in mind that trying to gain the advantage over me by trying to win the day on minor details is still petty and sophistic no matter how you slice it.
Tom,
If you really think that this is just a partisan echo chamber, I have two questions for you.
First, why do you continue to post here? And second, why don't you post at a diverse place like Obsidian Wings? Posters from all over the political spectrum post there, with the only requirements being that one remain respectful and bring good arguments, good evidence etc.
TVD, your comments about me are neither new nor sensible, as you accuse me of only fighting for one side while you only love the truth and aren't a fighter.
Remember this?
No more Charlie Brown and the football, Friend DA. You have shown your colors by now.
You produced the football of Mencken, I'm ready to see if you can kick it, but then you cry 'Bad Faith", and somehow the football isn't the focus at hand, that's a trait worthy of a student of the great Houdini, FWIW.
You are only interested in proving me wrong, about something, anything, which is why you picked this extremely minor point to call me out on.
Mencken loved getting people riled up, like dear Trannie, but I can see no other basis of comparison between the two, and as he used to write back to those he offended, "You may be right".
And if you can't prove me wrong, you'll simply assert that I am.
It's really a matter of falsifiability.
You need only one quote from Mencken published in his lifetime that meets my challenge to falsify my stated position and make me look like an idiot.
I can't prove a negative(i. e., Mencken wasn't like Trannie Coulter) unless I'd read all his published works, and would be a fool to assert based on what I've read that it was indeed the case.
SS, DD.
As for love, it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout rock'n'roll.
Love of what? The Truth or the truth?
You love to babble on here and ask the rest of us to pretend you make sense, but your rhetorical gunfire is nothing more than blanks of desperation than anything that makes sense.
For the record, this is a comments section, where I informally try out ideas. When I post at my blog, or am published online, I write more formally, and if niggling on every single word is what floats your boat, I am more properly subject to your proctology then.
I'm glad you brought up that subject Legate Van Dyke, as you remind me of the joke that East German doctors had to use proctologists for their tonsil operations because they couldn't get their patients to open their mouths.
You bring up an argument or major point, I then respond, and then am told that I'm quibbling, it was only a teensy-insy minor point, I post here in bad faith, etc.
But keep in mind that trying to gain the advantage over me by trying to win the day on minor details is still petty and sophistic no matter how you slice it.
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Now I owe you 30 cents for your services.
Do you accept medical insurance, Herr Doktor Van Dyke?
No, I didn't remember it. Dogging me about Mencken, I see, who was at best tangential to the discussion.
I do recall calling you Friend DA, and at some point you said I'm not your friend. Too bad, because I'm friends with plenty of people who don't share my weltanshauung. You chose the path of hostility.
That'll be 40 cents, please. Cash, fee for service. I'm a free-market guy, at least until Hillary socializes my labors.
I don't call folks who ask me or others if they're typing too slow, and/or have the disregard for truth and logical reasoning you've shown here friends, Legate Van Dyke.
As for hostility, you have it in spades, albeit in using passive-agressive techniques that I'm sure serve you well when dealing with people who don't want the label of "hostile" or confrontational, etc.
Here's my source of 'hostility'
I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
As for the bill, does that include the price of getting your diploma out of a vending machine?
I missed your outraged comment about the UDelaware mind control, oh hostile one. Your delusions of grandeur seem to extend only to whether I leave "mostly" out of a sentence or misconstrue HL Mencken.
Fifty cents. A diploma isn't necessary in your case---leafing through a "Psychology Today" is more than enough preparation.
I didn't know that you moonlighted as the official political commisar here, Tovarich Van Dyke, in addition to your Legate activities.
To quote another American writer:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
FYI, I thought that WS summed up the case pretty well without input from moi.
Your delusions of grandeur
are as nothing, compared to you and your 10 comment rule or other nonsense you post here on an irregular basis.
That was intended to be constructive criticism, not trying to be hostile or anything like that.
Fifty cents. A diploma isn't necessary in your case---leafing through a "Psychology Today" is more than enough preparation.
I don't need to read anything to know how to deal with you, but thanks for demonstrating what hostility really looks like.
You're the one who boldly proclaims his hostility. You label something tyranny, which makes the other fellow a tyrant (in this case me, I reckon), and bombs away!
This is the path you've chosen.
Me, I just think the other fellow might be wrong, especially a fellow American, and I'll take a shot at convincing him. Hostility is counterproductive, sort of like torture.
$0.60. Meter's running.
Actually, I was quoting Thomas Jefferson when I referenced tyranny, not that I expect you to have much familiarity with American political thought.
You're the one who boldly proclaims his hostility.
You gave me the label, and I ran with it in a direction not to your liking.
or did you forget this?:
You chose the path of hostility.
Me, I just think the other fellow might be wrong, especially a fellow American, and I'll take a shot at convincing him. Hostility is counterproductive, sort of like torture.
But asking if one is typing too fast isn't hostility, being a polite form of constructive criticism, no doubt.
I'll let others render any verdicts in the case of Legate Van Dyke vs. Professor DA, you should find somewhere else to play judge, jury and hangman, the rope you spin is entirely your own.
$0.60. Meter's running.
Would that one could say that about your frontal lobes, or any area in your neocortex, for that matter............
But asking if one is typing too fast isn't hostility, being a polite form of constructive criticism, no doubt.
No, that was hostile. After over a year of your badgering on unimportant matters, I decided that my usual good cheer and calm affability weren't gaining your respect, admiration, or cooperation in joint inquiry.
So, if you want to start over, I'm amenable. Diplomacy is always preferable to confrontation, eh?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home