Beauchamp Investigation Concluded

After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the  4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"

The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st.  Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status. 

Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID, in the absence of Major Kirk Luedeke, remarked that despite the high level of attention this case received in the American media, soldiers at the 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div, a "surge" Brigade, have not been distracted from their missions. 

In the month of July, Operation Dragon Hammer resulted in the capture of over 110 detainees and "no mission has been delayed or adversely affected by the investigation into Private Beauchamp's allegations of misconduct among the soldiers of his unit the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment", said Timmons.

The 4th IBCT, 1st ID Area of Operations, Rasheed District in Western Baghdad is one of the toughest and most violent districts in the Iraqi capital.

Update: All allegations were demonstrated to be false according to officials at Army Public Affairs. 

HSBC is the well renowned bank in the market of plastic money cards. comparison shows more rewards visa benefits along with debt facilities to hsbc credit card. Here you go to discover card rewards, HSBC offers you to make phone credit card processing and if you are a web surfer, simply discover credit card application online.

Comments

[sj]

What, no citation?

[mrp]

Mr. Sanchez, in your post you use the word "allegation" (singular). Scott Beauchamp made many claims in his TNR essays. Did the investigators focus on only one claim, and if so, which one?

[ss]

No link is different from "no citation."

[21 Bravo]

Thanks for the quick post, Matt.

Something about the man smelled "fishy" from the get go. These are the best trained, best motivated, best commanded troops the world has ever seen. "Shock Troops" didn't even come close to passing the smell test.

[Craig]

SJ: Note that the verb is "have", a plural. Most likely the missing "s" at the end of "allegation" is a typo.

[SFC MAC]

Thanks for the update Matt! Please pass my best wishes and a HOOAH! to the Soldiers in the 4th IBCT!

[Artista]

"...has concluded that the allegation made by..." Which allegation was determined to be false? I know of 4 or 5 horrendous ones. What of the others? The burned soldier reference seems to have been in Kuwait instead of the FOB. Is that what rendered it false? Don't get me wrong, I want him to be held accountable for his words/actions. If he did these things he should be held to account, if he lied he should as well.

I am interested in truth. I hate parsing of words. The notation in the column above would lead a casual reader to believe that all of his allegations have been proven false. We are led to believe they never happened, and that Beauchamp is a complete liar. But in truth, it only says one is false.

Just a thought.

[Moonbat_One]

While Beauchamp's claims were not factually true, they illustrated a greater truth about the American military and the insidious effects that Bush's illegal war has one the troops.

[Clioman]

Either Beauchamp is telling the truth, in which case he ought to be court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth, or he’s lying, in which case he’ll make a fine journalist who also enjoys a lucrative side-gig ‘discoursing’ at lefty gatherings.

[Artista]

Just so that no one misunderstands me. I am a supporter of the military, this war and the war on the islamofascists. It is those animals that we are fighting in Iraq and around the world. I believe that he Beauchamp enlisted to,(in his own words paraphrased from his blog) get "cred" as a soldier to become a writer. A despicable reason to join the armed services - to later push yourself up, by discrediting them.

[Archer]

"While Beauchamp's claims were not factually true, they illustrated a greater truth about the American military"

.....but you support the troops, right?

You know, some of us were naive enough to think that "fake but accurate" was a joke. Sadly, it seems to have become standard fare for the deranged haters on the left.

[swj719]

Archer, Steve...

Look at the poster's name. You think that maybe it's satirical? That perhaps said poster's tongue is planted firmly in cheek?

The poster was MOCKING the lefties and thier "fake but accurate" stance...

[Artista]

My bad if indeed all have been proven false. In fact,I hope for that case. I just read the "plural/singular issue" post and it makes sense. Can this be clarified?

[Asher Abrams]

Matt, thanks for posting this. Can you provide a link or some kind of outside confirmation?

[SteveLGF]

golly darn it! i blame the formatting. I thought the name ABOVE the post was attached to the comment below.

[doc]

Artista,

Fake but accurate eh? Sounds familiar.

[n]

matt, can you help me get copies of Man to Men, Jawbreaker, and especially Tijuana Toilet Tramps. Thks

[Andrew Bryant]

SJ, Nicely done, my friend. I'd suggest that you correct the type-o on the "allegation" instead of "allegations." The error, if it is an error, is going to create a firestorm of speculation that is undeserved. God Bless you and watch your a$$ over there.

[sherlock]

Yeah, this is just one of the innumerable comments "tools" that make it ambiguous whether the commenter name is the one above or the one below. In fact, by putting a dashed line UNDER the comment, it actually tends to group the comment adn the name ABOVE together!

The only way to figure it out is to scroll to the beginning or the end of the thread. It's like trying to solve a mystery...

oh, wait. Um, nevermind, no problem, I knew it was the one below all the time - just testing the rest of you. Ha-ha.

[R T]

He "saw her nearly every time" he "went to dinner in the chow hall at" his "base in Iraq". "She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so" he "couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor. The thing that stood out about her, though, wasn't her strange uniform but the fact that nearly half her face was severely scarred. Or, rather, it had more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head. She was always alone, and" he "never saw her talk to anyone. Members of" his "platoon had seen her before but had never really acknowledged her. Then, on one especially crowded day in the chow hall, she sat down next to us."

So after all those times they saw her and were in awe over her disfigured face they never tried to ascertain if she was a soldier or a civilian contractor, please!

"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."

Wow! "Rotting flesh" (not just tufts of hair) on the skull of a Saddam era corpse. Are there any forensic experts out there who would like to confirm such a possibility. Doubt it.

Of course, they changed the location of the disfigured woman to Kuwait to make the story harder to refute.

TNR, it's best to admit to a mistake rather then defending this fraud. Now you have really lost your credibility. Always better to own up to your mistakes, guys. Crime doesn't pay and being an accessory to a crime doesn't pay either.

[Darth]

If you're fixing typos, you might also want to take a look at that last sentence, too.

Unless the Rasheed district really is the most violet.

[Grimmy]

Rasheed is NOT one of the most violet districts. It's more ultramarine.

[suedoughnyhm]

...and would it have hurt to have at least spelled Beauchamp correctly. oh wait, that's not part of the report, it's the headline from the blog, i hope.

[t]

Matt, thank you for all your work on this. My husband was at FOB S (I'm sure you know where) until Feb for a total of one year. He didn't believe this tool for the lefts story at all.
For all you obnoxious haters on this site, get out and get a job and get a life. It always breaks your heart doesn't it when one of your lefty heroes like Beauchamp get caught with their pants down doesn't it? It's truly pathetic that this "writer" Beuchamp fool only joined for street cred. Well, I'm sure all you leftist tools will be the first to buy his book "Tales from the Dark Side of Baghdad".

[Gunman]

"While Beauchamp's claims were not factually true, they illustrated a greater truth about the American military and the insidious effects that Bush's illegal war has one the troops."

So we come at last to the place we knew this was headed.. "fake but accurate". You people are beyond parody at this point.

[mrp]

Typos are now fixed, I see. Thanks, Mr. Sanchez.

[Orion]

While Beauchamp's claims were not factually true, they illustrated a greater truth...

"Fake, but Accurate!" didn't do Dan Rather a whole lot of good, why do you think it will work better this time? Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex-Marine: He's the only one in history to shoot a president. His actions don't speak for or against the Corps. Likewhise Scott Beauchamp's actions say nothing about the military as a whole. These speak only about one man and his lack of personal honor.

[Carribean]

The place of the incident was incorrect. The situation was corroborated with on the record witnesses. So was the skull episode, and the dog-baiting. It is unpleasant, and not representative, but does that mean the inaccuracy (singular) though significant, trumps the other appalling facts? I don’t like the message, but I would discover truth than attack messengers with whom I disagree.

[Artista]

Hats off to you Mr Sanchez. THANK YOU for this most important post. Thank you also for the singular/plural fixes. my mind is now at ease.

[Fighton03]

Carribeean-
"The place of the incident was incorrect. The situation was corroborated with on the record witnesses. So was the skull episode, and the dog-baiting. It is unpleasant, and not representative, but does that mean the inaccuracy (singular) though significant, trumps the other appalling facts? I don’t like the message, but I would discover truth than attack messengers with whom I disagree."

Actually, NOTHING was corroborated! We're still getting told the same thing in different words...."We heard from people....and it could be true". As for the disfigurement thing, read the original and read the obfuscation. The place is wrong, the time is wrong, it's not "exceptionally crowded", and "next to" is "behind". This whole thing started out as a request for corroboration, not shoot the messenger. Why do people get defensive when asked to show their work/proof? Generally because they haven't DONE it.

Names, Dates, and Places,otherwise it's just j'accuse.

[maurice]

The "corroboration" is from soldiers who preferred to remain anonymous. The official investigation puts them all "on the carpet" individually and together, and slowly picks apart their stories until the truth comes out.

So much for anonymous corroboration.

Use your head: the ONE THING that was provably false was changed just a smidge to cover for Beauchamp.

Hey, your buddies will do a lot for you, but they ain't going to jail.

fin.

[Brendan]

Folks - Moonbat One was JOKING. Thus the name. (On the other hand, there are some on the left who proudly call themselves moonbats.)

[BMC]

The Public Affairs Officer for the 4th IBCT
1ID is Major Kirk Luedeke, not Luke as stated in the article.

[anticarribean]

Actually Carribean is incorrect. One of the claimed "paricipants" sort of corraborated the story,. The other two did NOT witness the claimed incident relative to the woman.

The fact that Beauchamp LIED about the location and its impact on him - apparently Germany and Kuwait were "horrific" experiences to him and "dehumanized" a war for him in which he had yet to particpate.

The other two incidents were NOT corroborated \.
Re the graveyard - the TNR editorial actually points out that once again the "witnesses" only corroborated that once again Beauchamp LIED.

Apparently Beauchamp once again LIED about the BFV incdentS in that the TNR claims that they could only "corroborate" a single incident. Of course, which of the incidents that Beauchamp refered to was corroborated.

[Gunga]

Beauchamp was not "dehumanized" by the war. Those around him were dehumanized by is lying. I don't care what his motivations were...the guy is an unmitigated jerk...THE ugly American. Way to go, New Republic...lionize a lying, venal, narcissist.

Genuine thank you to Matt Sanchez.

[RA]

So when does this lying scum bucket get court martialed, jail time and a dishonerable discharge?

[JohnnyT]

The important thing here is that the truth is prevailing, due in large part to a lot of tough questioning and investigation by the pajamas media, milbloggers and people who were onscene in Iraq, or who had been there during the inicidents described.

Based on my own experience as a six-year veteran, I thought "Shock Troops" stank to high hell as soon as it was printed.

What good is the MSM if they keep putting out false stories that are repeatedly refuted and discredited because we the people are doing the investigative journalism they refuse to do, either to score scoops, left-wing political points or, as is usually the case, a combination of the two?

The same so-called journalists and news sources like Dan Rather, TNR, AP and Reuters, to whom Watergate is the ultimate standard for what they detest as political and moral corruption, are fast becoming what they despise: politically motivated ideologues who commit egregious offenses, then spin as fast as they can to cover up their lies and hope nobody notices.

I say let them them keep doing it. The more Americans see exactly what it is they're doing, the faster their ratings and circulation figures will continue to tank, and they will be left with one of two choices: either follow their left-wing political agenda into the tank, or do what the public expects and demands of them - honest and unbiased investigative reporting in the vein of William L. Shirer, Edward R, Murrow, Peter Maas, Nick Pileggi and Ernie Pyle.

Personally, I hope they choose the former.

[daveinboca]

So Franklin Foer got caught peddling agitprop against the Iraq War. Is there going to be any consequences, or is the exempt MSM going to walk away from another mainstream lie that the left tried to peddle & got caught?

[WyldPirate]

What a bunch of gullible comments here from the right wingnut chickenhawk commentators.

You believe the validity of the Army's "investigation" based on what? Their track record? Like that is really good after the Jessica Lynch propaganda, Abu Ghraib, beatings and torture at prison camps all over the world and the Pat Tillman cover up---not to mention the scandalous crap that I didn't list that is known and the atrocities we know nothing of.

Further evidence of the chickenhawk naivete is their outrage not that atrocities occur ut that atrocities of war are exposed. You delusional morons either don't give two s**ts that atrocious, truly evil acts are committed by soldiers--which makes you evil SOBs in my opinion---or you are delusionally ignorant of the fact that the horror of war seen on a daily basis can induce soldiers to forget their humanity and induce the borderline psychotic to commit horrendous acts. Furthermore, even sane and humane soldiers can become inured to the violence and chaos of war and, as a means of dealing with the horror, use sick humor and pranks to deal with what they see and, which could, cross the lines of decency.

I'm used to the fact now that the majority of the 25% of the morons that still support Bush and his rampant criminality and destruction of the Constitution and our Republic are delusional liars, barely literate or simply ignorant because they are feed a load of horsecaca by the likes of Fox News, Limbaugh, et al. You morons don't give as crap about the country. Instead, you're the gullible or complicit members of the cult of personality of Dear Leader Bush.

[Yashmak]

You believe the validity of the Army's "investigation" based on what? Their track record?"

Yet you consider Beauchamp, whose story has already been PROVEN partially false, to be more reliable? Really? Isn't it worthy of note that in an article about the negative impact of war on a soldier, that the scarred woman episode in which Beauchamp cited his own cruelty, occured before he was even deployed to Iraq? Doesn't that make him a repulsive human well before being exposed to combat? Why do you believe what he has to say over an investigation conducted by his own unit?

Apparently, to some, the words of our soldiers on the ground are less credible than those of a proven liar.

"or you are delusionally ignorant of the fact that the horror of war seen on a daily basis can induce soldiers to forget their humanity and induce the borderline psychotic to commit horrendous acts."

You mean like the one that occurred in Kuwait, BEFORE HE'D EVEN BEEN IN THE WAR?

Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't it even give you pause for a moment?

Maybe you just dismissed any mention of it as more rantings of chickenhawks, in spite of the fact that The New Republic itself has already issued an apology for that portion of the story.

[Gabe]

*You delusional morons either don't give two s**ts that atrocious, truly evil acts are committed by soldiers-*

What proof do you have? None whatsoever, which is why liberals have to make up heinous acts by sending the husband of a liberal writer for the New Republic to invent them.

*Furthermore, even sane and humane soldiers can become inured to the violence and chaos of war and, as a means of dealing with the horror, use sick humor and pranks to deal with what they see and, which could, cross the lines of decency.*

Please educate yourself. You obviously have NO experience in or around the military and naively believe liberal Hollywood stereotypes. Nice liberal logic: Let's "prove" our ignorant fantasies about the military by sending an "infallible" husband of a liberal journalist to make them up. Then no one can question these invented atrocities.

The tone of you comment is that of a deranged liberal furious to be caught in yet another lie.

[Yashmak]

I just can't believe the irony in calling those of us who want to find out the truth behind this delusional/gullible.

[Polaris]

Remember, this useless lump of flesh --(the liar and woman/child/dog/American/self-hater Beauchamp)--also claimed to have shot and killed an Iraqi soldier. When that claim was investigated, the truth came out that during the time-frame he claimed to have killed the soldier, he was actually stationed in Germany. Does this poor excuse for a man even *know* the difference between fact and fiction? He sounds like a narcissitic sociopath to me.

[Polaris]

"...or you are delusionally ignorant of the fact that the horror of war seen on a daily basis can induce soldiers to forget their humanity and induce the borderline psychotic to commit horrendous acts."

And you know this from personal experience? Seems like you would be embarrased to confess that you forgot your humanity and became borderline psychotic and committed horrendous acts --OR-- You haven't served in the military at all, nor have you ever seen first-hand the "horrors" of war, but you suppose this is how it *must* be. In which case you are a delusionally ignorant and evil SOB, in my opinion.

So which one are you? A former military person who became psychotic and committed attrocities, or an evil, delusional (and ignorant) SOB?

[Polaris]

WyldPirate claims that those who didn't buy into Beauchamps bogus report are "illiterate."

He uses the following words to support his claim: chickenhawk (2x), right wingnut (1), gullible (2x), naive (1), delusional (2x), morons (3x), evil SOBs (1), ignorant (2x), liars (1), barely literate (1). He also sprinkles his well-thought-out argument with powerful words such as crap, s**t, and horsecaca. The only supporting "evidence" he can produce is his own supposed "it must be so" *opinions* about the "horrors" of war causing men to become psychotic and do unspeakable things. So far WyldPirate has produced compelling evidence of his own ignorance (on many levels) and his own illiteracy, since he can't come up with more than a 12-year-old's vocabulary. Where are the *facts* WyldPirate? Please, do present some.

[madprof]

To Daveinboca: the Jessica Lynch analogy is a good one, though not for the reason you adduce. It was the Army's investigation that uncovered the truth of the story after the media and a number of grand-standing politicians got it wrong. The army to its credit refused to award Lynch the decorations that W Virginia Democratic politicians were demanding until its own investigation was complete; it was this investigation, and not the media's, that refuted the early mistaken accounts. It was also the Army that investigated Abu Ghuraib and the Pat Tillman story after members of the military raised questions. The New Repubic would do well to emulate the Army's willingness to investigate allegations of wrong-doing and to hold to account people responsible for coverups.

[lester]

got a link on that stud-muffin? Or do we have to take your word on it.

[JohnyT]

There is no question now there will be justice in this case. Beauchamp has been outed, investigated, and will most likely be cour-martialed for either falsifying events to the degree that constitutes aiding and abetting the enemy if his accounts are false (which they appear to be), or as a witness and/or participant in events and incidents he was duty-bound to report to his superiors.

The only question left for me is this: WHEN Beauchamp's lurid tales are proved false, as they are more and more, cannot the Army sue The New Republic for defamation, libel or other similar charges?

I'd be interested to know if any lawyers, civilian or military, have an opinion on that subject. It the Army did sue them, it would certainly force a lot of other MSM outlets to check their facts before they publish their anti-military propaganda stories in the future.

[Lousy-ana-Texan]

madprof:
That was a very good rebuttal. May I use a paraphrase of that for future debates?

[Fighton03]

Wow, Madprof and Polaris, that's excellent commentary.

Game,set, and match.

Too bad you deal in the world of fact. 'sigh'

wyldpirate is pwned.

[WyldPirate]

"Yet you consider Beauchamp, whose story has already been PROVEN partially false, to be more reliable? Really? Isn't it worthy of note that in an article about the negative impact of war on a soldier, that the scarred woman episode in which Beauchamp cited his own cruelty, occured before he was even deployed to Iraq?"

Where, exactly, did I say that I believed every bit of Beauchamp's stories?

The fact is that I didn't. However, I have served in the military and commanded young troops and I have taught young people in the age group of most soldiers for years now. Furthermore, I know for a fact that among the population of soldiers and people of that age (and all ages), that some have sick senses of humor and that many do not repress that humor. Moreover, it is not at all unusual for people to make fun of physical appearences. Hell, that's one of the wingnut's favorite tactics--you need to look no further than comments about Michael Moore on just about any right wingnut blog or website to see that put into practice.

I also know for a fact that the military has been caught in catapulting Bush propaganda and covering up crap. The military's credibility isn't too good, but it is a hell of a lot better than Bush's and his malAdministration.

Beauchamp's allegations are not the real issue here. Even if they were exaggerations or outright lies, that does not negate the fact that horrendous, sick acts have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan and all wars throughout history. Moreover, it doesn't negate the fact that all of our troops are not "knights in shining armor" who are incapable of committing atrocities.

The real issue here is that most of you rightwingtards are more interested in demonizing those that point out the obvious, proven fact that atrocities occur in war. Not only that, that is the tactic of the reichwingtard's media mouthpieces like Malkin, Rush Limpball's and Sean Insanity.

What is funny and at the same time comforting is that a.) the Reichwing is getting proven wrong yet again and b.) that about 65% of the populace knows that the wingnuts and Bush are bald-faced liars.

The desperation from you wingnuts is palpable. Y'all are desperate to foist off blame upon anyone but were it lies---with Bush and his assministration's incompetence and your own sheep-like gullibility for supporting Bush's lies and incompetence.

[wake]

Is there a link to a press release or something, or are you it?

[Jeremy]

OK, so If I choose to believe Beauchimp, I have two options.
One, ignore a series of horrible crimes and cover ups. We are already known as "The Ugly Americans". will one more group of atrocities make us any worse? Should we then also give pass to the various soldiers and marines who have been accused, tried and convicted of crimes similar to these?
Two, do we again lump Beauchump in with these, and considering that he has given confession pronounce sentence and send him to join the sorry souls residing at that fine party on the praire, Ft. Leavenworth?
Scott admits to harassing a victim of war. Not necessarily a crime, but certainly worthy of a weeks long blanket party involving plenty of socks, soap, and wire brushes.
Scott admits to defiling a grave,and certainly one that is recent, or in the alternative, covering up for another soldier who has done so, and failing to report possible war crimes.
Scott admits to be an accessory after the fact to destruction of property, punishable under the UCMJ.
What's this turds MOS? Cook? he sure is feeding BS to the leftards.

[ElMondoHummus]

"Beauchamp's allegations are not the real issue here. Even if they were exaggerations or outright lies, that does not negate the fact that horrendous, sick acts have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan and all wars throughout history. Moreover, it doesn't negate the fact that all of our troops are not "knights in shining armor" who are incapable of committing atrocities."

Wrong. Beauchamp's allegations are **EXACTLY** the real issue here. That's why the article has his name in the title. And people base their beliefs of atrocities specifically because of lies like this. Saying it "does not negate the fact that horrendous, sick acts have occurred" is tarring with insubstantial argument. Yes, Abu Ghraib occurred. What else? List the charges. Don't cower behind non-specifics.

And then explain how confronting his lies is wrong. Accuracy is important in determining truth, but you don't seem to worry about accuracy if you have problems with people criticizing exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods.

"The real issue here is that most of you rightwingtards are more interested in demonizing those that point out the obvious, proven fact that atrocities occur in war. "

The real issue here is that we're pointing out lies. What part of that do you not understand? You're trying to have things both ways - use this case as support that "rightwingtards" demonize war critics, but ignore the fact that the specific case being discussed is an example of a series of lies. You cannot admit to his lies and yet purport his case somehows demonstrates the truth. If you want to talk about heinous acts, talk about heinous acts **that really occurred**. Don't bitch at folks here for pointing out that Beauchamp reported heinous acts that did not truly happen. When people demonize someone who tells the truth, **THEN** what you said will have traction. But you have no argument here.

[Jerry Bowles]

Could someone please tell Sgt. Timmons that the word he meant to use is "affected," not "effected."

[Jim C]

People like wyldpirate don't bother with facts. That was the downfall of Dan Rather and CBS, and it will be the downfall of TNR.

Jim C

[WyldPirate]

Madprof and Polaris, you two are typical wingnuts of the worst variety.

I use the words I do because, in fact, many of the supporters of the war, and nearly all of the few remaining Bush-bots are morons (think of the 40% of Americans who in a recent poll STILL think Saddam and Iraq were behind 9/11) liars (Malkin, hannity, Limbaugh, almost all of Faux news) or lazy, incompetent idiots such as yourself who seem at to have (judging simply from your ability to construct a coherent sentence) the gray matter to know that what you are saying is a load of s**t. Your ilk of wingnuttery frankly deserves no better than the words that describe exactly what despicable trash you really are.

The only wingnuts that I really feel any sympathy for are the truly ignorant who are unable to do the work to educate themselves.

But on to point out some Polaris' lazy, bogus claims and inconsistancies concerning my post.

Polaris says at 4:52:

"And you know this from personal experience? Seems like you would be embarrased to confess that you forgot your humanity and became borderline psychotic and committed horrendous acts --OR-- You haven't served in the military at all, nor have you ever seen first-hand the "horrors" of war, but you suppose this is how it *must* be. In which case you are a delusionally ignorant and evil SOB, in my opinion..

No, you stupid f**kwit, I don't know from "personal experience". I served for 6.5 years (3 active and the rest NCARNG) in two Armor battalions from 85-92. My ass was sitting in the dust of NTC training for deployment when the first Gulf War ended.

The reason I "know" about the "horrors of war" is because, unlike you your lazy ass, I've actually read some of the historical record and, unlike your ignorant or moronic or idiotic lying ass (take whichever description fits you best, chump. Your insistance that I produce evidence of thes attrocities tells me that you perhaps you aren't a sentient, educated person.

I think the more likely alternative is that you probably are aware of the historical record of documented wartime attrocities but are instead being a lying piece of s**t by pretending that the historical record of wartime attrocities does not exist. If you know the historical record exists and are lying, it makes you worthy of derisive, vulgar language.

Madprof shows his ignorance and/or butt laziness with this comment at 5:20:

"The New Repubic would do well to emulate the Army's willingness to investigate allegations of wrong-doing and to hold to account people responsible for coverups".

They did, you lazy wingnut hack:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070730&s=editorial080207

And "holding to account" is a laughable term coming from a Bush supporter. There has been zero accountability in the Bush assministration. It happens when you have have Rethuglican rubber stampers holding over hundred hours of hearings over the non-sense of Travelgate during the Clinton era and a mere handful of hours over Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and torture, NSA wiretapping, etc.

[madprof]

Ouch, just read WyldPirate's latest, wondering why I bothered to respond to someone who reads--and reads others -- so poorly. In fact I'm a fairly typical liberal democrat, a historian by profession, and a life-long TNR subscriber, one whose views have been somewhat to the left of the magazine's since the eighties. Followed a link to this blog not as a right-wing partisan but as someone who cares about TNR. I'm an army veteran like you but must say you come closer to the Hollywood stereotype of the crazy vet than anyone I've ever encountered. Why do you write so viciously? You're certainly not helping TNR's case or contributing to the resolution of the predicament they have created for themselves.

[WyldPirate]

Madprof says:

"Ouch, just read WyldPirate's latest, wondering why I bothered to respond to someone who reads--and reads others -- so poorly. In fact I'm a fairly typical liberal democrat, a historian by profession, and a life-long TNR subscriber, one whose views have been somewhat to the left of the magazine's since the eighties."

My apologies to you if I made an erroneous assumption. I'll take you at your word concerning your claims. I'll also give you the courtesy of why I assumed you were a right wingnut when I read your post.

First off, as I said above, you lit into TNR without knowing what you were talking about. Secondly, the substance of Beauchamp's in the grand scheme of this war are pretty insignificant. I mean for crissakes, an allegation that a young soldier (or even an American)would cruelly mock someoine's appearance, willingly kill a dog or desecrate a corpse isn't earth shattering news even though a couple of them are probably punishable under the UCMJ.

I've seen enough of the right-wing media and blogosphere's silly s**tstorms and jihads to demonize people to know they love fanning the flames over complete BS. Given who owns this blog and his history ( see: http://tinyurl.com/328vfb and http://tinyurl.com/3y5fsz for more) as well as the tone of the comment section, I figured I was probably the political lone ranger here.

Your comments about Abu Ghraib and Tillman seemed rather overly defensive towards the military. If you are a veteran and a historian, you ought to know that while the Army did the right thing in the end, they don't like airing their dirty laundry unless they have to do so. They certainly wouldn't have come forth over Abu Ghraib if it were not for Sy Hersh. Furthermore, I doubt that they woiuld have come clean on Tillman if they could have avoided it. Moreover, I don't think the BS that was spewed regarding Tillman originated at the enlisted or junior officer ranks. It's got flag officer cover-up written all over it.

As to the viciousness of my writing, I make no apologies. I'm sick of liars and buffoons such as many of the posters here and all of the Bush administration destroying our country. Rethugtards, Bush and their moronic, lying supporters are a far bigger threat to our country than terrorists in my view.

[jack in jersey]

I'm still amazed to read the hatred exhibited by the left against our troops. I haven't read accounts of our troops dressing like women to carry out attacks or escape, hiding behind children or using children as suicide bombers. I look at my kids and think if we don't get this done now, they are going to have to finish the job in 5 to 10 years. Where would we be if we listened to the Russian, French and Chineese on Iraq, we'd be in the same place we are currently with on Iran. The Russians, French and Chineese would be supplying Saddam with nuclear technology to balance the same nuclear technology they were selling to the Iranians. Of course when Saddam finally passed, Iraq would have been so much more stable ruled by one or both of his sons.

[Ray]

WyldPirate, how long you been working for TNR? No really, it is doubtful you were leading troops with those uncontrolled outbursts. Maybe in the 50's-60's when you could beat on Gomer.

This kid Beachim is coming across as quite the liar. He will no longer be a useful tool for your leftist agenda.

[Ken]

"Posted by: Artista | August 03, 2007 at 11:10 AM

While Beauchamp's claims were not factually true, they illustrated a greater truth about the American military and the insidious effects that Bush's illegal war has one the troops."

All posters named Arista are known liars and not to be trusted.

While my previous statement is not factually true, it illustrats a greater truth about posters named Arista and the insidious effects of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[rbnyc]

I'd be interested in knowing why my comment from last night at about 10:00 was deleted. It was in no way offensive and was on topic. Could I get an explanation please?

rb

[Philp]

Posted by: Ken | August 04, 2007 at 03:05 AM (4 postings up) hahahah touche.

Has anyone else mentioned that the following may absolutly be possible???...

1. One day, some overly sensitive political "democrat" gets all emotional and worked up (surprise surprise) by what they see from the equally slanted media and says "WHY NOT ME??? I'd like to see and EXPOOOOSE what's REALLY going on there. I'd do a 'drive-by' job unlike anyone ever saw before! And I'll be hailed and made a hero by ALL the people in the equally insignificant media!!!!!"

....But realizing that they have no point of view or metaphoric "leg to stand on" they...

2. Join the military
This person joins the military JUST to be in a position to expose what they "just know" is REEEEEAAAAALLY going on. (But not the Marines, their basic training is too long and difficult.)

3. Find out, and "blog" your way to the top of the "old media" s*it pile. And if you DON'T see what you need... to float up to the top of that steaming insignificant heap, then make something up anyway so I don't waste X number of years having joined the military anyway... "I coulda been in college smoking pot with my looser friends at some liberal arts school if it weren't for this."

Please respond... does this template fit THIS person's actions? If not, is it just a matter of time before someone DOES use this plan to do just what it mentiones?

[Laughing]

The facts do not matter. It can be buried or not given as much attention. What about the news coverage of the Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame civil suit. Not very heavy coverage. Heck, even the Ivory Billed Woodpecker Hoax. The corduroy coats of Cornell gathered in loads of money to research a hopeful claim. Not many stories to refute their weakest of video footage, but their pockets were filled. Liberals have even created spin offs of the news programs where they can spill out fabrications and heresy and call it entertainment. You have to admit they are more creative but they lack reality.

Wyldpirate's rants about America are a perfect fit for the victimhood ploy used by these Obama-bots, HA HA, to assure themselves that being poor, oppressed, ignorant, and a slave is not really their own fault but rather their plight. Thanks to the evil machination of Stupid Bush, the military, the CIA, and the conservative dumb monsters who control America. This is standard thanks to a compliant and agreeable media here in this country.

My take of Wyldpirate's fit was that he had to dress up his points or lack of, because he is a victim of the buffoons who cannot grasp his mastery of the language.

What if Beauchamp's story is just left out there, and not discredited, how many others would have jumped on and used it to harm our troops and country. Why not embrace the truth and move on to a fight where you can have a leg to stand on. Is it because you think you have a grasp of historical record or that you feel emboldened because you almost went to Iraq.

Usually liberals deny the truth and point out other unfortunate events where they can take a stand, like Abu Ghraib and Tillman. Both which were taken care of in a professional manner in the end after the same discrediting took place.

I have to say that the WyldPirates of the world do have natural allies in the Middle East who oppose the United States for exactly the same reasons they do. The only problem is if they win, will there be any room at the ruling table for the soft but vulgar libs who get pretty hardcore on the internet.

[John-Michael]

The truth does matter. Yes, atrocities do occur. Yes, our soldiers will do bad things. We also need to know when and why they do so we can continue improving the professionalism of our armed forces.

That is what the "big truth" folks just do not seem to understand. War will always be hell, but our military should be congratulated much more than criticized for its efforts to instill a professional and ethical warrior ethos in our troops and its very considerable progress in doing so.

Haditha and Abu Ghareb are the two primary US atrocity stories to come out of Iraq. Both incidents were thoroughly investigated and publicly reported. Both incidents were anomalies and not representative of patterns endemic to our military.

Let us not forget that AQI (Al Queda in Iraq) fight with nothing but atrocities.

The veracity of Beauchamp's accounts matter because they represent behavior that our country men and women in uniform, by in large, strive to rise above. Soldiers who have served in Iraq found it particularly hard to believe that "on a particularly busy day" a soldier or group of soldiers could get away with so publicly degrading someone that was a victim of an ied.

“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."

The fact is that peices like this do tar the whole of the military and reinforce what are in many ways outdated and unfair perceptions of general practice in our armed forces.

[John]

"That is what the "big truth" folks just do not seem to understand. War will always be hell, but our military should be congratulated much more than criticized for its efforts to instill a professional and ethical warrior ethos in our troops and its very considerable progress in doing so."

I suppose its a measure of 'progress' that civilians who are stateside are horrified everytime they read something bad about our troops.
I mean, the mere fact that civilians are shocked by everyday acts of war is something that I consider to be progress.

But anyone criticizing the overall conduct of the US military in THIS war is completely clueless about the amount of horrific acts that happen in every war. This one has been completley subdued in its measured response to horrible acts.
In any war 30 to 40 years ago, we would have responded to IEDs and suicide bombings with far less restraint.
I'm very proud of the US military. Our soldiers are the best in the world, beyond a doubt.

-John

[SteveUSN]

As a Vet and a Patriotic American. All I can say is America is in some deep trouble when Morons like Wyldpirate represent 1/2 of the voting electorate.

When people who hate America and it's institutions so much that they prefer vicious lies supporting their wild fantasies to the truth and they represent 1/2 of the voters, we are doomed as a country.

How can we survive when 1/2 of the country would rather see a made up evil America, than the greatness of America? How can we survive when 1/2 of the country would rather see America lose in Iraq, than see us win? How can we survive when 1/2 of the country would rather see America become a socialist/communist state/regime, than support the freedom, liberty, self reliance and capitalism they made America the great benevolent world power it is today?

No country has liberated or attempted to liberate so many helpless nations and returned them to their inhabitants. Even belligerent nations have been restored to their inhabitants. What mental illness, makes an American to want to see the evil, instead of the good. An evil that is in most cases a figment of their imagination.

Regardless of his service, Wyldpirate is a traitor to his country. He is representative of the Benedict Arnolds which populate the left. They are Americans in Name only, they are not Patriots.