1 Has TNR ever admitted that Beauchamp is married to one of their staffers?

2 I hate to speculate but wouldn't Beauachamp have copies of the statements he signed? If so and they don't amount to a retraction and especially if they are confirming his stories, why doesn't Beauchamp release them?  Or indicate to his family that he will when he can?

3 Oh btw-Nothing in this about Confederate Yankee contacting their source about the Bradley, is there?

4 Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation.

Ah well, no.  You can't prove a negative and the onus is on TNR to provide the evidence they have that the stories are true.

Just like the onus was on CBSNews to prove the documents are authentic--not the other way around.

5

According to TNR apparently now Beauchamp is claiming the Army pressured him into signing whatever he signed.  Thats basically accusing your superiors of malfeasance. They should boot his sorry ass out with a less than honorable.

6 The Army's investigation probably used loads of sworn statements from Douchechamp and other members of his platoon.  If the Army were to release these statements to the media with everything but the actual statement redacted (these statements have blocks where you fill out name, rank, social, etc), the media could argue that since they have no names, they can't verify the authenticity of the statements.

If they were to release the statements with only the social sec. number redacted, that would be a violation of trust.  When a soldier signs a sworn statement the soldier is under the impression that the statement will only be used in the investigation and only be read by those who need to know.

Also, I'm sure there is some regulation that states the sworn statement has to be destroyed after a certain period of time.

7

While my wipes are really good at cleaning up; not even HOO-AHHS can get the stink off the of TNR.

8 Yeah, I'd like to know if TNR has admitted the marriage.

These people are so pathetic.

You've so gotten nailed, just admit it TNR!  You fucked up, big time, you let your personal narrative think for you and you got burned, everyone fucks up, just admit you messed up and cooperate, it would make it so much easier for everyone if you admitted it and agreed to be open about what happened, for, Gracie, Beauchamp and wife, TNR itself...

9 I hate to speculate but wouldn't Beauachamp have copies of the statements he signed?

It would be highly unlikely.  I had to fill out statements (not because I got in trouble, it was regarding other soldiers) like this in the past.  I never received a copy of the statement.

BTW, just so there is no confusion.  The statement is made by the soldier.  It isn't like some officer has something typed up and has you sign it.  The soldier writes out his recollection of events and signs it.

10 According to TNR apparently now Beauchamp is claiming the Army pressured him into signing whatever he signed.

 If that's even true, TNR has been so evasive during this whole thing, who knows of that's true?  Or STB could be telling two tales, one to TNR and one to the Army.

11 Ace of Spades and the reich-wing blogs are is just part of the Right-Wing Noise Machine. The Army is just part of the Right-Wing Noise Machine. The AP is just part of the Right-Wing Noise Machine. The Washington Post is just part of the Right-Wing Noise Machine. My dog is is just part of the Right-Wing Noise Machine....

12 If he doesn't have copies of the statements he signed (and I believe he does) then he needs to state so. I also find it hard to believe that any restrictions placed on him are not made in writing and he is given a copy. Again, he should release it.

13 He should be able to release the statements he signed without violating the confidentially of other soldiers.

14 You know, the harder they try to prove they were right, the more wrong they look.

And where's the publisher in all this?

15 I never received a copy of the statement.

Because you were not the focus of the investigation and the administrative punishment. Witnesses are not given copies of statements. But if STB signed  a recantation under penalty of perjury then he should have a copy. If not, he should state  unequivocally so.

16

PV2 Beauchamp *should* have copies of all of the documents he signed.  Why doesn't he fax them to Mr. Foer so they can post them?

BTW, if anybody doctors or alters the documents that is a different federal violation.  Kinda like that fellow who turned himself into a Ranger and doctored his discharge.

17 For those wondering, TNR has admitted the connection between Scott and Elspeth:

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a U.S. Army private serving in Iraq. He came to THE NEW REPUBLIC's attention through Elspeth Reeve, a TNR reporter-researcher, whom he later married.
TNR 8/2/07

18 God, how I hate TNR's "re-report" drivel; it's nothign but a cooked-up semantic dodge.   They aren't re-reporting.  They are, by now at least, doing some re-investigating, though the serious investigation started after they were called on this fiction.

Can these folks say or write anything truthful???

19 Note how TNR doesn't address the BFV reps comments. Why?

20 I suspect the publisher -- Martin Peretz -- is none other than the man who yelled the line "Frank doesn't want to tell Ellie her husband is a liar," but with Gracie "pressured" by TNR and my "communcations with him hampered," I can't get him to say that.

21 Thanks, Drew.

22 I even tried the old trick -- or, let us be clear: lie -- of telling gracie I already "knew" it was Peretz and just needed confirmation, but he didn't respond.  I think I might have pissed him off with that gambit.

Hey, Gracie -- seriously, I had to try. 

But really, I think it was Peretz.

23 TNR's subscribers will swallow all defense spin.

Further, TNR's subscribers will pony up more money for more amazing TNR Issues!

It's faith and religion over there, folks.  The spin isn't meant for you.  It's meant for their subscribers.  And I'm sure their subscribers are mentally circling the wagons to keep their world view intact over this.

24 I bet when he is stateside Reeve serves him with divorce papers. When's he coming back?

25 You might be right about Peretz, but one would think he'd do a better job protecting his product.  This drawn-out mess is worse for TNR than a simple "we messed up" would have been.

26

Can't a soldier sign a release of confidentiality for his military records the same way one does for a release of medical or employment records? Presumably the privacy privilege belongs to the soldier and therefore can be waived by the soldier.

27

My understanding is that Beachamp is subject to UCMJ punishment for a number of offenses related to 1. his possible compromising of operational security  and 2. his false statements to the media as the Baghdad Diarist. I am not a JAG lawyer and this is pure speculation but it is possible that the Army will not release the statements because it does not want to undermine what may be a criminal investigation. Also, he may have been advised by counsel not to discuss the matter furthur with TNR or to release his copies of the statements.

28

While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas

There's a sneaky little ad hominem if I've ever seen one.  Didn't CBS say something similar during Ra^thergate? 

Ideological nuthin'.   You can either back up your article or you cannot.

the Army...... has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation.

Yes, and TNR has refused to provide the names name of their corroborating witness or a detailed statement of what corroboration they are claiming.

29 Perhaps Gracie should release the TNR lawyer's letters (with Gracie's name and address blacked out) to Ace for publication.

30

"On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles."

Wait a minute - so now they're saying Beauchamp was pressured into signing the statements Goldfarb talked about . . . but these weren't contradictary?  Why would the Army pressure Goldfarb to sign statements that merely backed up everything he said?

They're starting to try to nudge in the excuse of "wait, he was pressured!" without wanting to admit the Weekly Standard may have been right.

"Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members."

One of whom works for TNR and knew of the whole controversy, so couldn't she been used to relay some messages here?

The Bradley Spokesman was the last straw here and made this more a scandal about TNR and Foer than about Beauchamp.  This is worse than Glass in that there it was merely a journalist having conned those around him, whereas here the magazine and its leadership is an actively engaged accomplice in this thing.

This scandal really wasn't worth the amount of credibility that TNR is losing from it.

31 So if TNR is being handicapped by the Army, where is there FOIA request for the investigation report and statements?

32

Can these folks say or write anything truthful???

No.  They're leftists.

33

"Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members New Republic staffers." 

 

34 I really don't think you should expect Elspeth to divorce him. Despite the quote about not wanting to tell her that he's a liar, I believe she was at least halfway in on the deal from the start. She probably approves whole-heartedly of his actions. After all, it's all in the service of a "better America," isn't it?

35

Wait a minute - so now they're saying Beauchamp was pressured into signing the statements Goldfarb talked about . . . but these weren't contradictary? 

Heh.  I can't believe I missed that.  It's absurd on its face. 

36 If you want to see the Leftoid derangement in full bloom, go to the WaPo's website and check out the comment section of today's Krauthammer column.

37

Has anybody pointed out to TNR that their boy was committing what is a crime under military rules by not getting his dispatches cleared by public affairs staff before sending them out?  IIRC, all milbloggers and imbeds in combat zones had to start running their posts by public affiars staff a while back to avoid giving out OpSec details.

If Beauchamp 1) didn't get approval to send stories about his activities to the press, 2) put out lies in those stories that cast his fellow soldiers, his unit, and the Army in general in a bad light, and 3) lied about it to his chain of command at any point, he is going to be treated VERY harshly indeed.  Taking away his communication to the outside world is probably just the start of what they are punishing him with.  They tend to take that kind of thing pretty seriously, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is spending most of his time confined to quarters or worse.

38 We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp.

We once again invite TNR to make public the statements of the five soldiers and the details of its investigation--and we ask TNR to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) to speak to these soldiers.

Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work.

That statement swings both ways.

39 Here's a take on why TNR might not want to divulge the names of their "witnesses".  Maybe these "witnesses" gave them some confirmation to vague generic questions and or disassembled story lines that didn't relate directly to the events as described by Beauchamp, not unlike how TNR confirmed information with BAE and used it to buttress their view that the stories were substantiated.

If this is about how they did it and TNR were divulge the names of those witnesses above a rationalization of how it supports what they published by Beauchamp, it's possible they would be in for a bunch of lawsuits filed by these "witnesses".

40 I don't know, Tex. I'm not sure he will be punished all that harshly. If this had happened in 1944, he would have been tied to a post and shot by now. Of course, maybe that's overkill in this situation, and maybe it just plain gives him more attention than he deserves. But I don't think he's going to be seeing anything all that serious in terms of punishment unless he goes a lot further with this or pulls something else.

41 Yeah, really geoff.  TNR's making all these demands and they haven't budged an inch on anything.

42 "At least one soldier in the unit had already confirmed the events described, Mr. Foer said, but the magazine plans, “to the extent possible,” to “re-report every detail,” a task made more difficult now that Private Beauchamp cannot easily communicate with anyone overseas."

Complete bullshit. My son is in the Navy. He recently returned from a gulf deployment. While he was there I got e-mails from him every couple of days. Foer is apparently as yet unaware of these little things we have orbiting the planet called satellites.

43

Ace,

How 'bout another book and/or movie thread? I want to grace the assembled multitudes with my (virtual) presence, but honestly, this story is broke. It's pretty obviously going to turn into a finger-pointing contest between TNR, the Army, and Beauchamp, with no one's relative positions on the issue being changed at all. I realize that this is a big story relative to the Big Media Meltdown(tm), but seriously: how much more evidence do we really need? I always assumed that newspapers or periodicals were ideologically bent to begin with, so I'm not surprised when the mask slips.

I've decided to dig my foxhole in the culture war over there by the Literary/Celluloid Outrages area. I'll leave the Journalistic Malfeasance battlefield to youse guys.

 

44 Why would the Army pressure Goldfarb to sign statements that merely backed up everything he said?

Duh...Global Warming.

(It makes as much sense as anything TNR has said to this point)

45 All you guys who think Ms. Reeves is so innocent---please--.I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't have a good idea exactly what her hubby was up to.

46

On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army.

 

The witness placed his hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth under what he described as pressure from the judge.

47 I fear that Monty is right. This is one of those things like the argument for the Iraq war. By the time everyone on the Left is done twisting, insinuating, and muddying the waters, most people will either buy into their position or throw up their hands in frustration and declare that it's impossible to know the real truth. And those people who have an emotional investment in TNR's position will be even less inclined to doubt them.

48 >>>How 'bout another book and/or movie thread? I want to grace the assembled multitudes with my (virtual) presence, but honestly, this story is broke. It's pretty obviously going to turn into a finger-pointing contest between TNR, the Army, and Beauchamp

Okay... any suggestions?  I have a good post that's written (in my MIND, which doesn't count) about the most underrated comedies of the last 20 years, but that's not ready yet.

Got a topic?  I'd like to do something like that but I've got nothing.

I've got some movie reviews but they take a while and I don't like to do them during normal blogging hours (before 6pm).

49

No, you spoke to one soldier who substantiated his claims.

Yes, the solider confirmed the woman was at FOB Falcon first and then said she was in Kuwait later. So that's worth close to nothing.

 

50 If Beauchamp is charged then the prosecution will have to give him copies of the evidence against him, including his own statement.  Even absent that, he should be able to retain a copy of his own statement.

51 I really don't think you should expect Elspeth to divorce him. Despite the quote about not wanting to tell her that he's a liar, I believe she was at least halfway in on the deal from the start. She probably approves whole-heartedly of his actions. After all, it's all in the service of a "better America," isn't it?

I think she was behind him in the beginning but now that it has blown up in their faces, not so much. It's not like they have been together for a long time.  They knew each other briefly at school, he went off and enlisted, was sent over seas, got engaged to another woman, returned in May for 2 weeks and married her. So, in over a year and a half, they've only been together for about 2 weeks.

52 Wouldn't it be easier to do one on the most overrated comics?  Watch any movie with saturday night live cast members from the last 2 decades and it will pretty much write your list for you...

53 <blockquote>TNR does have a gripe here -- if the army is going to call them and Beauchamp liars, they really need to back this up by releasing the signed documents</blockquote>The Army can't do this because of the privacy rights which TNR mentioned.  Beauchamp has to do it himself.  He probably will after he gets off of punishment.

54

"At the same time the military has stonewalled our efforts to get to the truth, it has leaked damaging information about Beauchamp to conservative bloggers."

What do they mean by damaging? Damaging to TNR's and Beauchamp's farce being sold in their magazine?

"Earlier this week, The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb published a report, based on a single anonymous "military source close to the investigation,""

Funny, TNR didn't have a problem with single anoymous sources for their stories, in the past. 

55 Note to TNR:  Quit digging; you're only making things worse.

56 The witness placed his hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth under what he described as pressure from the judge.

Ha! Some SLA terrorist tried that once. Copped a plea and went out in the hall and told the media she was forced. The judge dragged her ass back and voided the plea. 

57 He probably will after he gets off of punishment.

Wouldn't he be informed the length of his punishment and when he would have his privileges reinstated?

58

By the time everyone on the Left is done twisting, insinuating, and muddying the waters, most people will either buy into their position or throw up their hands in frustration and declare that it's impossible to know the real truth.

I disagree. Eventually the evidence in Rathergate was so overwhelming that the meme became "it was a set up" by Cheney and his minions. And a lot of people stopped claiming it was true and just went with the fake but accurate line.

The phony smoke in one photograph led to the shining of much light on all the biased photographic coverage in Lebonon.

If people are bored with the details, I understand. But the process is important so that lies are harder to get away with next time. They're trying harder so we're trying harder.

59

Wait a minute - so now they're saying Beauchamp was pressured into signing the statements Goldfarb talked about . . . but these weren't contradictary?  Why would the Army pressure Goldfarb to sign statements that merely backed up everything he said?

Heeey...nice catch!

TNR isn't exactly teeming with intellectual goliaths, is it?

Pssst, TNR....the coverup makes it worse. Sound familiar?

You should have helped break this story yourself and thrown the little tosser to his just reward on day One. It would have been more honorable and ethical than this lame and dishonest dance you're doing.

60

Ace,

Some ideas:

1. What sci-fi movie/book from years ago most accurately describes the reality we live in now? (Hint: Vernor Vinge's True Names.) This is a variant on the "why don't we have hovercars yet?" question.

2. Most underrated/overrated sci-fi movies.

3. Do sci-fi fans skew right-of-center culturally? Discuss influences of Heinlein's Starship Troopers and Joe Haldeman's Forever War.

4. What is the future of sci-fi in print and on film? Will movie-making move back into the hands of small filmmakers and hobbyists now that you can do high-grade effects and animation with personal computers?

Just some ideas. Yours are probably better than mine.

 

61 Is insisting on the truth from the media an ideological agenda?  I guess they don't see the hypocrisy in that - that they are willing to lie to further their ideological agenda.

62 normal blogging hours (before 6pm).

Some of us call that "net surfing on the boss's dime"

63 You know, Monty, this isn't homework time.

64

I suspect Beauchamp still hopes for a literary career, and will write a tell-all once he gets out in which he explains how he was "pressured" into recanting.

65 I have no doubt that he signed statements under pressure — the pressure of getting caught and punished for lying. I would think that in the army it would be routine to get signed statements from witnesses when an investigation is begun so as to avoid Nifonging someone. After all in the army you just know you WILL be held accountable for false accusations. So what is the big deal and why is TNR trying to make this seem illogical and wrong somehow? If your telling the truth then why does it matter that you had to sign statements. DKK

66 Monty,

I'm not a sci-fi nerd like you and most of the other morons here are.  I have no problem with such a thread, but I wouldn't know how to preface it and I sure couldn't contribute.

If any geeks and/or space-homos want a crack at doing a science-fairy sissythread, it's fine by me. 

But really, you're going to have to give me more than that.  I can't even evaluate if your topics are interesting, because my idea of sci-fi is Star Wars original trilogy and that's it.

67 Like Bryan at Hot Air, you're missing the most important paragraph in the TNR statement - the last paragraph.  Go back to it, and you'll see TNR admitting for perhaps the first time that their judgment and reputation are at risk, and that they may have to "take responsibility" - when STB finally speaks, and if he confirms what Goldfarb and PAO Lamb and others have said regarding his recantation.

68 Additional thought on the signed statement: You make a sworn statement every time you file your taxes and sign them (even electronically). DKK

69 The next bullshit excuse is that TNR can't talk to Beauchump on the phone because the NSA will monitor the conversation under the new FISA guidelines, which will compromise his ability to talk freely.

70 Scotty and Elspeth, sittin' in a tree, D-I-V-O-R-C-I-N-G!  First comes lies, then comes coverup, then comes Bad Conduct Discharge and a Fry Cook Job!

71 A brief comedy

ring, ring ring

hello?

hello. I'm Frank Foer and I'm a lefty journalist who hates amerikkka and the troops.

oh?

yes. and i'd like you to confirm some things told me by scott beauchamp.

ok, happy to help. [aside, sotto voce] guys, i got some pinko a***ole journo on the line asking about beauchamp, what should i tell him

[multiple excited young male voices] tell him all kinds a sh**, make it up, c'mon you guys get your imaginations going, we killed dogs, we wore bone skullcaps, etc. etc. [the actors are encouraged to improvise.]

[sound of heavy breathing from Foer, small vaguely orgasmic sounds and madly clicking computer keys...] oh thank you so much, so you confirm all of this from beauchamp?

yuppers, we shore do

bye bye

[hysterical young male laughter]

72

I'm still not sure Foer will ever admit it or pay any penalty for this, but I actually think this does hurt TNR.

TNR is liberal, but for most of its history, it wasn't rabidly liberal.  They've become more leftwing over the past decade, but I'd bet they still have a bunch of subscribers who'd be p****d at something like this.  Hell, I'm rightwing and I still respected them in the past, but this is going very far past the breaking point.  Just quit it.  Come on, you're doing yourselves way more damage than good.  If a story like the Bradley spokesman gets out and there's nothing else to it, they will lose subscribers over that.

73

I do not feel sorry for Mr Beauchamp about not getting to call and write everyday!  My husband is at a FOB with no e-mail, no phones, except for missions and only gets to call once a week from the main base.  Now on the other hand, Mr Beauchamp gets to maintain a blog, write lies and talk on the phone all the time.  How does this guy get to do all these things is he is so occupied with communicaation?  Not to mention he is a mechanic, last time I checked mechanics don't go on patrols!!!!!!!! 

Please answer this?  If these stories are true, how in the heck do they stand behind a guy like this?  If it is true they are taking the word of a horrible soldier who has no morals.  Why are they sooooo sympathetic to him, if he did all these things?  I don't get it.  TNR should be demanding that everyone involved, including dufus, be in trouble.  My husband is there right now and I am an eleven year vet, and this whole thing is offensive and rediculous.  TNR wants the Army to release their investigation, well, why doesn't the TNR realease theirs and demand that everyone be puishied if it occured, which we know it did not! 

74 If you want to see the Leftoid derangement in full bloom, go to the WaPo's website and check out the comment section of today's Krauthammer column.

Posted by: mrp at August 10, 2007 03:44 PM (QOTYh)

 

You weren't just whistling Dixie mrp.  I didn't have the heart to read through all of the comments but after reading a good representative sample I think I have established several pertinent facts:

1) Charles Krauthammer is the real Baghdad Fabulist!

2) Charles Krauthammer looks like Dracula.

3) Even if what Beauchamp wrote was false, WHAT ABOUT BUSH, PEARL, CRYSTAL, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, WOLFAWITZ AND KRAUTHAMMERS LIES THAT GOT US INTO WAR?  HUH NEOCON?  WHAT ABOUT THE MILLION INNOCENT IRAQIS WE MURDERED AT A WEDDING?  WHERE ARE THE WMD'S? ABU GHRAIB GUANTANAMO HADITHA LIES LIES LIES PHOSPHOROUS ILLEGAL WIRETAP JOE WILSON ROBERT NOVAK THE HAMBURGLER LINDSEY LOHAN KATRINA BUSHS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MAKE THE VOICES STOP WHY DO I SEE RUMSFELD NAKED EVERYTIME I CLOSE MY EYES WHY BUSH WHY

75 Do any startards and/or space-queers second Monty's nominated topics, or have other futurewad suggestions of their own?

76

Telegram:

This is Jason Leopold at FOB Falcon. Stop.  My unconfirmed sources verify STB's stories. Stop. STB is in solitary confinement, and has been tortured. Stop. 21 court marshalls to follow in 24 hours. Stop. Matt Sanchez did gay porn. Stop. I have personally spoken to IED Woman, James Bond Tongue-less Boy, and Dead Bradley-ized Canine. Stop.  Video feed to follow. Stop.  Glennie looks good in camo. Stop.  He sounds like dude from Brazil after plastic surgery. Stop. Conference call with Frank F, Mrs. B. and The Big Rover at 05:00. Stop. Bought a yarmulke Skull at Al Qaeda Imports. Stop. Sold my exclusive Baghdad photos to AP. Stop. Gotta run, got a text from OBL. Stop.

 

Using the TNR side of my brain.

 

 

 

77 Do any startards and/or space-queers second Monty's nominated topics, or have other futurewad suggestions of their own?

No. But I like the idea of a fiction thread called SPACE HOMOS- aoshq goes where no man has gone before!

78

you'll see TNR admitting for perhaps the first time that their judgment and reputation are at risk, and that they may have to "take responsibility" -

I'd be a lot more impressed if they stopped calling the Kuwait/Iraq switch a minor detail and acknowledged what a big problem it is for the entire point of the story.

 

79 Ace - Maybe you should just start the First Annual TNR Fact Checkers Lie-a-Thon.

80

I have a suggestion.

 

Fix the fucking Recent Comments and the replace the fucking comment counter.

81 Eh, anyone see the new Babylon 5 movie? I didn't know there was one until my husband handed it to me today. I can't review it yet, but give me a day or two...

82 This thing reminds me of Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill.  A lot of typing over nothing.

For those not old enough to remember, the sum total of what Hill said was this:

1.  Clarence Thomas asked her out on a date when he was her boss.  More than once.  But he didn't fire her when she turned him down.
2.  "Who put that pubic hair on my Coke can?"
3.   Clarence mentioned Long Dong Silver to her.

So all kinds of shit hit the fan over those three things, which were nothing.

So STB writes these things about the bones, the Bradleys and dogs, which are not incredible and not atrocities.  The kid getting his tongue cut out by AQI is also not incredible, they were killing barbers for shaving guys and using those depilatory threads back in 2005 in Dora, which is near FOB Falcon.

So you have these things on an obscure magazine blog, and some weird bloggers get ahold of the story and spead it far beyond its original readership. The content shows some relatively minor assholery on the part of STB and some other soldiers, but it's not like a rape/murder or anything.  Big Fucking Deal.

Now, it's obvious that the Army wants this to go away, they are doing what they can to shut off any information flow.  But assholes like Ace can't let it go until they can say they "won."


 

83 The piñata's here!

84 So now TNR is saying we'd love to fact check Beauchamps diaries but we need the Army's help.  Funny, they never did that BEFORE they published.

85

How about a best / worst adaptation of a book to a movie list.

I'd start of with one of the worst with the recent movie Shooter / Point of Impact.  What a piece of shit.

 

 

86 Actually, MamaAJ, they haven't been able to make up their minds about the Kuwait/Iraq problem - sometimes conceding its significance, other times minimizing it as a mere mistake or error.  In the new statement, they refer to it elliptically as a "key detail," kind of splitting the difference - it's "key," but it's just a "detail."  I know, I know - it is to laugh.  I've been calling them 14-year-olds since this whole story broke and I took a look at the "Diarists." 

The point remains that this is the first time they've shown recognition of how bad they look and what the stakes for them are.  I think, in fact, that this statement is rather desperate, and just one (clearly described) step short of throwing in the tool.  Foer et al are down for the count.  To continue the metaphor, they're holding out the possibility that they could regain their feet and score a last round knockout, but this one was over before it started IMO. 

87 So STB writes these things about the bones, the Bradleys and dogs, which are not incredible and not atrocities.  The kid getting his tongue cut out by AQI is also not incredible, they were killing barbers for shaving guys and using those depilatory threads back in 2005 in Dora, which is near FOB Falcon.

So you have these things on an obscure magazine blog, and some weird bloggers get ahold of the story and spead it far beyond its original readership. The content shows some relatively minor assholery on the part of STB and some other soldiers, but it's not like a rape/murder or anything.  Big Fucking Deal.

Icus, you ignorant douche.  It is a big deal and the fact that you try to claim it isn't means you have no idea of the concept of honor. 

88 er, not throwing in the tool, that's throwing in the TOWEL.  I'd like to keep my tool out of this, if possible. 

89

Icus do you think stories like Beauchamps have an effect on how the Iraqi people view us? Destroying their buildings for no reason, wearing their children's skulls on our heads, needlessly endangering their children's lives by not offering protection after using them?  If not, you are a bigger dumbass then I already think you are.  If you do, then it is not just a no big deal issue and you are just trying to spin.  Its a no win for you.

90

"""prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members"""

TNR admits what we suspected, Beauchamp has been communicating with the wife.   And just what is a 'closely' monitored phone call as opposed to a 'loosely' monitored phone call??  Monitoring is not an action, did they physically restrain him from saying certain things?

Does TNR believe a guy who verbally abuses and verbally sexually harrasses a female IED blast survivor deserves better treatment?  Do they excuse that beghavior due to the 'war in Germany is hell, you wouldn't understand' clause.

91

Do any startards and/or space-queers second Monty's nominated topics, or have other futurewad suggestions of their own?

Well I'm no cocksucker sci-fi reader, but I'll watch the fun.

Besides, I got nuthin.

92 At the bottom of the LGF comments on Krauthammer's story, there's something...problematic. Perhaps.

93

"So STB writes these things about the bones, the Bradleys and dogs, which are not incredible and not atrocities."

you forgot to include "not true"

94

TNR's hurling of unfounded accusations at the Army -- that they're "stonewalling" and "leaking," that they "pressured" Beauchamp to sign statements and are preventing him from communicating with the outside world -- is the real "Telling Clew," Ace.

The whole point of "Shock Troops" was to demonize the U.S. military, right? And now that their little story has proven to be credibility-deficient, how do the editors of TNR defend themselves? By demonizing the military!

TNR's editors are pandering to the prejudices of their anti-war readership (and ownership) by portraying the dispute over Beauchamp's factually challenged writing as a titanic struggle between those bloodthirsty neocon hawks at the Pentagon and the tribunes of Truth at TNR.

Liberals of a certain age (namely, the age of Marty Peretz) have a deeply ingrained receptivity to the idea of the U.S. Army as compulsively dishonest.

95

Okay, well it looks like the only thing to do at this piint is to trot out Mrs. B. 

Scott can't talk - says TNR

Army won't talk - says TNR

Investigation is over - says the non-talking Army

It's time the big guns call for Elspeth Reeve to set the story straight. 

 

96

Okay, Hakim (if I may be so familiar), it is progress. Behold the power of Moron-Pressure (tm)!

97

polynikes,

Oh, man, don't get me started about Shooter. Point of Impact was one of my favorite action novels ever, and that movie just squatted down and took a giant shit on it.

98

Monty, I wonder what Hunter thought of that travesty. If they ever make a movie out of Dirty White Boys I hope he writes his own screenplay.

99

"Icus, you ignorant douche.  It is a big deal and the fact that you try to claim it isn't means you have no idea of the concept of honor."

Hey, give the man credit, if he wants to go on record as saying "making of a woman who was wounded in an IED explosion and bringing her to tears" is no big deal--let him.

New position of the left--

"We support the troops . . ."

"but if you make fun of a woman who was wounded over in Iraq until she runs away crying--Big f---ng deal."

 

"Also, quit whining about that time we ran over your dog."

100

A few things TNR could answer without the Army or Beauchamp:

1.  Your 5 Army guys, what are their ranks?  Have they been disciplinary problems in the Army?  Are they all direct witnesses or did they hear the story later?  Are these guys people he knew before the Army, or through blog communication after first enlisting?  By that I mean, did any of them NOT have a prior relationship with him before the incident they confirm?

2.  Name your experts that you talked to about the articles?  Tell us did you actually show them Beauchamps statements or did you just ask general questions?

3.  Why do you continue to competely ignore the sqaure glock casing and only Iraqi Police have Glocks errors? 

4.  Had you reviewed Beauchamps blog before hiring him to write articles?  Did you know his main purpose for going to Iraq was to get credibility in his writing?

101 ...and that movie just squatted down and took a giant shit on it.

That is what I don't understand. The book would have easily translated into a good script without all the changing that they did. That is what happens when you let a bunch of HollyWeird Leftards get ahold of a good book - a f**ked up movie.

102

This is all about NOTHING.

We should be more concerned about real crimes and criminals such as Scooter Libby outing the CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame. And Alberto Gonzales firing his subordinates. We should also be investigating Dick Cheney and his connection to Halliburton. Wake up sheeple. Nothing to see here. Move along.

103 Monty & polynikes - you are too correct about that abysmal SHOOTER.  Part of me hopes it doesn't kill off the chances of other Hunter adaptations, but I tend to think they're too good as novels (too well-grounded in specific times and places), yet not pretentiously arty enough, for the movies as they are today. 

But I still wish that someone else in the Moronic Convergence other than MamaAJ was digging on what this statement from TNR is really saying. 

104 Do any startards and/or space-queers second Monty's nominated topics, or have other futurewad suggestions of their own?

I think most of them have been done, either informally intrathread or even with dedicated threads (like overrated/underrated sci fi films).

105 While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas...

There's a sneaky little ad hominem if I've ever seen one.  Didn't CBS say something similar during Ra^thergate?

Yeah, Dan Rather whined he was being attacked by "political operatives".

And never mind the fact that his sources, Burkett and whatshername (no not "Lucy Ramirez", that other woman CBS actually interviewed) were BDS-deranged Democratic political operatives.

106

It's called corruption, folks.  Ledeen lays it out:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/08/10/journalism_and_the_academy.php
"Removed from real competition, journalism has increasingly become politics, with the moral corruption that always flourishes among the poltical classes."

107 We should be more concerned about real crimes and criminals such as Scooter Libby outing the CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame. And Alberto Gonzales firing his subordinates. We should also be investigating Dick Cheney and his connection to Halliburton. Wake up sheeple. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Icus, are you really a retard or are you practicing to be one in a play or something?

- Libby didn't out Valerie - Riuchard Armitrge did

- Alberto didn't fire those attorneys, Bush did (as is his right to do so)

- Cheney holds no financial interest in Halliburton - He divested himself of his stocks before accepting the position of VP

- Oh, and the Gov't didn't cause 9/11 in case you were going to bring that up later

Thanks for playing, you can pick up your Ace of Spades Action Figure Doll at the door on your way out.

108 Re #20 Ace: Nope, it wasn't Marty Peretz. I believe, however, that divulging the individual's name would simply encourage wild and unwarranted gossip about the person in question, without shedding a spark of light on the case.

109 Well, MamaAJ, I hope you're right about that. I'm rather pessimistic about this stuff.

110 Mr. Minority I think that was a sockpuppet but without the hash It would have been hard to tell.

111

Blade Runner

Alien vs Predator

definitely non gay Sci Fi

 

 

112

T McGee,

Journalists are supposed to report news, not filter it.

113 Now, it's obvious that the Army wants this to go away, they are doing what they can to shut off any information flow.  But assholes like Ace can't let it go until they can say they "won."

This is absolutely pathetic.  If STB's fabrications hadn't been challenged, they would have been incorporated into the Great Left-Wing Propaganda Machine and quoted ad infinitum by left-wing douchebags such as yourself every time they wanted a few talking points about how how fucked up you think the war is.

But now that the fabrications are falling apart under the onslaught of a nunber of bloggers who actually have knowledge about military matters, so this is not going to happen. So now the story becomes "no big deal" and "much ado about nothing".  Your disappointment at having a potential propaganda coup thwarted is almost palpable.

114 Any chance the single soldier collaborating the stories was Beauchamp himself? The way TNR phrased it seems to make that possible.

115 Mr. Minority I think that was a sockpuppet

I checked the hashes and you are right.

I Have Been Duped by a Sockpuppet!

But it felt good to bitch slap them anyway.

116 One thing to note: the five soldiers "corroborating" the stories would appear to be:

(A) Beauchamp's chow-hall buddy from the original "Shock Troops" piece
(B) Two other soldiers who verified the existence of the Burned Woman -- although of course they placed her in Kuwait, not Iraq, and merely confirmed that there was such a woman, without actually substantiating the public mockery in the DFAC
(C) One soldier who witnessed a skull fragment being worn as a beanie
(D) One soldier who said that he'd seen a Bradley vehicle deliberately run over a dog

Note, particularly, that A, C, and D would have to be three separate individuals -- not the same person speaking on three occasions -- in order to get a total of five soldiers.

117

Heh.

118 Actually, is it me or did TNR just tell the world that Scott Beauchamp lied under oath? 

This whole thing is a horrendous train wreck.  TNR could have saved themselves a lot more embarrassment and saved Beauchamp by just admitting they were bamboozled and pulling his stories.

Now, this guy is totally jacked (whether he deserves it or not) and TNR has no reputation left at all.  I would have given them a lot more sympathy if they got duped due to a relationship with a staffer, distance and ideology then this continued BS (which we knew was going to come: the army is lying or covering it up, right? LOL) In the process they just threw ol' Scotty under the bus.

Now, instead of this being doofus editors meets prankster boy, it is turning into the big evil freaking media can't admit when it gets it wrong v. a lying cheating crack head.

119 Heh.

sockpuppetmaster,
You had better watch it buddy, or I will slice you in half with my Bradley Fighting Vehicle and leave you smiling in the sun!

120 Throbert,
Someone is lying. If those 5 servicemen are part of STB's platoon and they are agreeing with STB, then they lied to the Army. If not, then they are lying to TNR. Or (and this is the most plausible explanation) TNR is lying.

Which do you believe?

121 blah blah blah Insert contrarian idiocy here yada yada yada

122 Trobert, unless you have specific insider knowlege to the contrary, the math done with TNR's statement allows for only 4 "witnessing" soldiers (one, no. 5, merely heard some kind of contemporaneous hearsay account).

Three belong to the melty face story ( one was the "bad commenting" soldier, the other 2 had seen a woman with facial disfigurement present on the base, but did not witness any razzing, harassing, or digust expressed by Scott and the "bad commenting" soldier)

The skullcap and bradley soldiers may be the same soldier as the "bad commenting" soldier.

That leaves 1 soldier to confirm having actual knowlege of a minor detail, that could not be considered confirmation of any of Scotts penny-dreadful stories, but merely
"yes, our company came across bones" or even less specifically "Yes, there is a cemetary nearby so perhaps bones were found".

Throbert, if you know of more than one real witness to the key penny-dreadful details ( dog slicing, bradley ramming, project bone-way modeling) by all means, spill.

If you don't, then, the math as explained in TNR's own words
indicate that is is completely possible there is a single important witness and 3 minor-detail confirming witness, and one who merely heard , and did not witness, one of these stories or some kind of related details, around the time Scott claimed it happened.

123 120: Actually, only one of the five -- the chow-hall buddy -- has been clearly identified as an associate of STB. The other four are unidentified servicemen, and it's a stretch to say that any of them are "agreeing" with STB. None of these four claim to have seen the actual incidents described by STB; rather, two claim to have seen incidents that sound similar to what STB relates, and two confirm that the Burned Woman is a real person.

124 122: Keep in mind that the figure "five" came from TNR's own summary, not from my personal calculations:

And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke.

If TNR were really trying to inflate the apparent number of witnesses through deliberately ambiguous phrasing, it's very strange that they would've then gone on record with a precise total like "five" -- it would've served their verbal sleight-of-hand much better to say that "several soldiers" or "a number of soldiers" had corroborated the story.

125 If TNR were really trying to inflate the apparent number of witnesses through deliberately ambiguous phrasing, it's very strange that they would've then gone on record with a precise total like "five" -- it would've served their verbal sleight-of-hand much better to say that "several soldiers" or "a number of soldiers" had corroborated the story.

You brought up a point that sticks in my craw, TNR has never stated what part of STB's "stories" their "witnesses" have corroborated. Hell it could be that they corroborated he was in Iraq or once went on patrol. TNR is being as ambiguous as they can with their "investigation" so they have easy deniability if and when they get caught lying again.

If they truly wanted to exonerate themselves and STB, they would cough up the facts on all the accusations that STB has made against his fellow soldiers (and there are numerous stories that STB has made, that TNR hasn't even began to address). But they haven't and I don't expect them to do so.

Thank You Throbert for your input.

126 Well we know their Bradley confirmation was total bullshit based on Bob Owens tracking down the person to which they spoke for the "confirmation". They didn't come close to asking any "real" confirming questions. I suspect their confirmations from the "5" soldiers were equally illuminating. What a bunch of pusswads. How do they even sleep at night being so slimy and scuzzy.

127 Throber, did you read how they qualifid that number? They are puffing to mislead. A single soldier provided the only relevent confirmation, that is, he claims to have seen the penny-dreadful stuff. The 4 others were soldiers, but one, by TNR's own statement, witnessed nothing, but only heard some kind of contemporaneous version of one of those stories or minor detail of those stories.

2 of those four are, by TNR's statement, simply said they had seen a female with facial disfigurement (on a different base than Scott had claimed, along with the further embellishemnt of her EVERY DAY in the MESS HALL in IRAQ), but did not witness the cafeteria event themselves, and were unaware of any such harassment of this woman by Scott or anyone else.

The remaining 2 soldiers, by TNR's own language, may not have provided any information other than "bones are there, and there is a cemetary nearby" and perhaps "we came across some bones", and confirmed nothing more than that.

TNR could have parsed the "confirmations" out unambiguously, and chose not to do so. It is still in their power to label soldiers A,B,C,D,E and note which soldier confirmed what details.

If you have specific information to the contrary, that's one thing. If not, then you are being overgenerous to TNR. They have demonstrated that they will call things confirmations, which are not confirmations of Beauchamps fables. To wit: The bradley expert and the "hair on the skull" confirmation. Re that last bit: I don't recall anyone doubting that tissue may remain on bones of the deceased, in the short term or even over millenia, and what the hell does that have to do with whether someone put a bit of skull on their head, a childs skull, and wore in all day on his head, under a helmet on his head, and thought it was a good joke?

128 And Throbert, it is not strange that a someone puffing would throw in a specific number like "five" soldiers, instead of a vague number. It does not paint a prima facie case of lying, but specific details slightly misued are often used to mislead by liars. I do notice how they bother to use a specific number, but will not specifically state which soldier said what.

129 Hey, Icus, while we're investigatin', can we look in Feinstein's contracts for her hubby or Hillary! and Obama's financial involvement with the butchers of Darfur?

130

Douthat goes for more wet blanketing (via Goldfarb):

...this was a case of a magazine giving a break to a young writer not because his work "fits perfectly into the most virulent narrative of the antiwar left," as Krauthammer would have it, but because the young writer's likeable wife asked them to. They got burned as a result, and deservedly so. But not because they hate America.

Throbert could, I suppose, confirm or deny the likability of Elspeth, but that really isn't what is of import.

Is Douthat simply giving Elspeth the benefit of the doubt as to being likable, or does he know her?

 

 

131

"Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist."

Would this be on the same golf courses where O. J. Simpson is so doggedly investigating the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman?

132 Clearly, this is, like, #3 in a series of defenses that TNR has trotted out, hoping it'll pick up traction.  If it looks like it's tanking, they'll be out with another one 3-4 days later.

133 Is Douthat simply giving Elspeth the benefit of the doubt as to being likable, or does he know her?

No, Douthat believes  the marriage is on the rocks and thinks he has a chance to get in her pants.

134

One thing good about TNR, Beauchamp is actually a step up from others like Stephen Glass and Spencer Ackerman.  But that was back when they would let the bad ones go, not they defend them.

Funny thing is when Stephen Glass was called out for lying, TNR let his respond with addtl articles in which he used ad hominem attacks against his detractors...very similar to what Foer and the editors are doing now. 

135 All true events have things in common. They occur on a specific date, at a specific place, at a specific time, and involve specific people, people who have names and who can be contacted and who can engage in conversation. In other words, when true events occur, there are a multitude of facts that can be confirmed.

Long before Beauchamps's first word hit the printed page it was Franklin Foer's absolute and unavoidable responsibility to ensure that those words were factual. Particularly when the stories told of actions that were potentially illegal, immoral, cruel, plainly stupid and reflected badly on the military and America, how could any rational editor fail to understand that they would cause controversy and that his factual ducks had better be in a neat row? Yet, what is missing in TNR's repeated responses to Beauchamp's fables is specific, verifiable facts, or any attempt to deal with them.

It has never been the responsibility of the Army or anyone else to prove that events that never happened--according to their author--never happened. It is Foer's responsibility, and his alone, to prove that they did.

136 I'm sure he WAS "pressured"... with the fact that if he lies to an Army investigation, he's in deep shit.

137

The sad thing is that TNR has muddied the water so bad at this point that the majority of the public won't know who to believe. The only real way to clear all of this up is for the Army to release STB's statements. Unfortunately, I don't know that they can by law.

Jim C

138 Long thread.  I haven't read every post.  Sorry.

At the risk of making a definitive statement, here's the deal, as anyone who has been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) well knows:

Statements made by military personnel to the press, unless it's one's job to do so, are not protected.  In other words, Beauchump's statements are his responsibility alone.

What does this mean?  Simply, the effect of his statements redound to himself, for good or ill.  If ill, the negative impact to the image of the military has UCMJ implications.  Bringing discredit upon the Army due to his station as a soldier in the Army is a punishable offense under the UCMJ.  If investigation justifies a court-martial as a result of an Article 32 proceeding (grand jury equivalent) or results in a commander exercising his or her Article 15 non-judicial punishment option, Beauchump could face either felony charges or non-judicial punishment, respectively.

For those who don't know, non-judicial punishment (NJP) allows an offender to accept punishment for an offense which his or her commander reasonably believes the offender committed, without the offender admitting guilt or innocence.  Acceptance of NJP avoids a felony conviction via court-martial.

As a general rule, the particulars of NJP are never made public.  This is because
NJP is considered a rehabilitative tool.  Properly used, it allows a commander to to enforce good order and discipline while retaining his or her option to mitigate, remiss, or vacate any punishment imposed as a result of evidence revealed after-the-fact or an appropriate change in behavior.  NJP is designed to motivate the offender to learn from his or her mistake and return to being a productive member of the military team.  This goal would be difficult to achieve if a commander's every decision were subject to media review. 

Commanders, by virtue of their station, are entrusted with vast power and leeway over those under their command.  They are trained and obligated to treat each case on its own merits in deciding whether or not to offer NJP to an offender.  This is a good thing.

What does this mean to civilians?  Although I am not a commander, I think that Beauchump's actions do not rise to such a level that a commander would press straight to a court-martial and not offer NJP.  I also think that the government has a case, and if a court-martial were convened, Beauchump would lose.  The "pressure" being put on him involves giving him the choice of probably receiving a felony conviction or accepting commander-imposed punishment for being a dumbass.  The smart move on Beauchump's part is to take the punishment.  If there is no court-martial, then from a legal standpoint, no offense occurred.

As a result, in the interests of protecting the privacy of an Army soldier, TNR will never get any official response from the Army regarding Beauchump's punishment, should he accept NJP as I suspect he already has.  It's none of TNR's business what the Army did to Beauchump if he accepted NJP.  In fact, it's none of my business. 

Nor is it any of yours.

Sorry, but that's just the way we roll in the military.

The fact that TNR doesn't understand this speaks volumes on their (in)ability to comment on military issues.

-Brennan

139 Sorry, but I should have mentioned this in my previous post.

The commander's options are not limited to court-martial and non-judicial punishment (NJP).  In fact, the initial response to any infraction is typically a verbal counseling, admonition, or reprimand.  Next would be a written reprimand of some form.  These are all administrative actions (as opposed to punitive actions such as court-martial and NJP) that have no civilian legal standing, but are still significant from a military perspective.  They are usually imposed from a supervisory level well below the unit commander's immediate purview.

However, for more serious offenses, a commander always has the option to take matters into his or her own hands.  I'm quite sure Beauchump's case went to his commander.  What his commander chose to do with Beauchump's case is, again, none of our business, unless Beauchump faces a court-martial, in which event it is a public matter.

-Brennan

140 this speaks volumes on their (in)ability to comment on military issues.

Their credulity in the first place is what's bothered me.  Maybe Throbert knows if anyone in the loop for these stories has ever worn the uniform.  It's a little hard for me to see how you could have even been in the military and not treat these accounts with, at a minimum, a profound sense of skepticism.

141 Icus, you ignorant douche.  It is a big deal and the fact that you try to claim it isn't means you have no idea of the concept of honor.

Obviously, the "concept of honor" is not what it used to be, so spare me the sanctimony.  This guy is a private in the Army writing on an obscure blog.  There will be no sure way of knowing now much of what he wrote is true.  On the other hand, we have some generals . . .

Army Reprimands in Tillman Case Mild

By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer 5 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - Official reprimands issued to three high-ranking Army officers are only mildly critical of their mistakes after the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman and at times praise the officers.

The Army also said it would not include the reprimands in the officers' military records, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Tillman's direct superiors knew within hours of his April 2004 death in Afghanistan that the former football star had been killed by fellow Army Rangers, but the truth was kept from the public and Tillman's family for five weeks — in direct violation of Army regulations.

So these generals cooked up this bullshit story for the grieving family and the whole world on all news media, and a phony Silver Star citation for propaganda purposes, stonewalled the family for years, and they got a "mildly critical" reprimand.  So, WTF do you expect a private writing on an obscure blog to get, assuming that what he wrote is as untrue as the Army's bullshit on Tillman was?  I know generals get away with what privates get hammered for, but really.

Icus do you think stories like Beauchamps have an effect on how the Iraqi people view us?

That is so stupid I can't let it pass.  How the Iraqi people view us is determined by how the Iraqi people are treated by us, for good or ill.  They find out about that by direct personal experience, not reading a TNR blog. 

gnEbMinZIndex = 100000; var gfEbForceStreaming = 1; var gfEbInIframe = false; var gEbBAd = new Object(); gEbBAd.nFlightID = 244724; gEbBAd.nWidth = 300; gEbBAd.nHeight = 250; var gEbInteractions='['+escape('_eyeblaster')+','+escape('http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12gblvp8t/M=593571.10853620.11448953.2811172/D=news/S=8903239:LREC/_ylt=Ak9BkQQ147q26qNZiXOwHMtH2ocA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1186815262/A=4642198/R=0/id=this_is_the_number_of_clicks/1186808062846146/SIG=11efc35fs/*http://ads.y___.com/us.y___.com/i/sh/bl.gif?')+','+']'; var gstrEbRandnum = new String(Math.random()); gstrEbRandnum = gstrEbRandnum.substring(gstrEbRandnum.indexOf(".")+1 , gstrEbRandnum.length); gEbBAd.strNonSupported = "http://bs.serving-sys.com/BurstingPipe/NonSupportedBanner.asp?FlightID=244724&Page=&PluID=2&Width=300&Height=250&Pos=" + gstrEbRandnum + "&ebSiteClick="+escape('http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12gblvp8t/M=593571.10853620.11448953.2811172/D=news/S=8903239:LREC/_ylt=Ak9BkQQ147q26qNZiXOwHMtH2ocA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1186815262/A=4642198/R=1/id=this_is_the_number_of_clicks/1186808062846146/SIG=11efc35fs/*http://ads.y___.com/us.y___.com/i/sh/bl.gif?'); function ebBannerFlash_0_97502893144713551186808082627_DoFSCommand(command,args){ebScriptWin0_97502893144713551186808082627.gEbBanners[0].displayUnit.handleFSCommand(command,args,"ebBannerFlash_0_97502893144713551186808082627");}
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['z8l3eELEYpY-']='&U=13bhiq359%2fN%3dz8l3eELEYpY-%2fC%3d593571.10853620.11448953.2811172%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4642198';

142
All this thoughtful posting is making my head hurt.  Can't anyone just tell me what to think about this?

143

Wow, the Army Generals kept the news about a friendly fire facts for 5 WEEKS!!

Has any combat incident investigation ever taken less then 5 weeks?

What ridiculous standards we have, in the past you were lucky to even know someone was killed in 5 weeks, let alone exactly how and by whom, now we want a General to show up on their doorstep that very afternnoon with a full report on all curcumstances surrounding a soldiers death.

This is your great bad deed?  That somehow this was critical information that the family must have immediately.  No, your just pissed because the left wanted to use this as propaganda against the war effort, plain and simple.

Normally, you don't go with the first reports from the battlefield because they are usually wrong and/or incomplete, etc.

144 This article sounds like to me to be  a whole hell of a lot of  "tap dancing", on the part of The New Repulic. Why don't you guys just shut up and accept the fact that you screwed up - and let it go at that. What you are doing now is actually compounding  the issue / problem  of credibility that you've already established. You're showing your readers just how amateurish you really are, by your very obvious back-pedalling. Next time, for your own sake (as well as your readers), don't take a story and publish it, simply because it sounds too tantalizing to the staff at The New Republic to resist - without, at least,  first verifying it's authenticity. Particulary so, one that is or can be so damned controversial. And pleeeease - no more excuses.

145 ¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¢¥À¥ë¥È¥¨¥íSEXÉ÷¯¥ª¥Ê¥Ë¡¼½Ð²ñ¤¤¥¨¥í¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¨¥Ã¥Á½Ð²ñ¤¤½Ð²ñ¤¤¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹ÁÇ¿Í¥¨¥Ã¥ÁµðÆý½Ï½÷½Ï½÷SEX½Ï½÷

146 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 google排名

147 Air force 1 shoes
Nike air force one
Nike air force
Air force 1 mens
Air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Lebron Shoes
Cheap UGG
UGG Boots
UGG Shoes
Discount UGG
UGG Australia
UGG Sale
UGG Online

148 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

149 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

150 buy air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa

151 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

152 Replica watches | Replica watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Rolex | soccer jersey wholesale | Omega Replica | Porsche Design Watches Replica | Japan Rolex Fake Watches | Replica Corum Watches | Replica Oris Watch | Rado Watches | Fake Corum Watches | Louis Vuitton Fake | Replica Porsche Design | Replica Longines Watch

153 soccer jersey supplier | replica soccer jersey | replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | Replica Cartier | Breguet Fake Watch | Hublot Watch | Cheap Frank Muller | Jaeger Lecoutre Watches Replica | Fake Chopard | Piaget Fake Watches | Replica Hermes Watches | Panerai Replica | Cheap Omega Fake Watch | Rado Wristwatch