July 26, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:I haven't been following the story too closely, but it seems to me that the rhetoric on the Scott Thomas story could use a stepdown on both sides.
On the one hand, it's pretty ludicrous to accuse the New Republic of trying to underhandedly besmirch the war effort and the army. They've been wholehearted supporters of both for a long time.
On the other hand, it simply isn't true, as a number of bloggers on the left have claimed, that there's no evidence that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is lying. Or rather, there isn't evidence (yet), but the more lurid stories look pretty unlikely. For starters, as some of my more critical commenters will be happy to affirm, Americans are really, really attached to dogs. As Radley Balko was telling me yesterday, libertarian media types apparently found it much easier to gin up outrage about Waco and Ruby Ridge by pointing out that the government agents had shot dogs, than by pointing to the dead human bodies, even children's bodies. I find it thoroughly conceivable that one or two psychos might go after dogs this way. I find it numerically extremely unlikely that everyone in a Bradley would have gone along with this; the military is disproportionately drawn from the dog-loving rural classes. Not to mention the fact that swerving back and forth in an IED-laden war zone seems exceedingly likely to get your unit killed.
Similarly with the story about making fun of an IED-disfigured contractor. In a mess hall full of soldiers, many of whom would have known people disfigured or killed by IEDs, no one stood up? The thing might happen in a small, sick group. It beggars belief that 100 or more people silently watched some pottymouthed privates taunting a cripple who had acquired her injuries in the line of duty. I'm moderately well-versed in the stories about battle-hardened veterans committing atrocities in World War II. I've never come across a single story about making fun of your own side's wounded.
Atrocities, and just plain barbaric behaviour, do happen, even on the good guys' side. But the fact that they happen doesn't mean that anything can happen. AFAIK, the taboo behaviours soldiers engage in tend to fall into fairly well-defined patterns: rape, pillage, looting, revenge exacted on innocent but handy targets, graveyard jokes, taking trophies from the enemy dead. There's a kind of primitive logic to them that may sicken you, but still ultimate makes some sort of emotional sense. Beauchamp's stories defy that logic, which makes me distrust them. In addition, at least one of them can (and is) being definitively checked; and people who allegedly ate in that very small mess have already come forward to say that there was no female contractor or soldier of that description there.
At this point, I would be willing to put a little bit of money down right now on the proposition that Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp recants the entire thing as soon as the army opens up a court martial investigation for the many violations of the UCMJ chronicled in his diary. It seems to me fairly likely that the editors at the New Republic got taken in by a fabulist who was thousands of miles away in a place they'd never been. That's unfortunate, and it may be a career-ender for Franklin Foer. And perhaps they should have known better. But this wasn't some sort of elite conspiracy, and it's silly to imply that it was.
At worst, it was an editorial mistake; which is not exactly something it's impossible to imagine many of the more vocal critics making. Whether or not the editors at TNR were too gullible, I have no doubt that they bought the piece in good faith, and fact-checked it as well as any place does these days. And now they are doing exactly the right thing; not stonewalling, like CBS, but opening up a thorough investigation. It's too much to expect their ideological rivals not to enjoy the schadenfreude, but the implications of bad faith should cease.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 26, 2007 7:51 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksJane: Have you been reading TNR? If so, how can you say they have been supporters of the war? Their position on Iraq is - and has been for a long time - about that of the NYTimes. As to "supporting the troops", they are as anti-military as the rest of the Democratic party. Mike Brennan
Jane, I think yours is an exceedingly charitable view. The more implausible - or the more damaging - the assertion, the greater the substantiation necessary to support it before going public.
It's commonsense, really. Someone could write an article about how some public figure was a card-carrying member of NAMBLA ("hey, it could be true!"), and make him spend the next few miserable months trying to extirpate the suspicion from the popular mind. It is imperative to have rock-solid substantiation before going public with something like that, or like this.
Foer doesn't have it, obviously, since he's only looking into the matter now. He doesn't have the proof to hand. For that, he should pay with his career.
Sorry, but publishing a soldier's anonymous confessions to his illegal savagries doesn't suggest a motive other than helping smear the troops, since TNR obviously doesn't care about justice. That Foer is only exercising basic due diligence after publication suggests that he was way too eager to get this in print. Worse, it looks more and more like he's been had, as The Sir Real Scott Thomas seems to have been making up these tales long before he went to Iraq. Unethical, partisan, and incompetent is a bad combination.
Big Media seems to have a LOT of stories that, at worst, are politically motivated smears and are, at best, evidence of gross negligence (not even bothering to fact check a story).
TNR, CBS, NYT, LA Times, AP, Reuters...too many to name. It is disturbing that you give them a pass, Jane, as your livlihood depends on Big Media's credibility. I'd think you should be the most unforgiving critic out there.
The New Republic changed editors and changed its view of the war in Iraq. That said, I think the editor wanted a soldier's voice but didn't choose his freelancer wisely or check his stories before printing them. TNR should have chosen several milbloggers with a good track record.
I don't understand why anyone cares. I don't see a revelation anywhere in the whole situation. I guess I agree with you that both sides need to take it down a notch. But the original story is just lame, as far as I'm concerned.
On the other hand, it simply isn't true, as a number of bloggers on the left have claimed, that there's no evidence that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is lying.
I can't say that I'm not sure that this statement didn't fail to confuse me.
Jane,
Your heart is in the right place. That's to your credit. To the extent TNR's critics are enjoying Foer's discomfiture, that's NOT to their credit. Reveling in someone's pain and misfortune is an ugly emotion. Common, normal, and ugly.
However, you don't have to assume bad faith on Foer's part to think he was wrong to publish Pvt. Beauchamp's stories. Foer's partial explanation was that he thought Beauchamp was relating nothing more than what passes for mild practical jokes in the military. What's so damning of Foer is that he honestly believes what Beauchamp reported was routine behavior. Foer is genuinely non plussed that people in the military are upset that he published what, to Foer, are simple home truths about military life.
He just doesn't get it. Those in the military don't view the behavior Beauchamp described as anything close to routine. They think such actions deserve harsh punishment. They are offended that Foer would blithely assume -- in good faith -- these are the kinds of things military men and women do. That, in essence, he would be flabbergasted to learn that most of them had not engaged in or observed such things. Foer's goal wasn't an expose of abhorrent behavior; it was a day-in-the-life of an average soldier. That is an insult to all soldiers, everywhere.
Did he get taken in by a fabulist? Maybe. Whether he did or not, printing the story without feeling a need to fact check the heck out of the story is offensive. It would be like his accepting without checking a story about greedy Jews cheating their clients, because, you know, Jews are like that. Even if the story were true, the fact he felt no need to check it's accuracy would be insulting.
Even the frickin NYT held off on a story (Abu Ghraib) that they had photographs of until they got comment from the military and even they allowed the military time to investigate before they published it.
I would like to know who and how this article was fact checked before it was approved for publication. Were any military people, past or present involved? There are basic questions (as well as military-specific ones) that should have been asked and answered before this saw the light of day.
So, I say it is shoddy work and whether that is due to incompetence or malice aforethought makes no difference to me.
For my part, I go to the two Michaels (Yon and Totten) for my Mid-East reporting. They're free lancers, they report things that I don't necessarily want to hear, and they consistently seem to be anywhere from 3-6 ahead of the mainstream media.
True or not, it's typical of the mainstream media that there is hardly ever any good news about soldiers in Iraq. Either they're shown committing evil acts or as victims. The rare acts of virtue are never military ones. I've almost never seen heroism or bravery portrayed.
Megan, you hit the center ring on this one. I don't think Beauchamp's story is going to hold up, either. He's trying to get a piece of that Sheehan 15 Minutes of Fame, but using a slightly different (and a lot more disgusting) approach than her. I have no compassion, whatsoever, for F. Foer - let him be gone...
Joanne is right - the element you are missing here is that the change in editors at TNR, coupled with the magazine's tremendous unpopularity on the Left for its views on Iraq, meant that Foer was looking to change the magazine's image and direction on Iraq.
I don't think this was a conspiracy, but I do think that Foer's eagerness to build anti-war cred and discredit the mission blinded him and made him sloppy.
These attacks are absurd. We all know TNR would never publish articles that somebody just made up.
I would be willing to put a little bit of money down right now on the proposition that Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp recants the entire thing as soon as the army opens up a court martial investigation for the many violations of the UCMJ chronicled in his diary.
That would be a good bet, but would speak nothing about the truth of the matter (a question on which I have no real position). My guess is there is something between overselling a story and outright fiction, but a recant would only prove he doesn't want to be punished, whether the stories are a true or not.
Someone could write an article about how some public figure was a card-carrying member of NAMBLA ("hey, it could be true!"), and make him spend the next few miserable months trying to extirpate the suspicion from the popular mind.
The general term for that, these days, is "swift-boating." :-)
The rare acts of virtue are never military ones. I've almost never seen heroism or bravery portrayed.
I remember the Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch stories quite well. Of course, these later turned out to be fiction (as well), but that didn't stop them from getting tons of play.
The problem is that heroism doesn't always make a good story. Signing up, showing up, and risking life and limb is heroic. But in practice, all you get is the gritty, ugly course of war. The heroism is in the commitment, in continuing to act in the face of danger... there aren't too many burning-building stories, and if there are, they are too dangerous for most reporters to be around for, I suspect.
But, I will say that I regularly see pictures of the fallen on the news, with some type of homage, uniformly positive. It's usually a picture of the soldier as a cadet, a brief interview with the family. I think that counts as "stories of the good."
The story about putting a child's skull on top of his head, it being a 'perfect fit', and then putting his helmet on over it, is clearly not physically possible. TNR must be staffed by complete idiots.
fact-checked it as well as any place does these days
There's a perfect example of "damning with faint praise."
The general term for that, these days, is "swift-boating." :-)
No, I believe that's called "Rathering." Hundreds of people who were there rebutting utter rubbish is "swift-boating."
"For starters, as some of my more critical commenters will be happy to affirm, Americans are really, really attached to dogs."--Wow, this is really stupid. Have you heard of an individual named Michael Vick?
The fact is that you have zero, zip, nil, nada evidence to impeach Thomas' credibility, and it would behoove you and all others making baseless accusations to keep your mouths shut until you do.
Now that's funny, because we've all seen the complete indifference with which Michael Vick's treatment of dogs has met!
There's plenty of improbable stuff here. Even TNR is going back over this stuff with a fine-toothed comb. I'm glad you think they can give it a rest.
Megan, would you say that there is no slur against the military that is too outrageous to print without thorough verification?
Or do you contend that such slurs exist, but they have to be more vile than allegations of casual animal cruelty, desecration of child graves, and taunting wounded civilian women?
"Now that's funny, because we've all seen the complete indifference with which Michael Vick's treatment of dogs has met!"
I have no idea what point this is supposed to demonstrate. Megan's idea was that the tale of running over dogs is incredible because, goshdarn it, Americans love dogs, so such a thing could never happen. That is insanely stupid.
And, you know, it's good to have actual evidence before you call someone a liar.
We're all full-up on faux-righteous indignation around here, peddle it somewhere else.
No, I believe that's called "Rathering." Hundreds of people who were there rebutting utter rubbish is "swift-boating."
Without getting to the merits of the case...
[and if you weren't convinced that this was basically a smear the first time, I'm not likely to sway you now, nor you me]
...I'll just say that, in parlance, you hear of swift-boating more often than "Rathering," a term that I'd never heard and doesn't seem to have gained much traction in the lexicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating
Megan's point is simply that it would be hard to put together a group of Americans (on some basis other than a shared interest in dog-fighting or some other distinctly non-military characteristic) that would all agree to amuse themselves by torturing dogs.
One might well think it would be hard to find a group of American soldiers who would torture PEOPLE, but we already know - thanks to Abu Gahrib - that's wrong.
You're full of something all right.. not righteous indignation though.
I made up "Rathering," but you get the idea: made up rubbish to achieve a political end.
"Swiftboating" is a liberal coinage that attempted to discount the contrary assertions of 254 more or less unknown veterans, as against the wondrous tales of derring-do by a galloping narcissist running for the Presidency on the basis of recounting such tales ad nauseam. Who had more reason to lie? Cui bono, and all that? Notwithstanding the numbers of people involved on the two sides.
As for no one having proven Beauchamp a liar - yet - those taking that viewpoint have totally and hopelessly missed the point, which is:
HE IS MAKING THE ASSERTION, HE BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, NOT HIS SKEPTICS.
Suppose I say I have a unicorn frolicking in my backyard. No one's proven that wrong either, so you would take that seriously too? Please. The more fantastic/implausible/sensational the assertion, the more proof is needed. Obviously.
The cases of Kerry and Beauchamp both underscore a fundamental cognitive problem on the left. Namely, if what either said was true, and he participated, then he's equally culpable, and should be court martialed as a war criminal.
If what either said is true, but he didn't participate, although he did have actual knowledge of crimes that he didn't report, then he should be court martialed for dereliction of his duty to do so.
If what either said is untrue (aka a lie), then he should be court martialed for that.
There is no fourth case.
Any way you look at it, Kerry and Beauchamp both should have been/be court martialed. End of story.
It's true that American's love dogs. However, there seems to be a resounding pattern among American law enforcement that dogs belonging to suspects should be killed immediately. Balko has a long string of reports of innocent dogs shot by officers doing drug raids. They do it all the time.
Dogs tend to be assigned the characteristics of the people who own them, in other words. Therefore, I am less surprised at the idea that American solders would kill dogs belonging to Iraqis.
Plus, the American soldiers love to run over stuff with their tanks, and blow stuff up. Check out the lovely video circulating on youtube of American soldiers running a Bradley over top of an Iraqi taxi just because the taxi driver was looting firewood. The taxi driver complained he was having his livelihood destroyed, but it was all in a days work to the soldiers.
Or better yet, read this article in the New Yorker Magazine, in which a former U.S. soldier in Afganistan gloats (as he randomly destroys the opium fields of farmers, as a govt. contractor with DynCorp) “This is redneck heaven. You get to run around the desert on A.T.V.s and pickups, shoot guns, and get paid for it. Man, it’s the perfect job!”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/09/070709fa_fact_anderson
a liberal coinage that attempted to discount the contrary assertions of 254 more or less unknown veterans, as against the wondrous tales of derring-do by a galloping narcissist
Really? You really want to get into this?
Ok, the first line of note here is that, basically, this is a he-said/she-said. Many of those people were no more present at the events for which Kerry was commended than you and I were. Some were, and said negative things, other were, and said great things. I remember trying to read through the "who was there" part, and that alone was plenty confusing.
For my part, I accept the actual medals awarded by the armed forces as something that speaks to more than just "wondrous tales of derring-do." I didn't think they hand out fake medals, but if they do, it is my trust in the military that is misplaced, not my trust in one man.
Nor do I doubt the underlying sincerity of his service, particularly. He was over there, putting his personal welfare at risk -- that gets a good amount of respect, and benefit of the doubt, from me.
(I took a Google tour of memory lane, and found quotes like this: "Thurlow said the rescue wasn't nearly as dangerous as Kerry has described." This is basic Rashoman stuff... we all see things differently. Hardly damning.)
As for motives... there is a lot at stake in a presidential campaign, ranging from money to honest political convictions about who might best lead. There are "sincere" reasons for wanting to change the outcome of election.
==========
More instructive here are the similarities: when do we trust anonymous sources, and how much corroboration is necessary in a wartime environment? How do we record soldiers' accounts of events, and with how much skepticism?
The cases of Kerry and Beauchamp both underscore a fundamental cognitive problem on the left. Namely, if what either said was true, and he participated, then he's equally culpable, and should be court martialed as a war criminal. (Etc)
The "cognitive problems" really boils down to issues of realistic approaches to problem-solving, and understanding the world as less than black-and-white.
In the case of active participation in bad deeds, there is a real problem, and it is the sort that you get with any kind of "informant." You don't commend their behavior, but you need the information to make good decisions or better processes going forward. We do this all the time in law enforcement. Information has a cost, and that cost is sometimes dealing with unsavory people.
In the case of passive participation, it is even harder. How much do we really expect soldiers to try and change the culture around them during wartime? Bucking your peers and command are dangerous; beyond that, it's just not what we expect of soldiers. The military isn't an institution that we think of when we think of "leadership from the bottom." Expecting soldiers to create difficulties for their peers (or possibly commanders) simply puts them in a terrible position.
This is true, btw, regardless of the merits/facts of this particular case. The lower you are in command, the less I would expect of you in this fashion.
Bucking your peers and command are dangerous; beyond that, it's just not what we expect of soldiers.
What's this "we" you speak of, mate? Because where I come from, "we" definitely expect soldiers of any rank to behave professionally, and to expect the same of their peers, regardless of relative rank.
I'm sure you'll be happy to cite instances where this discipline has broken down, but that in no way changes what "we" expect.
Where to start, where to start…
Kerry's stories were laughable to any grownup hearing them. Let's pass over the time warp that led him to hear a Presidential address from a future President, and Christmas in Cambodia. ("Let's see, we need someone to conduct a highly sensitive, illegal, covert mission in an adjoining neutral country without provoking an international incident. Has that new lieutenant from Stateside unpacked his gear yet? You know, the one who has "port" written on his left hand and "starboard" written on his right? He's perfect for this!")
We'll also pass over the Magic Hat. Too easy. Lots of people carry manky bush hats around in their briefcases for 30 years.
For comic relief, let's consider VC the Wonder Dog. A dog on Kerry's boat (and who wouldn't want a dog along on ambushes?) is thrown in the air when the boat "hits a mine" to land on the deck of the one behind it. Happens all the time, I'm sure. No one else seems to recall any of that, boats hitting mines with no record of any damage (they don't make plywood like that any more!) and dogs flying through the air happening so frequently that who can remember?
Never mind the details of any given story, or that all of this supposedly happened in four months. In each case, the stories are grandiose, somewhere between faintly and totally ridiculous, and invariably cast Kerry in a heroic light. Doesn't that ring any alarm bells? Like, maybe this guy is a galloping narcissist, as I asserted? He so self-absorbed, he doesn't realize that no one is going to believe these stories, even if they were true. Admit it – you don't believe all his stories either!
Look at real war heroes, from both parties. Did JFK always quack on about PT109? Did George McGovern bore the pants off everyone with bomber pilot stories? (Bet you didn't even know McGovern was a war hero, did you?) Did Bob Dole start out every sentence with "when I was in Italy?" Does John McCain bring up the Hanoi Hilton every time he clears his throat? (Let's leave out Eisenhower; think he had some military chops?)
No, of course not. And each of them is a bona fide war hero, beyond any dispute whatever. The difference is palpable. Kerry can't break wind without talking about how the chow in Viet Nam gave him even worse farts. Dead giveaway.
Here's a rhetorical question: can you imagine Kerry telling a story at his own expense? Recall the Secret Service agent that bumped into Kerry and was characterized as a "son of a bitch" for his troubles. The man has issues. I'd sooner trust Kevin Trudeau. He might be a dirtbag, but at least it's a matter of calculation on his part, not psychopathology.
I stand by the cui bono point. Kerry has a burning ambition to be President, and everything to gain by, shall we say, "embellishing" the story of his time in the military, because he doesn't have squat otherwise. (Notice he didn't trot war story #1 until long after he returned from Viet Nam.) The Swifties personally had nothing to gain by going after him. Whatever they were before, they're the same now, and would have been the same regardless of the election's outcome. Kerry had everything on the line; they had nothing.
More instructive here are the similarities: when do we trust anonymous sources, and how much corroboration is necessary in a wartime environment? How do we record soldiers' accounts of events, and with how much skepticism?
We don't trust anonymous sources, obviously, because we don't know what their agenda is, and we insist on corroboration (wartime environment or not) before hanging anyone out to dry (that includes smearing them by saying they committed atrocities). An anonymous source is the starting point of an investigation, not the end point. Do you trust everything you read on the Net? If not, why not? Because you don't know the character or motivation of the person who wrote it, that's why. It's why the Constitution explicitly sets out the right to confront one's accuser, so that the court and the jury can draw their own conclusions regarding the accuser's character and motivation.
As pointed above, the appropriate level of skepticism depends on the plausibility, nature, and gravity of the assertion. I'm kind of embarrassed to have to point this out, even. Isn't that obvious?
In the case of active participation in bad deeds, there is a real problem, and it is the sort that you get with any kind of "informant." You don't commend their behavior, but you need the information to make good decisions or better processes going forward. We do this all the time in law enforcement. Information has a cost, and that cost is sometimes dealing with unsavory people.
At least we're agreed that Kerry and Beauchamp are unsavory. I'm certainly with you there.
In the case of passive participation, it is even harder. How much do we really expect soldiers to try and change the culture around them during wartime? Bucking your peers and command are dangerous; beyond that, it's just not what we expect of soldiers. The military isn't an institution that we think of when we think of "leadership from the bottom." Expecting soldiers to create difficulties for their peers (or possibly commanders) simply puts them in a terrible position.
That's exactly what I expect, and so does the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as young Beauchamp is about to discover. This is a disciplined fighting force, not the Bloods or the Crips, or other undisciplined rabble. Fort Leavenworth is full of people who failed to take that distinction on board. If Beauchamp's allegations are true, then the perpetrators should be joining their number. If not, then just Beauchamp.
Kerry's stories were laughable to any grownup hearing them.
As we are putting words in each others' mouths (nice job on that, btw), I will not agree with you that the military board that awarded him medals were children.
Honestly, I didn't pay that much attention to the whole deal -- for me, it was simple enough that he went, he was honored, etc. I thought he was the better candidate well before the issue (and, yes, that may be damning with faint praise indeed). Stories aside, he was there, he was shot (right?). Much of the nastier SwB comments about self-inflicted wounds seemed both silly and nasty.
You seem pretty invested, though, so I looked up the first of your claims ("Port" and "Starboard" still written on his hands): he was on his second tour at the time and was an officer. So, some experience, trusted with command, right around the time such incursions were taking place. Doesn't seem that implausible to me, but I wasn't there.
Here's a rhetorical question: can you imagine Kerry telling a story at his own expense? Recall the Secret Service agent that bumped into Kerry and was characterized as a "son of a bitch" for his troubles.
Admittedly, he is boring, and prone to sounding serious. Not likely to wind up on stage at the improv. A little more self-deprecating humor would have served him well, no doubt. As for 'SOB'... that barely ranks with the behavior of W and Cheney, frankly.
Kerry had everything on the line; they had nothing.
Personally, I think we all had a lot on the line during the last two elections, so I will disagree with that statement on its face, even if I didn't have doubts about some of the way money changed hands to some of those folks.
As pointed above, the appropriate level of skepticism depends on the plausibility, nature, and gravity of the assertion. I'm kind of embarrassed to have to point this out, even. Isn't that obvious?
Well, I appreciate your taking the time from writing your thesis to bring the wisdom. Yes, skepticism is merited in personal accounts (and mine was noted in my first post), but they are not worthless. But by contrast, weren't most of the swiftboat accusers... anonymous? Given the nature and gravity of the situation (a presidential election is pretty serious stuff), wouldn't an extremely high degree if skepticism be warranted? Yet, it seems you are giving that group quite a wide berth, right? Oh, that's right... you didn't like the way he told stories, so it's ok to say he didn't earn or deserve medals he was awarded by an institution I find generally credible.
Skepticism is exactly what is called for, in both cases.
That's exactly what I expect, and so does the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as young Beauchamp is about to discover.
We'll simply disagree here. I think that is a naive position. Dogs getting runover (intentional or not), soldiers laughing at people inappropriately, I wouldn't expect a soldier to try and move the culture, or threaten anyone's way of life, for these things. Frankly, I'd be surprised if they were even considered ciminal in some way... they seem inappropriate and cruel, but not necessarily verboten, and I don't think they pass a test of "shocking the conscience."
And what exactly does such a "ratting out" look like?
Soldier A: "He ran over that dog on purpose."
Soldier B: "Sir, I was avoiding an object in the road, possible an IED. It was an unavoidable consequence."
What kind of proof can be brought? Other witnesses, but if you are in a small group (and the "crime" is fairly minor), there is a far greater likelihood that the group will stand together, and Soldier A is gonna pay for his efforts.
On top of that, I just think soldiers have more important things to worry about than being manners police. If true and unreported, I'd simply think he was more interested in achieving a mission than making folks behave.
so I looked up the first of your claims ("Port" and "Starboard" still written on his hands): he was on his second tour at the time and was an officer.
Disingenuous, because it implies a year of combat operations in the bush. In fact, Kerry's first tour of duty (6/67-6/68) was entirely on the USS Gridley. Here's the rundown:
6/67-11/67 – USS Gridley operated off the California coast. Surf's up.
11/67-12/67 USS Gridley operated off the coast of Viet Nam. With good binoculars, Viet Nam probably visible on clear days (no disrespect to those on the Gridley; I'm just trying to dispel the Heart of Darkness implication of your comment).
1/2/68-6/8/68 – USS Gridley sailed to Australia (throw another shrimp on the barbie) and returned to Long Beach. Surf's back up.
12/13/68 – Kerry ordered to Cat Lo at Cam Ranh Bay, location of Coastal Division 13.
12/24-25/68 – time warp at Sa Dec, 50 miles away from Cambodia, made Kerry only person on planet to hear future President Nixon give Presidential speech.
So at the time of "Christmas in Cambodia" he'd been in his unit 11 days, and in country in total for just over a month, and so could have no more swift boat experience than that. So you're right, he probably did have his gear unpacked 11 days after arriving in Coastal Division 13. Would you entrust someone that green to a mission that sensitive? Now that I think about it, for a liberal, the answer is probably "yes." Grownups wouldn't.
As for 'SOB'... that barely ranks with the behavior of W and Cheney, frankly.
You've missed the point entirely. W's comment about a reporter was made privately, but was inadvertently overheard over an open mike. Cheney's comment was made - again privately - to a peer.
Kerry publicly (to a NYT reporter, IIRC) shit upon a subordinate detailed to protect his life, someone who in no way shape or form could respond, but had to just take it. Surely you can see the difference? Moreover, Kerry was laying off blame, not expressing an opinion about the man, whom he doubtless didn't know. It was stupid, and ungracious, and therefore entirely in character.
Personally, I think we all had a lot on the line during the last two elections, so I will disagree with that statement on its face, even if I didn't have doubts about some of the way money changed hands to some of those folks.
Nice attempt at the quibble/veiled backhanded smear. The fact remains, 254 Swifties, who stood to gain nothing, were incensed at Kerry's dissembling. (Dismissing that by saying "We all had a lot on the line" is pure horseshit. Kerry's ego, ambition, and political aspirations were on the line; the Swifties' weren't.) I don't know anything about their finances, and don't really care; the issue for me is the veracity of what they said. If you have something specific to say about money changing hands (did it come from Tides Foundation? George Soros? KBG general fund?) spit it out.
Well, I appreciate your taking the time from writing your thesis to bring the wisdom.
I wrote my thesis 30 years ago.
But by contrast, weren't most of the swiftboat accusers... anonymous?
The anonymous John E. O'Neill, a lawyer in Houston, first debated Kerry on national television in 1971. The other anonymous co-conspirators were (sorry, Megan):
Daniel Aguilar, OSC, USNR-R, Pat Alexander, Roy Alexander, Kenneth J. Andrews, Lt., Arturo Arias, QM2, USN (Ret.), Daniel V. Armstrong, BM2, Douglas Armstrong, Capt., USN (Ret.), Harry Ball, Cdr., USN (Ret.), Ray Lewis Ballew, Sonny Barber, USN (Ret.), John Bare, Alexander Bass, George "M." Bates, Richard Beers, Paul L. Bennett, Cdr., USN, Edward J. “Lord Mort” Bergin, Capt., USNR (Ret.), Henry “Buddy” Berman, QM2, Herb Blume, Lt., Barry Bogart, EN2, Bob Bolger Cdr., USN (Ret.), M.T. Boone, Benny Booth, David Borden, Carl Bowman, Vern Boyd, David M. Bradley, LCdr., Robert Bradley, Lt. USNR - inactive, Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant, Cdr. USN (Ret.), Kenneth Briggs, Carlyle J. Brown, EN2, Donald Brown, RD3, Kenneth "Buck" Buchholz, GMM3, Michael C. Burton, Tom Burton, Joe Cahill, Jr., Lt., Jack L. Carlson, Lt., USNR, James Carter, Billy Carwile, EN3, Virgil Chambers, RD3, Jack Chenoweth, Capt., USNR, (Ret.), William Colgan, RD3, Bill Collins, Daniel K. Corbett, Lt., USNR, James M. Corrigan, QM3, Terry Cosstello, Capt., USN (Ret.), Tom Costarino, Toi Dang, GM3, John H. Davis, Lt., William K. Daybert,Cdr., James Deal, Richard Dodson, Capt., USN (Ret.), John Dooley, Cdr., USN (Ret.), Dale Duffield, CWO USN (Ret.), Robert G. Elder, Lt., George M. Elliott, Capt. USNR (Ret.), Bill Eshelman, Claude Farmer, Cdr., USNR (Ret.), Michael Fasold, William Ferris, Capt., USNR (Ret.), Wallace Benjamin Foreman, QM1, USN (Ret.), William T. Ferris, Capt. USNR (Ret.), James Foster, GMG1, USN (Ret.), William E. Franke, Lt.jg, Robert L. Franson, BMCS (SW), Alfred J. French, III, Capt., JAGC, USNR (Ret.), Paul F. Fulcomer, RD3, Ray Fuller, GMG3, Steve Fulton, Cdr., USN (Ret.), Mike Gann, Capt., USNR (Ret.), Steve Gardner, Bill Garlow, Les Garrett, Tony Gisclair, BOSN2, Robert Gnau, QM2, Donald Goldberg, Morton Golde, Cdr. USN (Ret.), Kenneth Golden, Gerald L. Good, Lt. USN, Roy Graham, John C. Graves, Charles E. Green, ENCM, USN (Ret.), Dennis L. Green, GMG, H.C. Griffin, Jr., Lt. USNR, I.B.S. (Boyd) Groves, Jr., Charles R. Grutzius, Capt. USNR (Ret.), F.L. Skip "Mustang Sally" Gunther, Lt. USN, Louis Hahn ETCM (SW) USN (Ret.), Bill Halpin, Lt. USNR (Ret.), Don C. Hammer, Lt., Rock Harmon, Keith C. Harris, RD2, Stewart M. Harris, Lt., USN, Stirlin Harris, BM2, Gene Hart, RD3, Bob Hastings, Curt Hatler, John Hecker, RD3, Chuck Herman, RD3, Raul Herrera, Tom Herritage, Grant "Skip" Hibbard, Bill Hickey, Rocky Hildreth, Gary Hite, Jim Hoffmann, RD3, Roy Hoffmann, Adm., USN (Ret.), William P. Holden, Capt., USN (Ret.), Wayland Holloway, Lt. USNR, Duane Holman, QM2, Robert Hooke, Lt., Bill Hoole, Andy Horne, John Howell, Warren Hudson, Charles W. Hunt, EN3, Robert Hunt, Gail E. "Ike" Ikerd, Cdr. (Ret.), Bert Jeffries, QM3, Richard Jenkins, John Paul Jones, QM3, Tom Jones, Eddie Kajioka ENCS, USN (Ret.), John L. Kipp, Cdr., USN (Ret.), Thomas H. Klemash, Kenneth Knipple, EN1, Robert Koger, QM2, Mike Kovanen, RD3, Bob Kreyer, GMG2, Jack K. Lane, GMG3, William T. Langham, William Lannom, Alan Lapat, Joseph R. Lavoie, II CWO2 (BOSN), USN (Ret.), Louis Letson, LCdr., USN (Ret.), Jim Madden, RD3, William S. Mann, Jr., Lt.jg, Jim Marohn, GMG3, Douglas Martin, Lt. USNR, Tom Mason, Lt., Donald Matras, EN2 (Ret.), Thomas Mason, Lt., Louis Masterson, Donald Matras, EN3, Richard McFarland, Lt. USNR, Kenneth B. McGhee, James McNeal, ENC, Errol Meleander, Cdr., USN (Ret.), Jack Merkley, Lt., James M. Miller, John Miller, ENC (Ret.), Martin Miller, ENC (Ret.), Marc Milligan, GMG2, Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3, Edward Morgan, Capt. USN, Edgar (Ed) M. Morrill, Jr., Tom Morrill, EN3, Wayne H. Moser, Kurt Moss, Lt. J.G., Frank Mueller, Marc Milligan, GMG2, Ed Mundy, Van Odell, GMG1, Richard Olsen, Lt., Richard O'Mara, RD2, USN, John O'Neill, Lt., USN, (Ret.), Albert Owens, Tedd Peck, Capt. USNR (Ret.), Richard Pees, Lt., USNR, James Penkert, ENC, Thomas Petersik, Robert Phalen, GMG2, Charles Plumley, Joseph L. Ponder, GMG-2, USN (Ret.), Chuck Rabel, Bob Reller, Steve Renfro, RD3, USN (Ret.), Don Renshaw, EN2, USN PCF 93, Frank Rockwell, Bill Rogers, Lt., Patrick Sage GMG3, Gary W. Sallee, BM2, Burke Salsi, RD2, Joe Sandoval, GMG3, Jimmy W. Sanford, RD3, Robert Scattergood, Jim Schneider, EN2, Clair J. (Pete) Schrodt, Capt. USN (Ret.), Jack Shamley, Patrick Sheedy, Cdr., USN (Ret.), Paul Shepherd, QM2, Robert B. Shirley, Lt.jg, William Shumadine, Stanley G. Simonson, GMG2, John Singleton, ENC, Darryl Skuce, GMG2, John J. Skura, Gerald H. Smith, Bob Smith, GMG2, Gerald Smith, Roy Smith, B. Tony Snesko BM2, Mike Solhaug, Jack Spratt, LCDR, David R. Stefferud, Capt., USN (Ret.), James Steffes, Fred E. Stith, USN (Ret.), Lawrence Stoneberg, Lt. USN (Ret.), Weymouth Symmes, RDM, Tony Taylor, W.P. "Sonny" Taylor, Dewey Thedford, James P. Thomas, Eldon Thompson, Lt.jg, Larry Thurlow, Lt.jg, Joseph Timmons, RD3, USN, Charles R. Tinstman, ENC, Gary E. Townsend, William F. Trainer, Mark Tuft, Capt., USN (Ret.), Michael Turley, BM2, Chris J. Vedborg, RD3, Jeffrey M. Wainscott, Lt.jg, David Wallace, Greg Ward, EN2, Larry J. “Waz” Wasikowski, Cdr. U.S. Naval Reserve, Pete Webster, Steven Weekley, GMG, QM3, George Wendell, En1, USN (Ret.), Bruce Wentworth, Lt., USNR, George H. White, II, R. Shelton White, Lt., Gary K. Whittington, EN3, James D. Wiggins, Tom Wilkins, Thomas A. Withey, Lt., Bernard Wolff, Thomas W. Wright, Cdr., USN (Ret.), John Wyatt, GMG, John Yeoman, Lt., Ross Barker, Capt. USN (Ret.), Joe Cantrell, Lt.jg, USNR, Allan Clapp, ETR3, USN, George Clatterbuck, CMSgt. USAF, Ret., Tony DeLuna, David Desiderio, Cdr., USCG (Ret.), Verne DeWitt, MR1, Jim Fitzgerald, Monte Gluck, Don Higgins, Larry Hobson, Robert Johnson, Walter Jones, USMC, Adrian Lonsdale, Capt., USCG (Ret.), David P. Marion, CPT Infantry, US Army, Larry Meyer, Benjamin A. Montoya, QM3, Denny O'Brien, Cordelia Ogrinz, in memory of her brother Alexander J. Ogrinz, III, Lt., Rex Rectanus, VADM, USN (Ret.), Skip Ridley, Jennings Rogerson II, Capt. USMC (Ret.), John Slagle, Special agent, USBP (Ret.), Patrick Stevenson, Army Special Forces (Ret.), Emmett Tidd, Vice Admiral, USN, (Ret.), Leslie "Butch" Vorphal, RD3, USN PCF 3, Steve Watts, Army, Dennis D. Willess, EN3, Army Infantry, Raymond Wroten, SSgt., USMC (Ret.), James M. Zumwalt in memory of Elmo Zumwalt, Sr. and Elmo Zumwalt, Jr, his father and brother.
so it's ok to say he didn't earn or deserve medals he was awarded by an institution I find generally credible.
So if the Army finds Beauchamp to be a liar, you'll accept that, or will that be the exception to the "generally" part? I did not accept the SBVT version uncritically, but found Kerry's response to be unconvincing. And let's face it, Kerry recanted the Christmas in Cambodia story, so even Teresa doesn't still maintain that that one is true.
Furthermore, Kerry has consistently danced around the release of his military records. I don't think that they would be relevant, but for his having run solely on his military record ("reporting for duty" – Christ). He put that record in issue, and so we had a right - no, a responsibility, to perform due diligence - to see the whole thing. Got a Duck Dinner in there, John, before Carter scrubbed you clean? We should know that.
I think that is a naive position. Dogs getting runover (intentional or not), soldiers laughing at people inappropriately, I wouldn't expect a soldier to try and move the culture, or threaten anyone's way of life, for these things. Frankly, I'd be surprised if they were even considered ciminal in some way... they seem inappropriate and cruel, but not necessarily verboten, and I don't think they pass a test of "shocking the conscience."
I'm sure I have no idea what it takes to shock a liberal's conscience, although lots of people in the Bay Area have tried unsuccessfully. It's obviously an exceedingly tough standard.
Meanwhile, the naivete is solely on your part. Did you know, for example, that adultery is a crime in the military? That's doubtless hard to believe, for those who consider fisting on the first date to be par for the course, but it's true. Everything Beauchamp alleged is a crime under the UCMJ; that's why the Army has launched a formal investigation of his allegations. Manners has nothing to do with it. So start being surprised. The JAG is going to be putting in some overtime.
Give 'em hell, Occam!
"For my part, I accept the actual medals awarded by the armed forces as something that speaks to more than just "wondrous tales of derring-do." I didn't think they hand out fake medals, but if they do, it is my trust in the military that is misplaced, not my trust in one man."
This one quote pretty much exemplifies the level of knowledge the author of that quote (BL) has in the military. Rules and regulations are just that. And rules can be gamed to the point of claiming medals where they shouldn't be awarded. When Kerry gave himself a half dozen little bitty pieces of metal to 'earn' a Pubple Heart, he did it all on his lonesome and there wasn't an enemy shell anywhere near where he was, when it happened.
It's pathetic, what the non-warriors will claim, claiming special knowledge of such military situations. They are welcome to have their opinion, but to be taken as a strong likelihood they have to have a little bit of resonibleness associated with it, as well as be logical and a modicum of knowledge.
The world is full of discounts, and it is easy to be blinded by what you WANT something to be, as opposed to what the facts show.
As for Americans loving dogs - to a point, yes. As one poster already pointed out, however, there are plenty who engaged in dogfighting. What is more, some rural areas have problems with wild dogs. The usual remedy is to shoot them on sight.
Certainly, SOME Americans love dogs, especially their own dogs, but it is hardly a rule.
I can't believe you actually typed "the dog-loving rural classes" without howling in laughter. You obviously know nothing about the "rural classes", or the military, for that matter.
Ask me about my first Air Force party sometime. And then I'll tell you about growing up in the South among the "rural classes".
But first please stop condescending to all of us.
Comments are Closed.