Gay Patriot Header Image

Scott Thomas Revealed… another LEMON?


**4PM UPDATEPrivate Beauchamp’s financee/wife is none other than a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.  How convenient.  Ace also reports that TNR is now in full CYA mode by firing people and looking at email records.

And, there’s more.  Beauchamp’s fiancee/wife and TNR employee, Elspeth Reeve, used him as a source for a story she wrote in 2004.  (h/t – Discarded Lies)

Hey, I think I see a pattern forming here.   Aww, and just maybe they met under the romantic aura of that abortion rally?


First, mucho apologies for my blog silence the past week.   Things are quite hectic at work and my travel schedule around the USA has been completely crazy (and filled with apathetic/mean US Airways employees).

In any case, I’ve been reading about the latest meme on US atrocities in Iraq — courtesy of “Scott Thomas” — the past few days.  This morning, Scott Thomas is revealed.

My Diarist, “Shock Troops,” and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.  I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

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

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

Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Now, I certainly don’t deny that individuals go off the reservation and do nutty and abhorrent things both in war (Abu Grahib) or under pressure of crisis (Ray Nagin).  Especially in a war where one whole political party back home in the USA has a policy of denial, failure and retreat.

But let’s state the facts here as we know them this morning:  The New Republic has still not corroborated anything Private Beauchamp wrote.  And just because Scott Thomas has a real name, doesn’t mean what he wrote is real or true.  After all, any Army Private with a knack for writing and an active imagination can write a piece of war fiction.

The New Republic says a formal military investigation has been launched at the base where Private Thomas/Beauchamp claims he was stationed when these alleged atrocities occurred.  Good!   If there are facts to back up “Scott Thomas'” tale of war gone bad, then people — including Beauchamp, apparently — need to be prosecuted and court martialed.

But I’m highly skeptical when we live in an era of Liberal Lies Extraordinarily Manufactured On the News (LEMONs):  John “Genghis Khan” Kerry, Dan Rather, Joe Wilson, 2004 Lancet Study, Jack “Cold Blooded Haditha” Murtha… the list is becoming endless.

And luckily, this is what the blogosphere is all about… to find the real truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. Well said, Bruce. This will be an interesting case study, and I predict by the end of the day, the blogosphere will have pretty well uncovered the whole story, before the MSM gets around to noticing it. I did not that PVT Beauchamp’s statement re “plausibility of events he witnessed” has already been shown to be highly implausible. Now if he witnessed those events, unless he was alone which is, in itself, implausible, there will have to be other witnesses. Laissez roule les bon temps!

    Thanks for you good work, BTW

    Comment by Roger — July 26, 2007 @ 10:49 am - July 26, 2007

  2. The “wearing the skull” bit used by PVT Beauchamp may have come from the Steve Buscemi scene in ConAir – the bit about the dog being run over might be a riff from the opening scene of Patton – the grave scene imagery might come from ‘Behind Enemy Lines’.

    Who knows? There may be something from ‘Three Kings’ that worked its way into Scott Thomas’s ‘reportage.’

    Any film buffs out there who can match up the scenes in Scott’s reporting to movies?

    Comment by BumperStickerist — July 26, 2007 @ 10:50 am - July 26, 2007

  3. And just because Scott Thomas has a real name, doesn’t mean what he wrote is real or true.

    Eh. Worked for Jamil Hussein. It will serve Scott Thomas’ and the New Republic’s purposes, too. No one will be held accountable for flawed reporting.

    Comment by Les Nessman — July 26, 2007 @ 11:20 am - July 26, 2007

  4. As the inimitable Power Line puts it (complete with the link to Malkin I’ve replicated):

    …Beauchamp’s concern over the “character” of his “comrades in arms” being “called into question” is touching [, since] that was the sole purpose of his articles.

    UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a whole lot more on Beauchamp, who has a blog and a MySpace page. He’s a pretentious ass, and a lefty.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2007 @ 11:37 am - July 26, 2007

  5. “Scott Thomas” Meet Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp…

    That’s nice, but what about the veracity of what he wrote about? Well, TNR is taking its time in checking up on those stories. Hey, TNR, you’re supposed to fact check the stories before you run them – not after. If they’re sounding too good to be tr…

    Trackback by A Blog For All — July 26, 2007 @ 11:45 am - July 26, 2007

  6. “After all, any Army Private with a knack for writing and an active imagination can write a piece of war fiction.”

    or any other armed forces personnel… reminds of noted author Sen. James Webb

    Comment by anon — July 26, 2007 @ 11:49 am - July 26, 2007

  7. Any relation to W.W. Beauchamp?

    “The Duck of Death. ”


    “Duck, I says.”

    Comment by pdq332 — July 26, 2007 @ 11:56 am - July 26, 2007

  8. Actually… Given the sheer size of the armed forces, there must be tens of thousands of pretentious asses – and lefties – in them. So I’m surprised we don’t see more John Kerrys, Jack Murthas, Scott T. Beauchamps, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2007 @ 1:15 pm - July 26, 2007

  9. Power Line isn’t the only one who has pointed out the fact that Scott Thomas is the one who called his character into question and the character of his fellow soldiers. That he can describe them the way he does and then go on about “character” is a bit much.

    The other point… it’s not those who have never been to Iraq who have been the most critical of him and who have been all over this. It’s the people who *have* been there and who know better.

    Comment by Synova — July 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm - July 26, 2007

  10. #3
    Less Nessman, LMAO. Where’s the Band-Aid today?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 26, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - July 26, 2007

  11. Has the Army commented on if there really is a “Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp” serving in Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division?

    Comment by Crow — July 26, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - July 26, 2007

  12. Crow, service members wtih access to AKO online have confirmed it.

    Comment by FbL — July 26, 2007 @ 2:45 pm - July 26, 2007

  13. Wasn’t it The New Republic that was fooled by Stephen Glass, as he submitted fiction after fiction, which their editors printed as “truth”? They seem to be quite sloppy there, in fact checking. Or, maybe they just don’t care. So, it’s not like The New Republic is a stranger to make-believe.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — July 26, 2007 @ 4:22 pm - July 26, 2007

  14. Yeah, ooooops…

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — July 26, 2007 @ 4:32 pm - July 26, 2007

  15. #13-14: Good job, LNC – and welcome back! I’ve missed your pithy comments.

    Also – is it just me, or are there no libtrolls here to poo-poo Bruce’s findings??

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 26, 2007 @ 5:08 pm - July 26, 2007

  16. Well I’ll give the leftist nutjobs credit for at least going one better than the Ersatz Ranger, Jessie MacBeth. At least Beauchamp appears to really be IN the military. Now as for the rest of his story, after he gets his ass reamed out by his command and is ostracized by his fellow soldiers, he’d better have something to substantiate the controversial charges he’s made in TNR. I’m not a lawyer, but I can see possible court-martial grounds for violating Articles 132 & 134 of the UCMJ.

    Comment by John — July 26, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - July 26, 2007

  17. Might be grounds. More likely it will be “If you don’t want to be here, go.” If there was an office pool on the issue my bet would be on a non-judicial administrative discharge.

    Comment by Synova — July 26, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - July 26, 2007

  18. Syn, I’d rather drop this loser off in front of Fort Hood and let some of my enlisted Texas boys and girls have a crack at him. He has disgraced himself, his uniform and his country.

    I hear Canada is nice this time of year….

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 26, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - July 26, 2007

  19. This is one instance where the General Article, 134 of the UCMJ, is our greatest friend. 🙂

    Comment by John — July 26, 2007 @ 7:54 pm - July 26, 2007

  20. Hey Peter – Thanks! I’ve taken a little hiatus from battling our enemy within (a.k.a. liberals). It really has become an exercise in futility, because they refuse to accept facts. That can get tiring!! With that said, every so often, something like this, which is so glaringly obvious of typical leftist crap, compells me to comment. Plus, when it was so easy to prove how sloppy TNR continues to be, it’s my pleasure to be “pithy” 😉 ! It further illustrates to what depths the enemy within will plunge, even if it means compromising our country’s security. Or, especially if it means that, is more like it.

    Comment by LesbianNeoCon — July 26, 2007 @ 9:18 pm - July 26, 2007

  21. […] by his fingernails : “SCOTT THOMAS” REVEALED, and the spin is as predicted. Plus, as Bruce Carroll notes: “The New Republic has still not corroborated anything Private Beauchamp […]

    Pingback by Right wings hysterics over Scott Thomas at Antony Loewenstein — July 26, 2007 @ 10:27 pm - July 26, 2007

  22. I have no idea whether or not Beauchamp’s allegations are true, partly true, or BS.

    That soldiers in combat say and do things in (at best) poor taste is not at all surprising. Being in the military may be a noble calling but it doesn’t guarantee piety.

    Combat is stressful (to say the least). Those who work in situations where people are maimed and killed have to deal with it and sick humor is a pretty common means of coping.

    Ask any ER doc/nurse, EMT, cop, or fireman and you will hear some humorous “there was this one time” stories that will make the average person gag. Context is important here.

    Comment by Robert — July 26, 2007 @ 11:13 pm - July 26, 2007

  23. #18 I’m not saying that’s what he *deserves*. I’m saying that it’s probably what will happen.

    As satisfying as it would be to throw the UCMJ at him, I can’t see that it would be useful from a broader perspective. He’d get to be tragically oppressed is all. Win for him, loss for the Army. Discharge papers are easy and can’t *quite* be said to be a punishment.

    Comment by Synova — July 26, 2007 @ 11:35 pm - July 26, 2007

  24. Is a non-judicial administrative discharge less-than-honorable, like a general discharge?

    One of Ace’s other pieces today brings out that Beauchamp joined the military knowing he was a military-hating leftist, and consciously hating the experience, but wanting the “credibility” it would bring his leftist opinions later in life. A less-than-honorable discharge would undercut his hoped-for credibility, at least among those with eyes to see.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2007 @ 2:11 am - July 27, 2007

  25. Further: (h/t Ace) brings out that Beauchamp was writing anti-military fiction set in Iraq and publishing it on his blog – yes, you read that right – before he arrived there.

    In other words: Beauchamp went, knowing in advance what he would be finding in Iraq and telling people (i.e., reasons to be anti-military).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2007 @ 2:21 am - July 27, 2007

  26. Dean Barnett sums it up:

    Scott Thomas Beauchamp went to war with the specific goal of ridiculing and belittling the war effort. Yes, he wore the uniform. In virtually all cases, that’s praiseworthy. But in Beauchamp’s case, he wore the uniform as a means by which to make his artistic bones; he knew that in making those artistic bones, he would undermine the efforts of his brothers in arms. In short, he went to war with the specific purpose of weakening the war effort…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2007 @ 2:31 am - July 27, 2007

  27. I love the way you War Mongers “support the troops” unless they are liberal and disagree with your views on the war. Then they become a “prententious ass with issues.” >Michelle Malkin. There has never been a group of people more intellectually dishonest than you conservative pundits.

    Comment by Dave — July 27, 2007 @ 5:17 am - July 27, 2007

  28. Thanks, Dave. Now, we all understand that to the left, “Supporting the troops” means making up fake stories about war atrocities and psychopathic behavior. Thanks for clarifying that!

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2007 @ 5:37 am - July 27, 2007

  29. I’m flattered that you would call us “pundits”, Dave.

    As it happens, you’re wrong because I (and probably others) support liberals who disagree with the war. Just as long as they do it honestly.

    It’s anti-military slanderers like Kerry, Murtha and Beauchamp – and the people who support them – who are intellectually dishonest. So, wrong answer there Dave and give it another try.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2007 @ 10:46 am - July 27, 2007

  30. What’s “intellectually dishonest”, Dave, is to claim that you support them while demanding their defeat and jerking off to the death toll numbers. What’s more “intellectually dishonest” is to claim that nobody supports the Iraq Campaign, but you don’t have the guts to cut the funding and try to take over the power of CIC. And how about Teddy Kennedy stating the other day that they have to convince the American people that they oppose it?

    If one is a “pretentious ass” and slanders his pards like Beauchamp has apparently done and like Kerry & Murtha have done in the past, they lose our respect. Further, I don’t know much else that would make one a “pretentious ass” than that comment you posted above. Good job.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 27, 2007 @ 10:57 am - July 27, 2007

  31. On another note:

    The Weather Chanel has been doing their part, with programming, to push global warmism. Today they were going on about their new Busch Series NASCAR.

    What sort of carbon footprint do you suppose that car has?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 27, 2007 @ 11:00 am - July 27, 2007

  32. Dave, the term “prententious ass with issues” pretty much describes you and your ilk when you pretend to “support the troops but not the mission.”

    The soldier in question took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the USA. Seems to me that he broke it. You know, the way Slick Willie did when he lied under oath in a court of law.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 27, 2007 @ 11:04 am - July 27, 2007

  33. Just because GayPatriot has a real name doesn’t mean what he writes is real or true. Important to remember….

    Comment by sean — July 27, 2007 @ 11:58 am - July 27, 2007

  34. What insane, over-hyped, foaming at the mouth “coverage.” The breathless, yet pointless ***updates*** have me laughing off my chair.
    You all need to find a paper bag and breath deeply.
    Lets recap:
    A soldier, currently in harms way tells his narrative and you pounce on him because it outside of your world view. You “eyes-closed-shut” troop supporters have proven yourselves incapable of seeing beyond your ideology.

    Comment by gil — July 27, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - July 27, 2007

  35. And the left embraces it without question because portraying U.S. soldiers as psychos is very much inside their “worldview.” See also “Killitary” at DailyKos and a new spate of soldier-bashing Hollywood movies. Then there’s lying left-wing hero Jessie MacBeth

    The guys your side makes into heroes tells us everything about how you really feel about soldiers.

    Personally, I’d rather make fun of John “The Only Problem Is My Butt Hurts” Edwards.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - July 27, 2007

  36. And of course you believe him, gil, because you believe all of our soldiers are murdering, torturing baby-killers.

    Of course, that’s because, as this shows, you and your leftist buddies have been fabricating stories to prove it.

    Not that this surprises us; after all, John Kerry admitted that he lied in front of Congress about what American soldiers were doing in Vietnam, and even about what HE had been doing in Vietnam.

    But it’s particularly entertaining when you get caught red-handed doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2007 @ 3:09 pm - July 27, 2007

  37. Perfect example, V the K; Jessie Macbeth, Democrat and antiwar agitator, who flatly admitted that he and his fellow antiwar Democrats made up stories of atrocities for the sole purpose of discrediting our troops.

    This person was endorsed and fully supported by leftist and Democrat organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2007 @ 3:17 pm - July 27, 2007

  38. # 33-
    As usual, your comment illustrates my point perfectly.
    The right condemns and slanders the soldiers who fight to protect our country when they have the audacity to tell their narrative.
    Yet another example of the thuggery of the right.

    Comment by gil — July 27, 2007 @ 3:38 pm - July 27, 2007

  39. Actually, no, we don’t condemn or slander the ones who fight to protect our country. (We leave that the left). We do expose the truth when effete poseurs like Scott Thomas slander our soldiers with tall tales about desecrating mass graves and other atrocities.

    But it’s telling that you stick up for him gil. Thanks for proving our point about the only kind of troops the left really supports. (Epitomized by this banner.)

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - July 27, 2007

  40. Also, all of the above posts from the right illustrate that now that their initial knee-jerk “he doesn’t exist!!” has been disproved, they post a blog entry and 20-odd comments that sum to, “Well, he could be lying and since he’s an evil liberal (and *gasp* was even before he entered the military), he’s totally probably maybe lying, even though nothing has been proven yet. Oh yeah, and uh, reporting on what he sees means he hates the troops. And is anti-military. Or something.”

    Comment by torrentprime — July 27, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - July 27, 2007

  41. ND30: So since once pathological liar fooled a veterans group, any one who posts or says anything which you construe as being anti-war is also lying. Does that make sense even to you?

    Comment by torrentprime — July 27, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - July 27, 2007

  42. I’ve said this elsewhere many times about this issue.

    It’s the context of the stories, how they are told, rather than the events themselves. The red-flags are in the atmosphere of “shock troops”, the very way that it conforms to a romanticized version of war to appeal to a particular audience. (On my blog I wrote, Isn’t it romantic…)

    Do track drivers like running over stuff? I’m sure they do, every one. Wouldn’t you? But *do* they run over stuff? For a lot of reasons, not often. “shock troops” portrayed the atmosphere that the driver got to do these things, running over market stalls and wrecking buildings, just like on a movie set, and no one minded at all.

    Are some young men crude enough to mock an IED victim? Of course. Though it would be utterly wrong to suggest the Army made them that way (which again is part of the atmosphere of the story). If someone (Beauchamp by his own confession) were that much of a first class jerk, they’d still not be able to be that way openly. There would be consequences and the unofficial sort might even be the most severe. Yet the story, as I read it, was all “they approve of me!”

    Are soldiers likely to be macabre or engage in dark humor? Absolutely. But again, the events described (besides being unlikely in the *details*) are presented in a context of *approval*. No one *cares* that they found buried children. No one *cares* that someone is playing with a piece of skull. In fact, they all, including Beauchamp, think it’s really funny.

    In truth (and no way at all to know if Beauchamp was actually there) they found a children’s cemetery during construction and it was moved and the remains reburied in another location. I doubt very much that this was done without local involvement and I doubt very much that it was done without respect.

    The stories, if true at all, portray Beauchamp as a young man who knows better but has decided that because he’s in the military he has no responsibility for his own behavior. Considering that by his own words he was going in order to enhance a writing career (I don’t actually have a problem with that, if he behaved in good faith otherwise. I’m a writer and I’d do it too if it were at all practical.) his lack of moral compass is more damning in my mind than if he were just some kid who didn’t know better.

    He was slumming. Putting on a costume and a persona and hanging out in the bad part of town, tasting the darkness and thrill of lawlessness. Heh… maybe a bit like a straight guy stepping into a gay bar? Seeing what he expects to see. Feeling brave and personally superior.

    Not that I’d know anything about that but I’m a writer so I just made it up. 😉

    Comment by Synova — July 27, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - July 27, 2007

  43. #36 Read the milblogs. Not about Beauchamp, about the war. They don’t hold back the bad stuff. Oh… take Colby Buzzel… I haven’t read his book yet but I get the idea that he wasn’t particularly supportive of the war itself and was quite harsh about the whole thing, what they were asked to do or not.

    I saw a bit of his that was animated, linked by a pro-military milblog, about the fighting, about being scared, about being told to (ordered?) to shoot some people who he felt were spectators and about shooting the wall above their heads, about the emotional aftermath and trying to deal with it.

    Reporting on what he sees, what he experienced, in an unvarnished way. It was excellent.

    I’ve read other accounts as well that discuss the effects of combat on the soldier’s view of the value of human life, dealing with those things, blog entries or documentaries. I haven’t read extensively by any stretch but I have read and the idea that the stuff available and linked to even on the top milblogs are sanitized simply isn’t true.

    And something about those accounts… they humanize the participants.

    They portray human beings in horrific situations having authentic reactions to those events. Stuff like, “I thought it would bother me to kill someone but I didn’t feel a thing,” or “I’m an adrenaline junkie, I’d rather be in combat.”

    Surprisingly, the result humanizes, it pulls a reader in closer. It’s intimate.

    “Shock troops” besides playing to a meme, dehumanizes and creates distance. We can’t understand people who are so far gone they’d act like this.

    But a whole lot of people read that and thought, “finally, someone who’s telling the truth.” Finally, someone was telling things in a way that fit with their preconceptions about the dehumanizing reality of war.

    Comment by Synova — July 27, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - July 27, 2007

  44. So far, not surprisingly, very little coverage of this kerfluffle on the MSM. It could be the networks are waiting to see how it plays out, or they might just be hoping it goes away.

    Liberals being called on their lies have never been popular in big media liberal circles. Still remember the swiftboat newsconference at the National Press Club in DC in May, 2004. Coverage: almost none.

    Last time TNR got caught with its tit in a wringer, Hollywood made a movie about it (Shattered Glass) showing how TNR staff had been vitimized by a sick, sick, reporter.

    Think that’ll work again?

    Comment by Increase Mather — July 27, 2007 @ 4:34 pm - July 27, 2007

  45. ND30: So since once pathological liar fooled a veterans group, any one who posts or says anything which you construe as being anti-war is also lying. Does that make sense even to you?

    Funny, you and yours weren’t calling him a “pathological liar” then, torrentprime; instead you and yours were mocking those who were questioning his accounts in exactly the same fashion as you’re now doing for “Beauchamp”.

    Been verifying his story, torrentprime? Or do you not care as long as something portrays US soldiers as murderous animals, just like you and your leftist buddies did with Macbeth?

    I think we all know the answer to that.

    And we also know that you’re not going to answer, just like you ran and hid after I pointed out that your whining and screaming about how pervasive and powerful al-Qaida in Iraq was didn’t exactly square with your demand that US troops be withdrawn — given that that would be taking troops AWAY from fighting al-Qaida, which is what you claim to favor.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2007 @ 4:58 pm - July 27, 2007

  46. And just in case torrentprime wants to pretend otherwise, here’s the post in which I pointed out that Democrats like him are screaming that we need to fight al-Qaida — just as they are demanding that our troops be deployed AWAY from where it is currently most active.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2007 @ 5:05 pm - July 27, 2007

  47. And NDT, let’s not forget one basic premise here – everyone who has posted on this reporter are exhibiting the belief that many reporters and editors from the MSM are no longer reliable fact-checkers.

    After all, this is the same writer who got front-page coverage in TNR by falsley identifying sources and creating stories with no factual merit. (Hello, paging Jayson Blair…)

    This is another example from the likes of AP, Reuters and Stephen Glass, that show the vanishing credibility of the MSM and the importance of an alternative media form that is willing to cry foul when “credible” news sources become less credible than Dan Rather on “60 Minutes.”

    No wonder the blogosphere is doing the job the MSM won’t do.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 27, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - July 27, 2007

  48. Ask any ER doc/nurse, EMT, cop, or fireman and you will hear some humorous “there was this one time” stories that will make the average person gag.

    And we usually do it over lunch or dinner too.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 28, 2007 @ 12:25 am - July 28, 2007

  49. Well, TP, as Dean Barnett pointed out, Scott Thomas went to Iraq for HIMSELF to further HIS career as opposed to many of those who went to serve their country. He had a template in his mind before going to Iraq as to how it would be and, SOB!, his writings fit that template.

    You can take “service to his country” and shove it since by his own admissions, he went there to serve himself and trash the military along the way. Just your sort of guy.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 28, 2007 @ 1:09 am - July 28, 2007

  50. If someone wrote a newspaper article on this, they would not be able to write your conjecture and slanders. Instead they would say:
    1. A guy went to Iraq
    2 His gal works for a magazine
    3 He is a writer
    4 So he did the most natural thing, wrote some narratives about his experiences for his gal’s newspaper
    5 They weren’t the idealized stereotypes the right wing wants to hear
    6 So they foamed at the mouth like a bunch of rabid chickens and claimed “lie”
    7 The right wing nutters continue their foaming at the mouth and have conducted a hit job on a solider serving our country.

    Then an editorial would come out the right wing does not care about soldiers, it only cares about ideology

    Comment by gil — July 28, 2007 @ 9:13 am - July 28, 2007

  51. I think the biggest difference between the left and the right on this is we assume it’s untrue, and the left assume’s it is true, and represenative of the military on the whole. My little brother spent his 3 tours over there and now works in a hosptial back in the world (if I may steal the term from our ‘Nam vets), so I know different, as do his 5 kids. Yes five. He’s doing his part to compensate for my lack of kids 🙂

    My question then to prime, gil, etc, is: Why do you assume the worst of your fellow Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc.?

    No, I’m not expecting an answer.

    Comment by The Livewire — July 28, 2007 @ 11:00 am - July 28, 2007

  52. #51 — I’m with you. Lefties like gil are predisposed to think the worst of America and our military, and eagerly embrace and defend anything that bashes America. Whereas we on the right defend our country’s honor. Whatever the truth turns out to be, the contrast in how the right and left feel about America could not be starker.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2007 @ 11:04 am - July 28, 2007

  53. Per Confederate Yankee, Beauchamp has no qualms about violating his unit’s OPSEC (click here).

    For you slow kids – you know who you are; the ones who sickeningly misuse words like “torture” in order to provide cover for the world’s actual torturers and terrorist murderers – here’s a translation. OPSEC means “Operational Security”. Basically, in Beauchamp, you have a guy who joined the unit in order to betray it to the enemy… or, more plausibly, someone who acts so thoughtlessly, pretentiously and cluelessly that his actions can’t be distinguished from someone who hypothetically joined the unit in order to betray it to the enemy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 28, 2007 @ 11:53 am - July 28, 2007

  54. asically, in Beauchamp, you have a guy who joined the unit in order to betray it to the enemy…

    Which is exactly why he is a hero to gil and his butties on the left.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2007 @ 11:54 am - July 28, 2007

  55. Now now, V. Per some earlier sh*thead in this thread, we don’t “support the troops” unless we even support the ones who commit crimes against their unit.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 28, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - July 28, 2007

  56. “No, I’m not expecting an answer.”
    Here it is anyway:
    The military is an excellent self sustaining gov bureaucracy that is filled with the best, average and the worst of humanity. Therefore I assume that our soldiers can do awful things and I assume that they can do great things. They are human beings, not the statuesque stereotypes of the right.

    The real question is why do righties close their eyes to the bad?

    I suspect it is because they are afraid a little introspection will open the floodgates of doubt.
    Thus they slander and pass around lies as facts to keep themselves and their conscience clean. For a recent example look at comment #53 – the right is now saying he is akin to a traitor.
    The right can now dismiss him and his stories because he is a traitor. Their conscience remains clean while soldiers remain the false stereotypes they want them to be.
    This link clearly shows the nuttery of the right. Threats on his life and mining his articles for out of context treason etc. No righty can use the words wingbat ever again as you have clearly gone off the reservation (click here)

    Comment by gil — July 28, 2007 @ 2:19 pm - July 28, 2007

  57. the right is now saying he is akin to a traitor.

    A guy who would sell out his comrades in arms to the enemy (not to mention provide the enemy with propaganda) is a traitor by definition.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - July 28, 2007

  58. Who is wanting the false stereotypes, gil?

    You rightly point out that the military contains all sorts, good and bad, like any other group of people. In fact you almost sound reasonable when you say that.

    So I wonder if what you’re seeing is the events in the stories and not the implied cultural context. Despite the sorts of idiots that need constant adult supervision (and anyone who’s served has worked with a couple of those) there are also those heavily invested in a self-image of… oh, noble warrior or something, the Sheepdog… and the obligatory evangelical who’s always trying to save everyone… and the I’m smarter and more introspective than everyone else sorts (like the Jarhead guy and probably Beauchamp)… the guys who know more about ancient Greek warfare then a PhD… the family men… the man-sluts… and a whole lot of people invested in professionalism… all those different sorts.

    That’s real.

    And the milbloggers, who were incredibly critical of Beauchamp never denied that the screw-ups exist.

    But in those stories, gil, where are the others? Where’s the “Sheepdog” that busts his teeth for ridiculing a woman with a melted face? Or the NCO that puts him on latrine duty… again. Where’s the God-person in his unit who doesn’t think playing with dead child parts is funny? Where, when it comes down to it, is the brown-noser with his pathological compulsion to score a few points? Where is the middle aged family man with four teenagers back home and no sense of humor? Where are those with an understanding of the political need not to piss off the locals?

    Somehow we’re supposed to believe that a couple of screw-ups (and yes, every unit has them) are typical of the Army.

    You know that’s not true. You said so yourself.

    Can you see why it might bother people that this… picture… of men divorced from sense or decency is presented as normal, as happening without consequences?

    If you go read Beauchamp’s stuff, does it seem he’s saying, “I’m a wonder-jerk you should revile me?”

    Or is he painting the Army at large as a place where those things are condoned?

    I’ve said before… I’ve read first hand accounts. Harsh ones. And they make the people in them, dealing with the realities of war, more intimately human.

    I hear people saying how Beauchamp wrote about the dehumanizing reality of war, but what he did was write about war in a dehumanizing way.

    And that is an invested world-view for some people, that soldiers are less than human. That war makes them that way. The warrior becomes something different some “other” that isn’t even really a person anymore. Certainly no one that someone like you or I could relate to and understand.

    So why *don’t* we feel this way about emergency workers, firefighters, or police? Why don’t we have stories about bad jokes from EMT’s in stories to show how cleaning up after car accidents dehumanizes them?

    Comment by Synova — July 28, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - July 28, 2007

  59. You guys are wasting your time trying to explain anything to gil. The fact he referenced the Jon Swift post is a good indication of that.

    The left side of the blogosphere, for the most part, have set up their talking points based on the following untruths:

    1) Those who initially doubted the story only doubted that Beauchamp exists.
    Those of us who have kept up with the story know that’s not the case. From the beginning there have been questions about the accuracy of what he’s reported. In fact, many of the rightwing and military blogs made a point early on not to focus on whether or not Beauchamp is really a soldier, anticipating the dishonest tactic that has indeed been used.

    2) Doubters of the story simply don’t want to believe or be presented with evidence that people in the military are capable of shocking behavior.
    Again, anybody who’s read any of the discussion from sources other than those gil and his fellow travelers visit know that in almost every case the bloggers prefaced their observations with the caveat that they don’t doubt that soldiers can do bad things, only that the particular things mentioned by Beauchamp strain credulity for various reasons.

    My guess is that gil and torrentprime haven’t read the commentary on this case from the right side, but only have seen it presented on their favorite websites as hyperlinks (which they don’t click) surrounded by the misrepresentations.

    Comment by Bill B — July 28, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - July 28, 2007

  60. As others have said, it comes down to this: Far lefties WANT to believe the worst about our military. Far lefties desperately WANT to believe the fictions of Kerry, Murtha, Jesse Macbeth, Oliver Stone, Beauchamp, etc.

    Why? Because if it’s true that military service is ignoble, that implicitly excuses their ignoble lives. Conversely, if it’s true that military service is noble, their ignoble lives stand implicitly condemned.

    Beauchamp [did not write] about the dehumanizing reality of war[;] what he did was write about war in a dehumanizing way.


    the right is now saying he is akin to a traitor

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.

    A soldier who publishes his unit’s movements, violating OPSEC, and who intentionally helps the media portray comrades in a totally one-sided way – the worst light possible – is not “akin to” a traitor. He IS a traitor.

    Just a fact, keogh/gil. Deal with it. Live in the world of facts, and learn to use words correctly (I know how hard that is for you).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 28, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - July 28, 2007

  61. #51 #52 Beauchamp went to the Dan Rather/Mapes school of journalism. Lots of leftists learned from Rather that there are really no consequences for making up “stories”. “This one day, when I was (in band Camp) in Iraq, by myself, I saw this soldier run over a dog and and … well he laughed about it.”

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 28, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - July 28, 2007

  62. Thank you fro the reply gil,

    And I do look at it in the sense that I have to go to Blackfive, or Townhall, or Captain’s Quarters to hear about the good, but I just have to turn on CNN/NBC/FOX/etc. to hear the bad. My niece and nephews will see this stuff on the news and end up asking ‘Daddy, did you know those bad men?’ but won’t see the story about the hero who died manning the main gun on the bradley to save his men.

    And yes, I’m including Fox in this, not in a ‘all media is bad’ rant, rather in that the negative news is what leads, the positive, if it’s even shown, is on page a23, or the last 5 minutes of an hour broadcast.

    The above mentioned little brother told me about the Marsh Arabs, and how theyt were starving. He told me how they gave them what supplies they could before they pushed on. I knew then, from the frustration and rage in his voice, that it was something that seperated us, that I could never share. I also know he’s still a good man, older than I now in many ways. I understand what he’s seen, but I can’t comprehend.

    I’ve not read all of this Beauchamp BS, like I said, I hope it’s not true, nor ‘false but accurate’ I do think what he did, breaking military regs in wartime does fall -this- close to treason, and if he’s lied or embellished any of this then he deserves to be shot. Correction, if the DFAC story is remotely true, then he -still- deserves to be shot.

    Comment by The Livewire — July 28, 2007 @ 11:59 pm - July 28, 2007

  63. What is a kerfuffle? Sounds like something on the extra-value-menu at KFC.

    Comment by Jim in St Louis — July 29, 2007 @ 7:07 am - July 29, 2007

  64. It’s a polite way to say Charlie Foxtrot

    Comment by The Livewire — July 29, 2007 @ 11:58 am - July 29, 2007

  65. The Left’s Idea of Brilliant Prose (from the blog of Scott Thomas Beauchamp): “Cut your wrist let it bleed onto the paper in unique soulpatterns of mindthoughts…”

    He’s not just a traitor, he’s an emo fag.

    Comment by V the K — July 29, 2007 @ 6:51 pm - July 29, 2007

  66. Well V, remember he is one of the smart ones. Impressively, he wants to “expand human knowledge”. I never thought of that! And he listens to Wilco and The Smiths.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 29, 2007 @ 8:10 pm - July 29, 2007

  67. [no disrespect to Wilco or The Smiths intended]

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - July 29, 2007

  68. Hat tipping Ace: Brookings Institution [ed: that means liberal] analysts now admit publicly in the New York Times that we are winning in Iraq.

    Their article is full of the predictable liberal slams on the war and the Bush Administration – as we know, some deserved and some mythical. What’s important is the ways in which their tone has changed.

    Some of the choice bits:

    Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq… we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. [ed: sorry, that IS victory].

    …[troop] morale is high… Army and Marine units [are] focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services… tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates [ed: largely exaggerated by liberals, but remember, these guys are liberals] are down…

    …American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable…In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion…
    In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
    These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans…
    …Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

    But according to the Scott Beauchamps, John Kerrys and keogh/gils, our troops are psycho killer-torturers.

    Anyway, read the whole NYT article. There’s more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 30, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - July 30, 2007

  69. As ex military it has always surprised me how a lot of people expect wars to go like video games or movies. In our Civil War, the result was in doubt for 4 years. There were a minimum of 600,000 killed.In WW2, Patton said during the Nazis last throws at the Battle of the Buldge, 6 months before V-E Day, “I know we can still lose this thing”. Yes the President should have replaced a few more Generals a little earlier. When you are in the middle of it, you don’t know the outcome. The President may have hoped the old regime might have needed just another month for success. The surge seems like just the right medicine along with a new General. Even liberals are coming around now. Let’s see if the liberal polititians will follow. I doubt their crazy base will let them. Imagine a 90% united American public behind the current effort. If you were an insurgent in Iraq, you might just throw your hands up and say ” screw it, we can’t beat these persistent Americans. Let’s head to Syria.” Most of us would rank Lincoln in the top 3 or 5 of US Presidents. I think Lincoln replaced his top general 8 times during the Civil War. He eventually found his US Grant. We are on the side of educating girls and letting women serve in government. We are on the side of religious freedom for all. We don’t want women having to walk 5 paces behind their husbands. And getting beaten for speaking out of turn. We are righteous and want freedom for Iraqis. Al Qaeda wants none of that. That the Brookings Inst scholars have come round is a breath of fresh air. Are the rest of the leftists stuck so far in concrete that they can’t see or acknowledge the successes?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 30, 2007 @ 9:13 pm - July 30, 2007

  70. The worst possible outcome for the left is American victory in Iraq.

    Comment by V the K — July 30, 2007 @ 10:03 pm - July 30, 2007

  71. #70

    Comment by Synova — July 31, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - July 31, 2007

  72. How did Democrats get into a position where if America wins, they lose?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 1, 2007 @ 1:10 am - August 1, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.