Those of us that have excellent mental health knew from the beginning that The New Republic’s “Baghdad Diarist” stories stunk to high heaven. 

Franklin Foer, editor of TNR and chief anti-US military propagandist for the Wacko Left blogosphere FINALLY admits it:  IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP.  (…with the usual leftist double-speak and critic assassination thrown in for good measure, of course.)

[GP Ed. Note: After 13 pages of ridiculousness, we get the following...]

For the past four-and-a-half months, we’ve been reluctant to retract Beauchamp’s stories. Substantial evidence supports his account. It is difficult to imagine that he could enlist a conspiracy of soldiers to lie on his behalf. And they didn’t just vouch for him–they added new details and admitted gaps in their own knowledge. If they were simply lying to protect him, they likely wouldn’t have alerted us to Beauchamp’s Kuwait mistake. Furthermore, our conversation with Cross confirmed important underlying premises–the existence of bones, Bradleys running over dogs.

But, after our re-reporting, some of our questions are still unanswered. Did the driver intentionally run over dogs? Did he record his kills in a little green notebook? We’ve never been able to reach the driver. And Beauchamp told us that he’d procure a page from the notebook, but that has not materialized. This is a plausible anecdote, and several soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit had heard stories about dog-hunting, but only one had actually seen the driver Beauchamp wrote about intentionally hit dogs. He is one of Beauchamp’s friends, and, over the course of a number of e-mail exchanges with him, our faith in him has diminished.

(more…)

Who said the following statement this week?

It suffices as evidence of this your entering of this war and your excusing of American soldiers from being held to account by the European courts. For this reason, this address of mine is to you, not to your politicians, as it is no longer a secret that Blair, Brown, Berlusconi, Aznar, Sarkozy and those with him and their like love to shade themselves in the shade of the White House. And there isn’t a major difference worth mentioning between them and many of the leaders of the Third World.

A – Cindy Sheehan

B – Nancy Pelosi

C – Osama bin Laden

D – Harry Reid

E – Dick Durbin

F – John Kerry

G – John Murtha

H – Hugo Chavez

Hard to tell, eh?   The answer is C – Osama bin Laden…. but you would hardly know for sure, would you?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Gang Rape Victim Sentenced to Whipping in Saudi Arabia – Scotsman.com

SAUDI Arabia yesterday defended a court’s decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes.

The 19-year-old Shiite woman and an unrelated male companion were abducted and raped by seven men in 2006.

Ruling according to Saudi Arabia’s strict reading of Islamic law, a court originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes and the rapists to jail terms of between ten months and five years. It blamed the woman for being alone with an unrelated man.

Sudan Charges British Teacher With Insulting Religion – FOX News.com

Sudan on Wednesday charged a British teacher with insulting religion and inciting hatred, a crime punishable by up to 40 lashes, six months in prison or a fine, after she named a class teddy bear “Muhammad.”

The charges come a day after a 7-year-old Sudanese boy said Gilliam Gibbons, 54, asked him as part of a school assignment what he wanted to call the stuffed animal and he said, ‘Muhammad,’ after his name.

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women said the situation “is definintely on the radar, and N.O.W. is not ignoring it.

But she added that the U.S.-based organization is “not putting out a statement or taking a position.”

The National Organization for Women will “not take a position” on the flogging of the British teacher in Sudan. NOT TAKE A POSITION?!? Does this mean they think there is some element of justice for Ms. Gibbons??

But folks, it isn’t only the deafening silence and indifference of the National Organization for Women.

Where is the Human Rights Campaign on these crimes against women? They were all over the Jena 6 case…. and never hesitate to take up an abortion fight. Or criticize a Christian leader at the drop of a hat. But they have consistently and deliberately ignored the threat to gays and women by Islamic terror around the world.

Nope, no statement from the Hypocrite Rights Campaign on these latest atrocities. Just good old “holiday shopping” for gay rights.

And where is Hillary Clinton? Michelle Obama? Barbara Boxer? Sheila Jackson-Lee? Barbara Streisand? Rosie O’Donnell? Do they not care about women of Arab descent being persecuted? Do they only care about leftist American women who can’t have abortions on demand?

Are they completely dumb, deaf and mute to the FACT that millions of women are oppressed under Sharia law around the world — yet they criticize their own nation, its President and its military that proactively LIBERATED 60 million women from oppressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq? Incredible.

These women and organizations are not in favor of womyn’s rights… they are in favor of their own political power and wealth.

Pathetic.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Injured soldiers who lost their limbs fighting for their country have been driven from a swimming pool training session by jeering members of the public.

The men, injured during tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, were taking part in a rehabilitation session at a leisure centre, when two women demanded they be removed from the pool. They claimed that the soldiers “hadn’t paid” and might scare the children. (Telegraph)

Oh. My. God. I’m absolutely appalled and outraged. I agree completely with Admiral Lord Boyce:

“These people are beneath contempt and everything should be done to get their names and publish them in the press,” he said. “It is contemptible that people who have given up their limbs for their country should be so abused when they are trying to get fit again.”

I just finished sending an email to the British Ministry of Defence expressing my support for these men and inquiring if there is an established fund for the care of these vets that people can donate to. I hope they hear from people all over the world and perhaps this ugly episode can turn into something good for these men.

h/t Hot Air

– John (Average Gay Joe)

I have been happy to support the efforts of Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee to expose the fraudulent stories of Scott Thomas Beauchamp since the first items from his fiction piece, “Shock Troops”, were published by The New Republic.

Since TNR refuses to retract the story and stands by the made-up lies about our troops from Mr. Beauchamp, I am now happy to join Bob in urging that those who advertise at TNR feel the pressure.  That’s what the marketplace of truthful ideas is all about.  Bob sums it up well.

The New Republic doesn’t have an obligation to support the troops, or support the war in Iraq. It does have an obligation to retract stories for which they can provide no support.

Canwest MediaWorks, the Canadian company that owns The New Republic, does not have an obligation to decide the editorial policies of The New Republic, but it does have an obligation to discipline all editors who have refused to act ethically, who have misled readers, and who have attacked the military for defending itself from proven falsehoods and gross exaggerations (email Canwest Global CFO John McGuire at jmaguire@canwest.com, and be polite but firm).

We cannot force The New Republic to behave honorably, but we can make their dishonesty come at a price.

Here is the list of TNR advertisers.  I join Bob in asking anyone affiliated with these organizations to urge their management to pull advertising from The New Republic.

Glenn Greenwald, October 25, 2007:  “And it shows, as the Army’s behavior in the Beauchamp case is exactly what one would expect from an increasingly politicized, Republican-controlled division of the right-wing noise machine.”

Ted Rall, October 22, 2007:  “In 2007, Americans were dumber than dirt.  Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection.  Only idiots signed up; only idiots died.  Back home, the average IQ soared.”

You can’t blame them though…. they are only following the 30-year campaign of Democrat Party political leaders.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader – April 19, 2007:  “I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”

Fortunately, Reid’s plans to help al-Qaeda and bring defeat to the USA by undercutting America’s troops is itself failing.

Military Reports Lower Casualty Rates In Key Iraq Insurgent Strongholds – FOX News – October 25, 2007

U.S. combat troop deaths and other violence in Iraq are down significantly in some of the most dangerous places of insurgent activity, including Al Anbar province, military officials in Washington and Baghdad said Wednesday.

Maybe most significant was that last week there was not a single military casualty — Iraqi or U.S. — in Anbar, said Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, a Joint Chiefs spokesman.  It is apparently the first time since March 2003 that could be said.

The numbers reflect the timeframe between mid-June — the peak of the troop surge President Bush announced in January — and the beginning of this week. The surge amounted to roughly 30,000 more troops in Iraq, hitting full-force with nearly 170,000 U.S. troops.

The numbers might be the most positive sign yet of progress against insurgent activity since January.

Sherlock also listed several other statistics that he said showed terrorist activity is decreasing:

— Violence in and around Baghdad is down 59 percent.
— Car bombs are down 65 percent.
— Casualties from car bombs and roadside bombs are down by 80 percent.
— Casualties from enemy attacks down 77 percent.
— Operations against Iraqi security forces are down 62 percent.
— Assassination attempts for sectarian reasons are down 72 percent.

Oh yeah, and a reminder of what Not-My-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said earlier this week:

“Afghanistan, we have to be there.  That’s where the terrorism began, that’s the fight we have. Iraq is not the war on terror.”

Maybe she should sit down and tell that to Iran, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists hell bent on killing Americans in Iraq.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Osama bin Laden, October 22, 2007: “My mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, you are a people worthy of praise and flattery.  You’ve done well to carry out a glorious duty by fighting the enemy.”

Um… I don’t think bin Laden was talking about “global warming” or ”pesky alley cats” when he refers to “the enemy”.  He’s talking about you and me… the USA and Western democracies.

Osama bin Laden, January 24, 2006:  “The war in Iraq is raging, and the operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favour, praise be to God.”

“Do not be deluded by your power and modern weapons. Although they win some battles, they lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are better than them. What is important is the outcome.

We have been tolerant for 10 years in fighting the Soviet Union with our few weapons and we managed to drain their economy.

They became history, with God’s help.   You should learn lessons from that.”

Meanwhile, back in Delusionville, USA…..

Nancy Pelosi, October 22, 2007: (h/t – The Corner)  “Afghanistan, we have to be there.  That’s where the terrorism began, that’s the fight we have. Iraq is not the war on terror.”

I suppose poor Nancy has never heard of Tehran, 1979.  Or Beirut, 1983.  Or New York City, 1993.  Or Yemen, 2000.  Or Bali, or London, or Madrid, or Islamabad, or Ankara for that matter. 

I guess she simply hasn’t mastered those complicated war strategies of “multiple theatres and alliances.”  Honey, you go to where the enemy IS.   Not where they WERE.

Thank God for the Western democracies that Pelosi wasn’t a General in WWII.  We’d have nuked the Japanese, yet be goosestepping across Times Square in brownshirts with red armbands.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Drudge has exclusively obtained documents regarding the Scott Thomas Beauchamp “Shock Troops” scandal.  (h/t – GP Reader Peter Hughes).

These US Army documents, including a transcript of a phone call with editors of The New Republic clearly show the folks at TNR were lying to its readers when they repeatedly stated that Scott Beauchamp’s fictional accounts of Iraq were in fact true (CBS’ “fake, but accurate” scenario).  TNR editors also lied when they said that the US Army was censoring him and they weren’t able to communicate with him.

On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of “stonewalling” their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that “I just want it to end. I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything really.” The editors respond that “we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece” without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he “doesn’t care what the public thinks.” The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed “Memorandum for Record” in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army’s investigation — that his stories contained “gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct” by his fellow soldiers.

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army’s official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had “completely fabricated” the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a “Saddam-era dumping ground” was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was “completely unfounded.”

The ultimate Phony Soldier Story has been officially ripped apart (as many of us knew for months it would be).

Will Andrew Sullivan still stick up for his former employer and their pack of liars?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The only people who miss violent deaths in Iraq more than its cemetery workers…

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq .

“I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead,” said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. “People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don’t talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more.”

…. are McClatchy Newspaper reporters and the American Democratic Party leadership.

[Related Story - "Iraq War is 'Lost': US Democrat Leader - - Breitbart.com, April 19, 2007 ]

[Related Story - Baghdad neighborhoods sees 85% reduction in violence - Multi-National Force, Iraq, October 14, 2007]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin and GatewayPundit.   Here’s who Rush Limbaugh was talking about last week. 

A man who tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement by claiming to have participated in war crimes while serving in Iraq is facing federal charges of falsifying his record.

Jesse Adam Macbeth, formerly of Phoenix, garnered much attention on blogs and in some alternative media after he began claiming in 2005 to have been awarded a Purple Heart for his service, which he said included slaughtering innocents in a Fallujah mosque.  His story was contradicted by his true discharge form, showing that he was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003 because of his “entry level performance and conduct.”

A complaint unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in Seattle charged him with one count of using or possessing a forged or altered military discharge certificate, and one count of making false statements in seeking benefits from the Veterans Administration…

…Macbeth claimed to have been shot in Iraq and to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, LaMont E. Stokes, an agent with the VA’s Office of the Inspector General, wrote in the charging papers. He collected more than $10,400 in benefits to which he was not entitled, Stokes wrote.

Stokes said he interviewed Macbeth in the Pierce County Jail in Tacoma, where he has been serving a sentence for fourth-degree assault, and that Macbeth admitted falsifying the documents because he was homeless and wanted to “sucker” anything he could out of the government.

Iraq Veterans Against the War and other organizations removed his allegations from their Web sites after learning they were false.  In one videotaped interview, a skinny, stuttering Macbeth, dressed in a camouflaged jacket, described slaughtering hundreds of people in a mosque: “We would burn their bodies … hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque,” he said.

Macbeth is truly a Phony Soldier, and media star for the Left Wing Anti-American Caucus.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I urge all of you to watch this video and read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s supposed blanket statement calling troops who oppose the war “phony soldiers”.  It is a lie and another smear campaign by MediaMatters and parroted by MSNBC. 

I heard Rush at the top of his show Friday when he replayed the alleged broad smear from Wednesday’s show.  He was clearly talking about one particular soldier (Jesse MacBeth) who never served in Iraq, but claimed to have witnessed US military atrocities, and therefore became the celeb du jour for the Loony Left.

But don’t believe me… watch for yourself…. unless you are afraid of the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): I just watched the clip that Bruce provided above and listened to and read the audio clip on Media Matters‘s site. It seems that, once again, Media Matters is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

In the clip on Media Matters’s site, Rush seems to be making a general point about some of the “soldiers” whom the left likes to feature as war opponents. I agree that he could have been a bit clearer, but there is no evidence to suggest that he he meant all soldiers who oppose the war.

Perhaps, he should have acknowledged that some soldiers who did serve favor withdrawal. That said, the left (and the MSM) has trotted out soldiers with spotty (or non-existent) service records who happen to oppose the war.

This was not his prepared monologue, so, given the nature of the program, I’ll give him a pass on not being perfectly clear, especially given his clarification in the clip above.

He made the comment “phony soldiers” only once (at least in the clip Media Matters provided). It seemed rhetoric more than anything else. Not just that. It seems that this left-wing web-site is grasping at straws in its attempt to smear Rush. And I don’t think it will have much traction.

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): When Rush uttered the expression “phony soldiers,” maybe he was thinking of this ABC NEWS report (Via Instapundit).

This is a guest posting from GP Commenter Jeff (aka – I Love Capitalism)

******************

I live in a “blue” area, dominated by liberals.  Despite their dominance, some still need to proclaim their views in the oddest places.  At the YMCA the other day, an older man and an older couple – think aging semi-hippies: unkempt hair, a tie-dye T-shirt among them, and all three of them caucasian – overflowed in joyful agreement about how terrible the Iraq war is.  I couldn’t imagine why they needed to uplift their voices to the whole weight room, but I did admire how the one dude was like a machine, the way he rattled off Daily Kos clichés:

1) He “supports the troops” (quotes here show his words, as best I can remember), but we must understand, his idea of it is “bringing them home and not spending another *dime* on their equipment.”  And he certainly doesn’t support “all those mercenaries” in Iraq.
2) America is “making the same mistakes as Vietnam”, as our troops “kill innocent people.”
3) People who don’t think like he does are “blindsided” (i.e., idiotic).
4) Iraqis don’t want democracy and “aren’t capable of it”, due to their “different culture”.
5) He says we should “leave native cultures alone” and not try to “develop these countries, like in Africa” or “teach them anything”, because “we just cause pain” in doing so.
6) Iraq is a “war for Christianity”.
7) He’s into Buddhism because “nobody ever fought a war for Buddhism”.  In fairness, at this point, he or one of his companions added, “Well maybe the Japanese.”

I kept my mouth shut, so as not to compound their faux pas – inflicting politics on strangers who only came to do squats!  But I kept thinking, wow, surely I know this guy from Gay Patriot.    For the enlightenment of you left-wing GP skimmers who still don’t get it, I’ll answer the guy’s rote points:
 
1) Our troops and NGOs in Iraq are volunteers, not mercenaries.  Their mission is to beat al Qaeda (and some would argue, Iran).  They accepted that mission when they re-enlisted.  Understand this: You DO NOT support them, if you don’t support them doing their mission.

2) Al Qaeda kills innocent people in Iraq.  Our troops defend innocent people with care and professionalism.

3) People who don’t think just like you are not “blind” or “blindsided”.  You, on the other hand, may be.

4) Ordinary Iraqis want democracy and are as capable of it as other non-Westerners.  It’s not only false, but racist to pretend otherwise.

5) When America “leaves native cultures alone, like in Africa”, we condemn the people to subsistence-farming and lives that are nasty, brutish and short.

6) Iraq is not a war for Christianity.  It is, however, a war to prevent a radical Islamist Caliphate, and so to prevent or mitigate a greater, future war.  If we leave Iraq in the hands of either Iran or al Qaeda – in 10 years, we are so screwed.  Get it?

7) If you seriously believe “Nobody ever fought a war for Buddhism”, Amazon has a book for you.

It’d be nice to go somewhere without running into crazed lefty loonies.

Courtesy of Hot Air, a video has been posted online showing Jason Mattera of the Young America’s Foundation* confronting Rep. Jack Murtha over past comments he made in light of the recent exonerations of 4 of the 8 Marines (so far) involved in the now infamous engagement in Haditha, Iraq. Remember Murtha? Besides being the fellow with the brilliant strategy of fighting the war in Iraq via Okinawa, he couldn’t run fast enough to every TV camera in town thundering that these Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood“. All this before an investigation into the massacre allegations was even completed. Did the ‘honorable gentleman’ apologize for his crass presumption or retract any of the outrageous comments he made? Nope. Instead he whined about how he had served in Korea and Vietnam and “redeployed” in an elevator. Funny how this self-centered SOB whines in outrage about his service but conveniently forgets that of these Marines he falsely accused.

If Larry Craig was forced to resign for his bathroom antics (rightfully so), surely Murtha’s despicable behavior deserves equal treatment. Of course, this would be expecting some political groupings to have an idea of what integrity and honor are all about.

Comment of the day from a poster at Hot Air:

It looked to me as though Mr. Murtha, under heavy questioning, redeployed to the elevator.
Blaise on September 18, 2007 at 4:23 PM

* – You may remember this group from the controversial outing of Tyler Whitney, a member of YAF, and the truly homophobic statements of one of its leaders Kyle Bristow.

–John (Average Gay Joe)

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a video of someone else asking Murtha about his previous comments, which he angrily dismisses with his line “the trial’s not over yet”. 4 down, 4 to go Jack. Regardless of the outcome of the last 4, what about the 4 men who have been cleared that you slandered?

[GP Ed. Note - This is a guest posting from GP Reader "I Love Capitalism "]

**************

Following MoveOn.org’s contemptible attack on the patriotism of General Petraeus, one of the sillier comments to be heard from some of the ad’s defenders is along the lines, ‘How is this any different from the Swift Boat Vet attacks on Kerry in the 2004 election?’ For example, Senator Dick Durbin tried it on the Senate floor.

The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth apparently got under the skin of the Left in 2004. All manner of falsehoods and conspiracies are now attributed to their perceived members. For example, just recently, more than one Kos diarist wanted to tie them to an alleged plot to ‘steal’ California’s electoral votes. (Yeah. Weird.)

That the Swift Vets allegedly “lied” and “stole” the 2004 election has become an article of faith, not to be disputed, among the MSM-Left-Nutroots in their soundproof echo chamber. Even MSM editorials willing to criticize the attack on Petraeus will breezily cite the SVPfT as examples of “libel”. Let’s note here that Kerry’s supporters tried to muzzle the SVPfT ads at the time on grounds of allegedly being libelous, and wanted Kerry to sue the Swift Vets for libel, but Kerry avoided a courtroom showdown and now he will never sue them. (Scared much, John?)

In any case, MoveOn.org’s attacks on Petraeus are, in fact, different from SVPfT’s on Kerry. Here’s why.

Who they are: The Swift Vets and POWs were a case of decorated, honorable veterans – including Bud Day from the POW side, the most-decorated U.S. veteran still living – in a dispute with a fellow veteran running for office, John F. Kerry. MoveOn.org, by contrast, is a bunch of civilian politicos attacking, not a long-ago veteran running for political office, but a currently-serving general.

Who they’re affecting: The Swift Vets were in dispute with Kerry over matters past. By contrast, to the extent MoveOn.org’s attack on Petraeus will have any meaning or impact, it must and will be to undermine the morale of U.S. troops in the field today.

Who started it: Kerry started the dispute with his Swift Vet comrades and commanders when he publicly – and falsely – smeared them as war criminals. Needless to say, Petraeus had done nothing of the kind to anyone at MoveOn.org.

How they know: The Swift Vets served with Kerry (or commanded him), and knew him personally. They objected to Kerry’s fitness as a potential Commander-in-Chief because of incidents that occurred in their own direct, personal experience of him.Click here to see who some of the Swift Vets were and are.

MoveOn.org speaks with no comparable authority, as regards Petraeus’ character or actions in “betraying” anyone.

What they’re after: Contrary to left-liberal myth, the Swift Vets represented a broad spectrum of American political opinion, including “Democrats, Republicans and Independents” (and also the occasional Green, and the occasional Constitutionalist). As a young man, their leader John O’Neill pointedly told President Nixon he was a Democrat. Later, O’Neill contributed to some Republican candidates, but also voted for Al Gore in 2000. Their motive truly was that they believed that Kerry – given his record of slandering the United States, its military, and them – would make the worst possible Commander-in-Chief.

By contrast, MoveOn.org represents only the far Left, and even pretends to own the Democratic Party.

The state of their evidence: The Swift Vets had prime evidence against Kerry, including not only their own first-hand experiences, but also Kerry’s own words in slandering the United States, and them. Some of their most important ads did nothing but present Kerry’s own words and actions.

How can the same be said of MoveOn’s shameful, sleazy allegations about Petraeus? MoveOn.org cites as its “evidence”, things like the fact that Petraeus had thought we were making progress in Iraq back in December 2004 – which indeed we were at the time, before the Golden Mosque bombing of early 2006. Kerry, in sharp contrast to Petraeus, really did betray America by meeting with its enemies to directly give them political aid and comfort.

I could go on, but let’s sum up.
- Attacked a general currently serving us well in the field: MoveOn.org
- Only attacked a politician running for office: Swift Vets
- Had served with their target, and knew his poor character from personal experience: Swift Vets
- Attacked only in response to their target’s earlier scurrilous attacks on them: Swift Vets
- Represented a political-cross section, attacking essentially from a non-partisan and personal kind of concern: Swift Vets
- Had incontrovertible evidence against their target, including his own words in his explicitly condemning and turning on America: Swift Vets

Advantage: Swift Vets.

**UPDATE** – Log Cabin’s President Patrick Sammon has issued a statement….

“We condemn Moveon.org’s baseless attacks on General Petraeus.  These
irresponsible allegations harm our nation’s ability to continue making
progress in Iraq.”

*******************

ORIGINAL POST:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out…. but even I was surprised at the extensive web of money connections between MoveOn.org and America’s top gay organizations:  Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Log Cabin Republicans.

If the American gay community has any decency and honor and truly “supports the troops” they need to prove it now. 

I would ask everyone who is involved with these organizations to contact them immediately.  Urge the HRC, NGLTF and LCR  to immediately denounce the “Betray Us” ad attacking General Petraeus.  

In addition, our gay mainstream organizations need to sever all financial ties they have with MoveOn.org.  That would include direct financial connections, as well as their relationships with the George Soros-umbrella organization – America Votes — that directly connects MoveOn.org with the American gay mainstream organizations using the money of their dues-paying members.

Finally, the corporate partners that support HRC and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force need to know that these groups have direct financial and working relationships with MoveOn.org.  These corporate partners also need to withdraw support to HRC and NGLTF unless these two organizations denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad from MoveOn.org.  

The Human Rights Campaign’s corporate partners include:  American Airlines, Citigroup, IBM, Ernst & Young, Chase Bank, Dell, Motorola, Nike, Merrill Lynch and Showtime Cable Network.

The NGLTF’s corporate partners include: American Airlines, WellsFargo Bank, Here! Cable Network, and Bacardi.

Also, WellsFargo Bank has received direct financial expenditures from MoveOn.org, so they should have a special role in denouncing the Petraeus/Betray Us ad.

First, Andrew Tobias who is one of the Human Rights Campaign’s biggest political and money supporters, and who is also the Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, is listed as one of the top individual contributors to MoveOn.org from the 2004 cycle.  Tobias has given to MoveOn.org since the 2004 elections as well.

Now, we move to Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation.  As you know, I’ve repeatedly reported in the past on Gill’s extensive political involvement and contributions to America’s gay organizations…. especially his connections to Log Cabin Republicans.  Former LCR head, Patrick Guerriero is now an employee of the Gill Foundation and though LCR has refused to provide the details, I have laid out a strong case that Gill helped fund the $1M TV ad campaign that LCR ran in 2004 targeting President Bush in key battleground states.

Finally, both Gill and Tobias have contributed to the Soros-umbrella organization “America Votes“.  This organization is the web that connects the money trail between MoveOn.org and the major American gay organizations:  HRC, NGLTF, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.  These groups, plus MoveOn.org are direct financial and political partners under the Soros/”America Votes” umbrella.

Gill’s large individual contributions to “America Votes” and his extensive ties to Log Cabin Republicans should be a major concern to LCR and encourage them to denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad and ask Tim Gill to do the same.

So that’s what I got so far, gang.  I know there is a lot more.  Many contributors to “America Votes” are also involved and/or contributors to all of the major American gay organizations. 

If any of you would like to take this research further…. I’ll be happy to update it as I get more information from you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

There are times when words fail me. And times when I struggle with the right word. Or the right post. Sometimes, when I experience an unexpected kindness, I, who have often defined my gift as words, stammer and can’t respond. I can’t find the words to match the generosity. Would it that this post were about such silence.

Alas that this is about something which so totally stupefies me because it’s so outrageous, I feel I must write to express my incredulity. But, given that what has so outraged me has come from the angry anti-war left, incredulity is not quite the word. Because by now, we already seen the levels to which these extreme outfits would descend to attack President Bush or people who promote and/or execute his policies. We are accustomed to the mean-spirited and dishonest attacks they have long since produced.

I am referring of course to Moveon.org’s ad insinuating that General Petraeus is General “Betray Us.”

I have spent the better part of the day struggling to find the proper words to express my own outrage not only at this ad, but at the New York Times for agreeing to publish it, quite possibly at a discount (Via Instapundit).

The ad itself begins by accusing the general of being “constantly at war with the facts,” yet it is the ad itself that is at odd with the facts.

I’m sure the left-wing bloggers busy trying to sift through his testimony and label anything with which they happen to disagree as a “lie” or spin. I’ve already seen such tactics in a post linked in the comment section to my post on the Democrats’ preferring their version of the truth to the report of Petraeus on the facts on the ground in Iraq.

Too many on the left, including a number of Democratic elected officials, aren’t interested in the report of the top general of the ground in Iraq. They would rather attempt to discredit him by twisting his words than listening to his testimony.

Fortunately, while I can’t quite find the words to express my outrage, other bloggers have. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline said that MoveOn has hit the bottom.” Hugh Hewitt called the ad “repulsive and, as I noted before calls on Democrats who “fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American . . . complicit in that slander.”

And Bob Krumm (also via Instapundit) calls this the “Far Left’s Joe McCarthy vs. the Army moment.” He concludes, “The Far Left has . . . no sense of decency.”

I may have more to say about this in future posts, but at least I’ve had the chance to express my outrage at this excess. I encourage you to follow the links I provide to read posts where others have expressed their feelings on this topic much better than I have been able to express mine at this time.

UPDATE: Peter Hughes just e-mailed me, reminding me of Dean Barnett’s post on the topic which I had read yesterday. In his piece, The Party of No Decency, Dean comments on “the symbiotic relationship between the respectable political front men of the Democratic Party and the gutter dwelling sewer rats who do their dirty work.” Read the whole thing!!

UP-UPDATE: This morning, Hugh observes, “The general silence from Democrats tells you that their fear of MoveOn.org trumps their respect for the general and the troops he leads.” That pretty much sums up the modus operandi of today’s Democrats.

Wow.  It is a bad time to be a “Cut and Run” Democrat. 

First, Osama (pronounced “oh-sah-mah”, not “oss-ah-mah” Rep. Skelton!) comes out with his diatribe on Friday that sounded strangely like John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all tied up under one turban and dyed/fake beard.

And today, Commanding General David Petraeus handed the Dem-featists their hat in his Congressional testimony.  Even before Petraeus eloquently outlined his moving-forward strategy, the American people reminded lawmakers who they trust on Iraq.

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Which is what General Petraeus delivered today in his plan… a measured plan to withdraw and bring success.  So now the Democrats are>… as I blurted out earlier today to PatriotPartner while watching the hearing…. completely f***ed. 

They have invested so much political capital in defeat, they are caught between a nut-in-a-cave and a hard place… and a public that wants (according to the NYT poll) a successful end in Iraq. 

Mario Loyola at National Review explains it quite well.

So the bombshell is in. Because the surge has been so successful in meeting its objectives, General Petraeus recommends a drawdown of 25 percent of the combat brigades in Iraq by next summer, and expects to continue drawing down after that. 

Since this is what the Democrats have been asking for, they must now shift their position, and insist that the drawdown be deeper and faster. This is the lesson of the Vietnam period. The Nixon administration often announced troop withdrawals in excess of what the Democrats had called for. Weeks later, the Democrats would conclude that the withdrawals were not nearly deep enough, or rapid enough, and press for more.

Notice the pickle that the Democrats are in, however — the difference between this and Vietnam. Petraeus recommends a massive drawdown because in his view we are winning and the surge troops won’t be needed for much longer. But the Democrats have no choice but to dispute the premise of this recommendation — absurdly arguing, by implication, the troops are needed, but the cause is hopeless so we should withdraw anyways.

The fact of the matter is that between the desires of their base and the increasingly clear progress in Iraq, the Democrats have an almost impossible communications problem.  It is going to interesting to see how they negotiate it. 

Mario now reports that the words were barely out of Petraeus mouth when the Democrats ”Fact-Denying Caucus” began talking:  “Right On Cue…. on Fox [News Channel], Congressman [Robert] Wexler [D-FL] disputes the facts presented by General Petraeus.  He simply refuses to believe them.”

That’s because Wexler and his fellow Democrats cannot allow the American public to believe the truth either.  They are faced with a potential political implosion because they have put party above nation and winning elections above winning a global war against America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (by JohnAGJ): I hate to be a buttinski on someone else’s post, but this is related to Bruce’s comments here. We can see how shrill and detached from reality many on the Left have become, by their antics towards General Petraeus as this despicable “General Betray Us” ad from MoveOn.org demonstrates. Yet this cute nickname that undoubtedly has lefties giggling like schoolkids didn’t just spring Athena-style from the Zeus-like minds of MoveOn (nod to Dan here). No, as Dan Riehl notes, “It appears they started testing out the slur in June – and it caught on”. Indeed it has. One finds this being used by many leftist nutjobs online from DailyKos and After Downing Street to Pam’s House Blend. No doubt our troops are just basking with all the support the Left is showering on them…

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): I was thinking of how to tackle a post on the MoveOn.org ad that John referenced in the update above when I read Hugh’s comments which pretty much sum up my thoughts:

For MoveOn.org is it a moment of searing clarity that reveals them to be as divisive and as repugnant as Joe McCarthy was at the time of his 1954 fiasco in the Army-McCarthy hearings. The Democrats who fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American are complicit in that slander.

Congrats to Bob Owens (Confederate Yankee) for this outstanding report blowing the lid off of the never ending lies of The New Republic regarding their fiction-writer-in-Baghdad, Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Bob Owens has this exclusive report up at Pajamas Media this morning.  It is a must read for those of you keeping track of the Iraq-as-Fiction meme put forth by TNR, Thomas and his wife — TNR “fact-checker” Elspeth Reeve.

Army Checkmates The New Republic – Bob Owens at Pajamas Media

While Scott Thomas Beauchamp has repeatedly turned down interview requests—including one as recently as last week— Pajamas Media’s Bob Owens, who runs the PJM network blog Confederate Yankee , was enterprising enough to arrange an email interview with Major Cross.  [GP Ed. Note - Major John Cross - Executive Officer, 1-18 Infantry (Vanguards), Second (Dagger) Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division - was the lead investigating officer of the Beauchamp allegations.]

In a wide-ranging interview, Maj. Cross provides surprising new evidence about Beauchamp and the editorial process at the New Republic.

Read the whole thing!

Owens’ conclusions from his exclusive interview with Major Cross:

- Private Scott Beauchamp did not reveal that he was “Scott Thomas,” author of “Shock Troops,” until he was asked to sign a second sworn statement. It was after he signed this statement that his identity was revealed in The New Republic.

- Major Cross has seen no evidence of any sort of fact checking by The New Republic’s editors prior to publication, a sentiment shared by Army Public Affairs Officers in both Iraq and Kuwait.  It is also worth noting that TNR editors have refused to publish PAO statements that contradict their claims.

- Major Cross was unable to find anyone in Beauchamp’s squad, platoon, or company that would corroborate the stories he told in “Shock Troops.”

- Beauchamp was the subject of a second investigation, which found him guilty of violating his unit’s operational security for which he could have been thrown out of the Army.

The U.S. Army and the soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit seem to have been very forgiving of his fraudulent stories and potentially dangerous operational security violations.

This is the third time in recent memory that a New Republic writer has been persuasively charged with fabrication. Stephen Glass, who was found to have made up 27 of the 41 articles he wrote for the magazine, is perhaps the most famous case. Glass’ exploits were chronicled in the movie “Shattered Glass.” The Glass incident severely damaged the credibility of the magazine, and should have led to far more stringent editorial standards…it obviously did not.

It is doubtful that editor Franklin Foer and The New Republic deserve yet another chance, and that readers will be as loyal to the magazine as the military has been to Beauchamp.

Clearly heads should roll at The New Republic…. and that ever-on-the-wrong-side Andrew Sullivan should apologize to the US military for defending “Scott Thomas” and TNR’s cover-up.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Not long after reading a report Senator Biden’s dismissal of General Petraeus’s testimony which headlined Yahoo!’s news for the day, I chanced upon Powerline’s synopsis of the remarks, a short post headlined, “MY MIND IS MADE UP, DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.

You see, even before Petraeus, the top military commander, in Iraq has testified before Congress, including the Foreign Relations Committee, which Mr. Biden chairs, the Delaware Democrat has insisted the general “dead flat wrong”

And I thought it was Democrats who last year were faulting the president for not listening to military commanders on the ground in Iraq. This leading Democrat (who, as many on the left would point out if he supported the war, never served in the military) thinks he knows better than such a commander.

Biden isn’t the only member of his party dismissing the general before he has had a chance to come before Congress, report from the front and answer their questions. Top Democrats, including Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and Whip Richard Durbin have been calling his report the “Bush Report.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who, as many on the left would point out if she supported the war, never served in the military) claims that “The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made.” A nice claim to make before she even knows what the facts are.

All this prejudging causes Ed Morrissey to note:

the same Senators who didn’t cast a single vote against this highly-regarded commander taking over the effort in Iraq suddenly feel that Petraeus would conspire with George Bush to deliver a dishonest report to Congress. Which is more likely — that a career commander would deliberately lie about events in Iraq that already have garnered plenty of independent evidence for success, or that Dick Durbin and Harry Reid would smear the military for their own political gain?

I guess for leading Democrats the facts just don’t matter when you’re out to convince yourself that President Bush (and any strategy he proposes) is doomed to fail.