This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Media

  • Final chapter of the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga

    Franklin Foer has written the final chapter of the “Shock Troops” saga. Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee fame writes at Pajamas Media;

    It takes him fourteen pages, but Franklin Foer finally makes an admission regarding Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s posts in The New Republic.

    …in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

    Foer’s opus begins 13 pages earlier and attempts the impossible feat of justifying his editorial leadership at The New Republic from the time period leading up to the publication of Beauchamp’s work to the fourteen-page long screed that culminated in the pained retraction above.

    It’s beyond me why it has taken this long – except that I know the Left has taken a page from the Clinton book. They wait a sufficiently long time hoping no one is paying attention, or sick and tired the whole thing, when they finally admit they were wr…uh…wr…uh…wr…uh…wrong.

    Spree at Wake Up America has the transcripts and background leading up to this point. Bloggers are declaring victory, once again. Of course, this blogger said it was BS back when it began – I took a personal interest when I found out it was my last company, A 1/18th Infantry, and wrote a piece that is still one of the highest traffic posts on this blog though it was written back in July. In August, Beuchamp recanted, but we already knew it was a fantasy because GI Jane posted an email she’d gotten from Beauchamp’s First Sergeant.

    Michele Malkin says “Buh-bye, Franklin Foer“. Jimbo at Black Five says “Please fire Foer“. DrewM at Ace of Spades says;

    I’ve read it all now and it’s a sad story about people who should have known better but were blinded by their faith in The Narrative. TNR was like Fox Mulder, they wanted to believe.

    Actually, it’s more than that. Everyone who had spent more than a day in the infantry was telling these guys they were wrong, but they’re so steeped in their elitist bullshit culture that tells them everything they need to know is in books, they disregarded people with actual experiences similar to Beauchamp’s fantasies.

    If they’d stopped and swallowed their pride for a moment and asked actual authorities, instead of the gumballs that tell them what they want to hear, they could have avoided this whole mess from the start. And apparently, according to Michele Malkin’s transcripts, Foer knew Beuachamp was lying back in August. By not apologizing back then, he needs to lose his job.

    Now Foer calls it “The Fog of War“, invoking Tzun Tzu as an excuse for his own journalistic failures. The last four months have had nothing to do with war, Franklin. You should have called the “Fog of Leftist Manipulation”.

    Patterico quotes Foer;

    When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that.

    Horseshit. Your magazine has no standards – especially if you’re blaming your writers for your own shortcomings. Beauchamp gave you exactly the stories you were looking for – you used him just like you used the entire military for sensationalist journalism. Maybe Mad or Cracked can use your brand of journalism.

    See Blue Crab Boulevard‘s “Fouteen Pages and Run For Cover” for more links and a perfect cartoon. Allahpundit writes;

    On the very first page, Foer introduces Beauchamp’s pieces as exercises in “how war distorts moral judgments.” That’s what they wanted to hear, that’s what they got. Their explanation for why they have to cut Beauchamp loose now: War distorts mental judgments, too. Perfect.

  • Yet Another Phony Soldier

    In reference to the Hillary Clinton plant, Keith Kerr at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate the other night, David Horowitz received this email (h/t Atlas Shrugs);

    In spite of my current distractions at home I am forced to enter the public arena to express my outrage at the current republican debate as managed by CNN. Gay Keith is not a brigadier general. He is not even an active duty retired army officer. He spent his years as a reservist solely in the state of California military bureaucracy. His bio is published in the gay organization dedicated to voiding the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.

    For details. You must note that Kerr was retired from the inactive army reserves in the grade of colonel. With the exception of a few years served on active duty as a lieutenant his entire service was in the reserves in California. He was placed in retired reserve status with the California National Guard reserves and promoted to brigadier general in that federally unrecognized status.

    It damn sure is tough to be a lying sack o’shit in the age of the internet, ain’t it? In case you don’t remember who General Kerr was, Michele Malkin can refresh us;

    The tallest plant was a retired gay vet, one “Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr,” who questioned – or rather, lectured – the candidates on video and in person about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bans open gays from the military.

    Funny. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was exactly the policy CNN adopted in not telling viewers that Kerr is a member of Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual- Transgender Americans for Hillary.

    Hot Air has “CNN Defending their Vetting Procedures“

  • Dump debates

    I haven’t watched any of the debates – and I haven’t commented on many of them here. People who know me, know that I’m an old-fashioned kind of guy and that’s why debates never interested me. It all seemed like theater – theater forced on us by the networks who are convinced that they put John Kennedy in office after his debate with Richard Nixon.

    Abe Lincoln never campaigned or debated for his office (the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates were two years before his election to the Presidency). People just knew his position on issues – which is why, without having said a word about slavery, or his intentions as President, the South made plans to secede while he was taking the train from his Illinois home, where he spent the election season, to his Inauguration. It’s also the reason why my fellow Marylanders plotted his assassination before the inauguration and he had to sneak through the State to Washington.

    Well, enough of the history lesson. The reason I bring all of this up is that stupid crap that happened last night at the Republican CNN/YouTube debate. If ever there was proof that we’re being manipulated by the media, it happened last night.

    Michele Malkin is STILL uncovering plants;

    Welcome to Horticulture Journalism 101. (Keep scrolling down for new updates to this handy CNN/YouTube illustrated plant guide.)

    So far, I count eight Democrat operatives from various Democrat campaigns. In addition to Michele, there’s Powerline, Powerline and Powerline, Hot Air, Patrick Ruffini, Glenn Reynolds, Gateway Pundit, Wizbang,JasonColeman, and another JasonColeman.

    Joe Scarborough says it’s “total crap” that CNN didn’t know these were plants according to Newsbuster’s Mark Finkelstein. Vivian Lee, also at Newsbusters, writes that CNN, which chose the YouTube videos, chastised the candidates for not answering any questions about healthcare – a subject for which CNN chose no questions;

    And shame on them for actually answering the questions they were asked instead of drifting off topic and discussing other things.

    Well, my whole point, I guess, is that we should dump these debates, for no other reason than that they are so carefully scripted by the candidates as well as the media, debates are useless now. It’s just an opportunity for candidates to make a four or five word sound bite that’ll propel them over the heads of the others – for one night.

    Then again, the malfeasance of the networks, the candidates and the questioners at these debates provide employment opportunities for thousands of super-attentive bloggers, apparently.

  • CNN; The assassin network

    Hugo Chavez has accused CNN of plotting his assassination, according to Reuters;

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday CNN may have been instigating his murder when the U.S. TV network showed a photograph of him with a label underneath that read “Who killed him?”

    The caption appeared to be a production mistake — confusing a Chavez news item with one on the death of a football star. The anchor said “take the image down” when he realized.

    But Chavez called for a probe in an interview on state television, where he repeatedly reviewed a tape of the broadcast, questioning why the unconnected photograph and wording were left on screen for several seconds.

    “I want the state prosecutor to look into bringing a suit against CNN for instigating murder in Venezuela,” he said. “… undoubtedly it is part of the psychological warfare.”

    Yeah, the cheese has slid right off of Chavez’ cracker. But what gets me is the lengths to which Reuters will go to defend CNN;

    The anti-U.S. president often denounces plots to kill him without providing much detailed evidence. On Tuesday, he said a sniper trained his gun on him at a political rally this month.

    And

    Well-known for wild accusations and harsh insults, Chavez usually focuses his attacks against the United States during campaigns. With the Bush administration avoiding being drawn into a spat, he has become involved in disputes with Spain and Colombia and repeatedly lambasted the Roman Catholic Church.

    In defense of CNN Reuters does everything except send the men in white suits to pick up Chavez. But let him accuse the Bush Administration of trying to kill him and all Reuters gives us is “A Bush Administration official later denied that this Administration has as it’s official policy the assassination of pudgy lunatics in red shirts.”

  • WaPo; Ron Paul’s run isn’t about Ron Paul

    In an opinion piece posing as news, the Washington Post put on page B1 of yesterday’s paper that truly mischaracterizes the entire Ron paul campaign;

    Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 — Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul’s campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising “$12 Million to Win” by Dec. 31, didn’t even organize the fundraiser — an independent-minded supporter did.

    When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it’s clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

    That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him….

    Well, unfortunately for them, the “the movement that has erupted around him” isn’t what’ll occupy the White House in 2009 if Ron Paul were to win the election. There are political realities like working with Congress that Pauliens, much as their predecessors in the Ross Perot days, don’t understand. The President doesn’t rule by decree. Much of Paul’s “beliefs” aren’t within the realm of possibility – and many Pauliens would oppose his efforts to do away with their SSI payments and their free healthcare. The “movement” around Paul, is politically and socially naive, much as one would expect 5% of the population to be. Much as one might expect Libertarianism to be.

    Much of his “support” comes from voters who will never pull a lever for a Republican outside of a primary election. People like Adam Kokesh, whom I’ve spent gigs of bandwidth on his deceit and political ambitions. Anyone who thinks that Adam Kokesh will vote for Ron Paul next November is fooling themselves. Kokesh supports Paul to make it appear as if Paul’s appeal crosses party lines. I don’t care if you ran Teddy Kennedy as a Republican – those hardcore Leftists still couldn’t bring themselves to vote Republican.

    5% of Republicans won’t win a national election. Weeks from the primaries, Paul has hit his peak at 5% (if that number is even correct). If Paul did win the primary nod, he still wouldn’t have the support he needs from mainstream Republicans or Democrats to carry him through to a national victory in November. And sorry, but that’s what he needs.

    So why are Democrats supporting Paul? For the same reason they supported John McCain in 2000 – he’s the easiest candidate for them to beat.

    So, in many ways, the Washington Post is right – Ron Paul’s candidacy and his support isn’t about him at all, it’s about the clowns around him whom he either seems willing to exploit or he doesn’t recognize the character of his supporters (or, rather,  the lack thereof). Paul’s candidacy seems more in the model of Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party run – an attempt to destroy the Republican Party from within.

  • Playing at international politics

    USAToday plays at international politics with an opinion piece entitled “US-Iran collision course calls for diplomatic brakes”

    Two distinct sides have emerged in a de facto Cold War in the Middle East. On one side are the United States and an assortment of players, from firm friend Israel to ally-of-convenience Saudi Arabia. On the other are Iran and its growing band of supporters, including Syria, terrorist groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Shiite sympathizers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is fully capable of using its clients to initiate hostilities that, among other things, could send oil prices soaring to a level that makes $100-a-barrel look like a bargain.

    There’s also the risk that the attacks would fail because Iran has strong air defenses and is thought to have buried and dispersed its nuclear facilities. Captured U.S. pilots would recall the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-80.

    Further, attacks would rally Iranians behind the ayatollahs just as opposition to hard-liners might be gaining strength.

    All of this makes a strong case for diplomatic options, even if they appear for the moment to be fruitless.

    So, because all of these insane, irrational entities are lined up against the civilized world, we should not confront them? That’s precisely why they are irrational – they know they can get with anything. And “for the moment to be fruitless”? That’s what the Islamic Republic wants – more time to become a nuclear power (or more like a nuclear loose cannon). There may be good reasons for not confronting the Islamic Republic at this time, but that’s the most idiotic reason I’ve ever read.

  • Lazy Sunday Links

    I’m fighting off a cold or something and I’m not thinking straight so I’m going to let other people do my thinking for me today;

    Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs illustrates that 60s hippies never die in “You went there to kill children, you’re a baby killer”

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express tracks the money that links Murtha and the Haditha investigation here and here.

    Beth of Blue Star Chronicles’ son is still in Baghdad and Sergeant Grumpy just got there recently and is already dealing deadly blows to our enemie’s efforts.

    Michele Malkin has the admission (with audio) from Democrats that S-CHIP is the backdoor way t get universal healthcare past America while we blink.

    Gateway Pundit has a threatening and demeaning letter from Amahdinajad to M. Sarkozy.

    Wild Thing at PC Free Zone has the story on OPEC’s fear of a devalued dollar – they thought the camera was off. Speaking of oil, Junkyard Blog’s SeeDubya writes that Citgo is now funneling oil money to Chavez’ social programs.

    Crotchety Old Bastard answers his email for ANSWER.

    Babalu Blog’s Alberto de la Cruz reports on Chavez’ toe-dipping into extra-Venezuelan military operations.

    I’ll be back later if I can shake this thing.

  • Veteran victims; the Left’s latest absurdity

    This week, the week of Veterans’ Day, we’ve been pummelled with the media’s latest attack on the United States. CBS claims that the suicide rate among veterans is above the rate of Americans in general, disregarding that veterans are young and male and so their rate matches that of their peers. (Refuted here by Say Anything and Aviation Week) Is it a tragedy? Yes it most certainly is, but it’s not Bush’s fault – it’s not the VA’s fault. It’s more the fault of our culture (looking at you, CBS).

    Associated Press claims that soldiers are deserting at higher rates than ever before (well, since Vietnam). The New York Times reports that a quarter of homeless peple were veterans at some point in 2006;

    Recent surveys have painted an appalling picture. More than 300,000 of the nation’s 24 million veterans were homeless at some point during 2006, and while only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, aid groups are bracing themselves for a tsunamilike upsurge in coming years.

    Sure aid groups are bracing – they have a financial interest in inflated numbers – in fact if you scroll down to the bottom of the NYT story, you’ll see where they had corrected their 300k from a 500k number because they were in such a rush to get the story out on Veterans Day they didn’t have time to check the methodology of their polls.

    While “only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless”, New York Times sees a great way to turn public opinion against Republicans – yet again.

    Now I’m not calling the NEw York Times liars, but I’ll tell you - quite a few “veterans” I’ve met couldn’t tell the difference between an M16 and SOS. DC is lousy with phony vets – I’ve busted several out in my travels around the city. And none of them pretend to be cooks or clerks – they’re all SEALs and Rangers. In fact, I’m in the process of busting out a guy who made the mistake of pretending to be in the 1st Battalion Rangers at the same time I was there back in the days of woolen longjohns.

    I watched some national news program back in 1992, during the presidential campaign where a correspondent was interviewing a supposed Gulf War veteran who was homeless. The correspondent asked the man when he had been in the Gulf and the man replied that he’d been there since “May”. Now either the guy was there three months before Hussein invaded Kuwait, or he was there two months after the war had ended. But the interviewer continued with the piece and didn’t bat an eye.

    I’ll never forget that I ran into a “homeless vet” in Syracuse near my office there. He was bumming money from me by telling me he was a veteran. I told him that I’m a veteran, too. His immediate response was “Why are you wearing that suit”? As if I didn’t fit the mold of a veteran because I had a job and wore a suit.

    I’ve been in touch with many of my troops since I left the Army and as far as I can tell, they’re all doing great. But the left and the media want to portray us as mental cases boiling under our peaceful facade. Honestly, I am boiling underneath my (reasonably) peaceful facade – at the Left.

    Dean Barnett at The Weekly Standard, in his piece (dated 11-26) The Last Talking Point of the Left; the vet-as-victim, told of an email exchange he had with National Guard colonel;

    I recently exchanged emails with a colonel in the California National Guard–an attorney when not on active duty–about Bruce Spring-steen’s new song “Gypsy Biker.” The song portrays Iraq war veterans as gullible dupes who shed their blood while “the speculators made their money,” and the colonel wrote;

    It’s this portrayal of vets as burnt-out losers with nowhere to go but out on the open road that gets me. I was in court today, a vet, arguing a million-dollar case, in front of a judge who was also a vet. Vets aren’t burned out losers–we’re leaders. For every vet with problems–and they certainly exist, though I would guess in percentages far below that of the comparable civilian population–there are dozens of vets out there building businesses, raising families, and leading communities. Many give up weekends and vacations to stay in the Guard and Reserve. But I guess those guys aren’t cool enough or useful enough. 

    The stereotypical vet is the burned-out homeless guy with a torn old green field jacket. I say it should be the dad dropping his little girl off at preschool before he goes to the business he built from nothing while fielding phone calls from his Guard unit’s full-time staff and driving a car with a trunk full of military gear so that, when the next earthquake or riot hits, he can go out and protect his community–again.

    But the Left makes it’s points with the public by making the norm less normal – and veterans always get the shitty end of the stick.Â