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

Category: Media

  • TNR back from vacation with their Scott Thomas excuses

    I guess the editors of The New Republic are back from their vacation and trying to explain their journalistic shortcomings by blaming it on the Army in their newest A Scott Beauchamps Update;

    Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp’s article and has found it to be false, it has refused our–and others’–requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What’s more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants “to protect his privacy.”

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

    Well, I guess that’d be their perogative wouldn’t it? After all, you stonewalled when the dustup first began. Oh, and Beauchamps is now government property – he signed the papers fully knowing that would be the result.

    Earlier this week, The Weekly Standard‘s Michael Goldfarb published a report, based on a single anonymous “military source close to the investigation,” entitled “Beauchamp Recants,” claiming that Beauchamp “signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only ‘a smidgen of truth,’ in the words of our source.”

    Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, “It’s pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by.”

    Well, your boy Beauchamps lied to you about the melted-face contractor, at least on one “small” point about the geography and the chronology, why do do you still cling to him as a source? If the New Republic had a shed of journalistic integrity, they should at least say that their support for this fabulist is on hold – that they don’t stand behind him until new proof comes to light.

    In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp–or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

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

    Again, the Army has that right – TNR has not been a rational actor in all of this. Their rush to print fables and fairie tales has not given the Army any confidence in their ability to report the truth, so why should the Army cooperate.

    We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp’s statements and the details of its investigation–and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp–and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp’s work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.

    Good. That’s the captain’s job – go down with the ship, then.

    The best line from this whole story comes, unsurprisingly, from Charles Krauthammer;

    We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say.

    Personally, I’m tired of the whole story. But that’s what the editors of TNR want – like al Qaeda – they want to run out the clock and hope everyone forgets about the story or just gets weary of the whole thing. But I’m here until the bitter end. But, even AP is piling on TNR.

  • Guess life in Iran isn’t quite so rosy

    From reading the international press I got the impression that life in Iran was like living in a paradise (OK, I kid). Reading stuff that comes out of Chavez’ forays into the Ahmadinejad’s Islamic wonderland (or vice versa) like this from Truthout;

      “Venezuela and Iran have demonstrated that together, out of the reach of hegemony and American imperialism, they can work and improve,” Ahmadinejad said at the oil well in southeastern Venezuela.

        “For all the people who want to live free and independent, the message is that we can achieve this kind of victory. We are at the beginning of the path and we must know each other,” he said.

        During Ahmadinejad’s visit, Venezuela’s leftist president renewed his support for Iran’s disputed uranium enrichment program, which the United States and other Western countries fear would be used for the development of a nuclear bomb.

        The United States is pushing for sanctions to force Tehran to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used both for nuclear power and atomic weapons. Iran insists that it seeks peaceful nuclear power to meet its energy needs.

        “We are with you president, we will defend the rights of the Iranian people,” Chavez, who has visited Iran several times, told Ahmadinejad.

    Do you mean rights like this from Kamangir:

    A new pro-polygamy bill has just been sent to the parliament by the cabinet. The bill eliminates the necessity of the wife’s permission for the husband getting married again. Labyrinth mocks the aspect of the bill which replaces the wife’s permission with only economic power [Persian].

    Or this one from Molten Thought:

    Taheri reports that, according to the head of the Contractual Workers’ Union, more than 25,000 members have been fired in the last four months, and more than 1,000 workers are being purged every single day. This is part of the mullahs’ vicious campaign against every possible source of open dissent against the regime. As you would expect in such circumstances, more and more workers are dying in “accidents,” some of which are not at all accidental, but cover-ups of assassinations.

    Or this little tale (from Saudi Arabia not Iran – but, well you know) from Confessions of a Closet Republican:

    Speaking to Arab News on phone from his cell in the Malaz prison, Mohammed said that after the woman received treatment and after he returned to Riyadh after three days in the Western Region, he was arrested after checking up on the woman’s health. In the woman’s apartment were three other women related to her.“I was glad to note that the lady was making steady progress,” he said. “While we were chatting, there was a knock on the door. When this lady opened the door, four or five Saudis, whom I had seen outside the building before, barged in. They accused me of being alone with the woman unrelated to me and suspected my intention behind this visit to her apartment.”

    Or perhaps this one from Zaneirani.

    Maybe Chavez would like to follow Iran’s example and order state-registration for bloggers?

    So exactly what rights are left for Iranians that Chavez can help defend from evil-assed America? The only “rights” that Chavez wants to defend is the right to oppose George Bush and the right to blame America for all your ills.

  • Ban ki-Moon; Hope at last for Haiti

    The UN’s Secretary General Ban ki-Moon wrote a piece this morning in the Washington Times celebrating that there’s “Hope at last for Haiti“. I hate to remind the new Secretary that there’s always been a lot of hope for Haiti, but not much progress. Ban writes;

    There may be worse slums in Haiti, but none so infamous for its violence and grinding poverty as Cite Soleil in the heart of the capital city, Port-au-Prince. Drinking water is scarce, public sanitation nonexistent. Most of its 300,000 residents have no electricity; fewer have jobs. The neighborhood’s mayor was blunt when I met him during my visit to Haiti last week. “Here,” he said, “we need everything.”

    And yet I also saw hope in Cite Soleil. At the mayor’s offices, a new local government is putting down roots in a community it long ago abandoned. Across the street, I toured a newly refurbished school. Youngsters greeted me, excited by the prospect of resuming their education. Nearby, young men played soccer.

    Good for them. I truly mean that, but whatever happened to the hope we had back in 1994?

    The day after former President Jimmy Carter helped negotiate the agreement to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti, The Los Angeles Times described him as a person with “a preternatural patience and an unshakable faith in his fellow man.”

    But in the eyes of President Carter and The Carter Center, another factor was at work. The situation in Haiti exemplified how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like the Center can work with a government to prevent violent conflict and to promote peace and human rights.

    “President Carter was able to help the U.S. avert a war in Haiti because of the Center’s long history of involvement there,” said Marion Creekmore, director of programs at The Carter Center. “We try to be available to assist countries that are struggling to build democracy.”

    Thirteen years ago, the Carter-Clinton cabal negotiated away millions of US taxpayer dollars to pay off General Cedras and his cronies and they promised us that they would fix Haiti. Within months, Haiti fell off the media’s radar screen and our failures there never saw the light of day.

    No one published pictures of the hundreds of Haitians imprisoned on Guantanamo Naval Base in worse conditions than the current population enjoys. No one has bothered to mention the hundreds more that have landed on our shores in the ensuing years (the reason we were given for getting involved there in the first place).

    But not to worry, the UN has finally figured it out. I’m so relieved.

  • Beauchamps; it ain’t over yet

    I pretty much put the Beauchamps story behind me, it was worth a lot of traffic, I met some new people and I made my point – an indisputable point. My last word on Scott Thomas Beauchamps was “Told ya”.

    Well now I read from Little Green Footballs that The New Republic can’t believe its lyin’ eyes;

    We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.”

    And the left still clings to the fairie tales of Beauchamps; from the Washington Post;

    Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, called the Army’s refusal to release its report “suspect,” adding: “There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there’s one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests.”

    See, the Army is “suspect” more than the New Republic is suspect for their shoddy journalistic procedures – especially if you check with “journalism” teachers. Um, I wonder why that is?

    Even the New York Times gets a quote exhonerating the troops;

    “We are not going into the details of the investigation,” Maj. Steven F. Lamb, deputy public affairs officer in Baghdad, wrote in an e-mail message. “The allegations are false, his platoon and company were interviewed, and no one could substantiate the claims he made.”

    And yet, the NYT still doubts the Army’s statement. Why? Well, for the same reasons they think President Bush did cocaine and went AWOL – there’s no evidence supporting it, so it must be true.

    Any halfwit who spent even a day in the Army knows that those stories Beauchamps wrote are false. Especially since some of the stories were written before Beauchamps even got to Iraq (even New Republic admits that the melted-face contractor story supposedly happened in Kuwait while Beauchamps’ unit was staging for deployment to Iraq- if it happened at all). The Onion called it Pre-Traumatic Stress Syndrome back in November.

    Regardless, the damage is done – both to our troops reputation and to the New Republic. The Beauchamp Tales will be spun at every anti-war rally from now until the troops come home and repeated millions of times on the internet as reasons we shouldn’t support the troops – just like the “Bush was AWOL” and “Bush the coke-head” tales get repeated ad nauseum.

    Personally, I’d really like to take the high road, like Baldilocks – one of the classiest ladies on the internet – but I’m afraid if I ever bump into Beauchamps…well, he’d better practice begging for mercy now. And falling down and ducking.

  • Beauchamps recants fables/Kos defends Solz

    Well, I guess Michael Goldfarb of National Review Online has received confirmation from the Army that Scott Thomas Beauchamps has recanted his fantabulous tales of war;

    Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:

    An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.

    According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”

    So, I expect that any moment now, he’ll be labeled a Karl Rove plant. Probably The New Republic will be fingered in the conspiracy, as well.

    All the things I want to say about Beauchamps, but I’m too much of a gentleman (and my Dad reads this sometimes) can be found here at Absolute Moral Authority (h/t to Beth at My Vast Wing Conspiracy).

    An Army Lawyer speculates on the charges and punishments but he neglects my favorite; failure to repair. Everyone is guilty of that one no matter what they do.

    In other drivel, the Angry Rakkasan, ( at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/3940/86488 sorry you’ll have to copy and paste the address into your browser, I’m not linking to that drivel) three days after the incident, more than two days after the internet had been running the video (um, we know what we saw Rakkie), tells the “real story” about Solz and the sergeant he mistreated for all of the world to see. Well after the obligatory “all of you right wingers should join the military if you love the war so much” chickenhawk crap, he explains that the young buck sergeant was at the convention the day before;

    The sergeant immediately zeroed in on General Clark and engaged him in a conversation.  Eventually, I noticed Clark pull the soldier aside and move away from the rest of the crowd.  I could see that the General was getting agitated.  I later learned that the soldier had been lecturing him, telling him that the U.S. military should stay in Iraq and that General Clark should support the President’s policies.

    Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant’s opinion, political activism while in uniform was both inappropriate and illegal—and to do it at the much-publicized YearlyKos Convention would put the soldier in an unnecessary and precarious legal position.  He told the sergeant firmly but politely that it would be in the soldier’s best interest to leave.  And that was the end of it until the next day.

    Rakkie goes on to call the young sergeant a “troll” and ends with another “chickenhawk” rant against Michelle Malkin and Matt Drudge. Now see here’s my problem with the story; there’s nothing that says what, exactly Little Mac Clarke said to the young sergeant – only second-hand hearsay and Rakkasan’s interpretation of facial expressions.

    And I don’t give a tiny rat’s ass how Rakkasan, Clarke or any other number people interpret military directives on the subject, the sergeant said nothing political while in uniform, he didn’t say that he represented any official military policy or office, and the YearlyKoz, from it’s own website;

    US-based (but globally focused and inclusive) non-partisan grassroots political action community that uses the Internet and blogs as primary tools for: expressing viewpoints, building consensus, acting to change the status quo, mobilizing huge numbers of people and informing each other and the world about current events, grassroots actions, networks, meetings, policy and more.

    Get that? It’s a “nonpartisan, grassroots” convention. So what did the soldier do wrong?

    Solz on the other hand, was completely wrong. No military leader would degrade and threaten a subordinate in public like that. If the soldier had been more of an asshole like I’m an asshole, he’d have made Solz either file charges against him or show him in public what he’d done wrong. I’m sure dorkboy’s head would’ve exploded on camera if it’s been me. Except that I probably wouldn’t have worn my unifrom to the event.

    But what choice did the sergeant have? As you’ve read for yourselves, this pussy Rakkasan trotted out the chickenhawk meme twice in his piece. Once at the beginning and once at the end – as if he has some absolute moral authority over who is allowed to criticize the Left and who isn’t. (And suggesting Matt Drudge and Michelle Malkin join the military – c’mon. All Matt Drudge did was link to the story, and I’m not sure Michelle would do her unit much good – she’s barely the size of an ammo pouch) I’m sure the young sergeant wore his uniform as insulation against that intellectually vacant charge that I’ve had thrown at me whenever one of my posts get linked up to Kos or HuffPo.

    And why did it take three days for this to published? The Right had been tired of blogging about the incident by the time Rakkasan trotted out this defense. Seems to me that Kos would’ve defended itself Friday night instead of Sunday morning. That tells me that they had to recon the net to see what was being said and then manufacture a defense.

    A bad defense at that – full of gaping holes.

    Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House and Pajamas Media has an interview with young man now known to be Sergeant David Aguina, age 25, US Army Reserves.

  • YearlyKos loves Edwards

    Democrats had better hope that the Kos Kids and those other “progressive” bloggers don’t get to choose their candidate in 2008. According to two Washington Post bloggers, John Edwards, the prettiest girl in presidential field, is their choice – well, this week.

    From Jose Vargas;

    But it was Edwards that shined in the forum. The former North Carolina senator received two standing ovations, his voice drowned out by applause as he derided special interests in Washington. When the candidates were asked if they’d have a presidential blogger, Edwards said he would – and her name would be Elizabeth Edwards. Edwards’s wife was an early adopter in blogging, and she’s been a crucial, encouraging voice in her husband’s campaign on the Internet.

    A trial lawyer deriding special interests. Am I the only one sensing some irony (or hypocrisy) here?

    Next is Chris Cillizza;

    John Edwards — High point: It’s hard to choose just one, as Edwards — in the angry/outraged mode he flashed at the CNN/YouTube debate — was hitting on all cylinders. But, if we must….Edwards’ riff on not “trading our insiders for theirs.” Devastatingly effective as a populist pitch, Edwards nuanced it by calling on all of the candidates to pledge not to accept any money from any Washington lobbyists. By the time he was finished, the crowd was roaring.

    Out of the three Democrats leading the field of candidates, I predict that Edwards is the most easily defeatable candidate what with him being such a blatant and unashamed hypocrit and all. He might sucker in all of those Luanne Platter types, but his resume is a two-liner; one term Senator and failed Vice Presidential candidate.

    Although, I just learned the other day from the lawyer who counts the Electoral College ballots at the Office of the Federal Register that John Edwards is the only Vice Presidential candidate in history to receive an electoral college vote for President from an obviously confused delegate – so he’s got that going for him.

  • Why Hillary shouldn’t be President

    This guy Ron Hilderacker is one of my minor heroes. He lives back in my old stomping grounds in Upstate New York in a depressed county called Wayne County, named after “Mad Anthony” Wayne of Revolutionary War fame on the southern shore of Lake Ontario.

    But let me tell you the little bit I know about Ron – he started a small weekly newspaper from scratch in a cash-strapped community a few years back. He does most of the research, photography and writing himself as well as personally driving the newspapers to the post office to be mailed to his subcribers.

    He’s a real force in the community because of his paper and he doesn’t hold back on local politicians who’ve been getting away with murder and spending taxpayer money with wild abandon.

    Ron also publishes the mug shots of nearly everyone arrested in the county – bringing shame back to crime. Sometimes he even makes fun of the more stupid criminals – like the mother/daughter team caught shoplifting in the Dollar Store.

    Holderacker brought real journalism back to Wayne County and he reminds me of why I wanted to be a journalist when I was younger.

    My mom turned me on to the paper’s website and I immediately became addicted – so much so that I subscribed. I guess it’s my small way of contributing to Ron’s passions and causes. When subscription price is $40/2 years it really is a “small” contribution.

    Well, imagine how happy I was to see his politics are close to mine (many brilliant people share my ideology, though, so it’s not that rare). His editorial this week is a well-reasoned piece about why New Yorkers should not vote Hillary for President. Here’s a teaser but please go and read the rest for yourselves and even though you might not be from Wayne County, just sit back, relax, read the rest of the paper and remember what journalism used to be;

    Let’s forget for a moment that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Her gender should not be a reason for garnering any sane votes for the Nation’s top post. Let’s forget that Hilary Clinton was not even a real New Yorker since there has been a long history of opportunists who have moved into state to seek a public office as a stepping stone to higher ambitions.

    Hillary Clinton is a liar. She boldfaced stood in front of the news media after her husband, former President Bill Clinton lied to the American people about his marital indiscretions while in the White House. Hillary said she believed that her husband was telling the truth and that she trusted he did not have an affair.

    This flew in the face of years of philandering by Governor Bill Clinton that was not one of the best kept secrets in Arkansas . Hillary was either the dumbest wife on the planet Earth, or a woman who knew the truth would not benefit her own political career path.

  • Pledging our sacred honor

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Those are the last words a civilian speaks when he or she leaves the world behind and goes into the military. There is no end date (the first enlistment oath in 1775 was only good for a year), there are no extenuating conditions to avoid executing the oath on every day. It is what it is.

    In a world of empty promises and endless litigation over the meaning of “is”, it’s almost comforting to know that there are people who take this oath seriously – the people who are more committed to the ideals of liberty and freedom than many of the people they defend.

    Every once in a while, a derelict slips through – someone who just mouths the words without taking the time to understand what they’ve promised, or they have no intention of obeying their promise to the American people, or they’ve already made a pledge to serve their own selfish interests.

    That, apparently, was the case with Scott Thomas Beaucamp. He had no intention of serving the American people – instead he was serving himself. His intention was to rocket to journalistic fame clinging to the skirt of his pampered Leftist fiance` by recording “no shit” war stories that privates tell each other to whittle away the mind-numbing seemingly endless hours spent on all-night guard duty.

    The first day on active duty teaches every private that he won’t make it without his comrades. One might teach him how to put a gloss on his brand new boots, another might show him how to fold his ten socks, another might toss him a canteen to prevent dehydration in the scalding heat of the Georgia sun, another might toss him an extra twenty rounds to hold off the last few assaulting maniacs, or bandage his wounds to keep him alive until he gets to the aid station.

    A new private learns that he pledges his honor to his country, his sergeant owns his ass, but he pledges his life to his fellow soldiers. Without them, he doesn’t have a chance, without him, they don’t stand a chance.

    Beaucamps never learned that lesson. He’s spent the last few months disparaging his fellow soldiers. How could a few stories injure his comrades? Well, let’s read a particularly odious comment left on The New Republic’s “The Plank” in response to Beauchamp’s admission to his ID;

    Mosaic (14 of 263)
    posted by jeopel on 2007-07-26 09:00:04 
    Take the word “diarist,” say it to yourself a few times. What, exactly, are the truth claims made by a diarist? Hmmm.

    Now, take the known facts about military recruitment, the lowering of standards, especially the increase in moral waivers. Statistically, are known felons, sociopaths, etc., more likely to commit crimes or exercise bad moral judgment than other citizens? Hmmm.

    Pieces of a mosaic, if you will.

    Or this:

    let me clarify (43 of 263)
    posted by MrCookie1 on 2007-07-26 12:10:59
    I have no idea if Beauchamp is a hero…though the fact that he is fulfilling his military obligation in a combat zone separates him from 99.99% of Talkbackers, (nod to butchie, jackson, and my main man teccy)

    What I do know is this: He exists. He is assigned to a combat unit. His unit – or squad or battalion or whatever it is actually called – was in the area he says it was. His unit found bones of dead Iraqi children. As for the zig zagging doggy killing, that has not been verified.

    So, hero? I don’t know. Honest, it appears that he is honest, or about as honest as most of us are in this world.

    What I do know is that it is rare that posters can somehow find the courage to admit they are wrong. What I think I am seeing, especially in that reptile thomson’s posts, is the beginnings of a Swift Boating of this young man. War supporters lecture us ALL the time about supporting the troops but they have no qualms about disrespecting, accusing, and villifying a soldier who they believe may have a different political agenda.

    No one is saying this guy is a hero. He is what is says he is though. He has declared himself. I rather think I will grow old and long in the tooth before any of the “heroes” attacking him on this board will ever find the courage to do the same.

    So the short version of these two posts is; well, what do you expect from the dredges we recruit? Oh, and why don’t you chickenhawks join, too.

    Well, MrCookie1, combat soldiers are more honest than anyone on the face of the planet – lies get people killed. Propagating lies get even more people killed. Take my word, Beauchamps’ diary is packed with lies – and I know lies about soldiering. And I can back up my experience.

    And then, over at the Weekly Standard, another blog entry from Michael Goldfarb records nonesense from the Columbia Journalism Review from Paul McLeary entitled “Why do conservatives hate the troops?”. McLeary writes;

    How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.) While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it’s worthy of note, has been proved false yet. But that hasn’t stopped the sharp knives of a slew of bloggers from coming out.

    Well, since Beachamps’ First Sergeant (he’s the ranking noncommissioned officer in Beachamps’ company, Mr. McLeary – I figured you needed to be told that by the string of ignorant crap you spewed) tells us it’s all false in his email to GI Jane;

    I can assure you that not a single word of this was true.

    Sounds definite to me.

    And, for your information, the milblog community is made up of former and current members of the military (hence the term) and their spouses – I speak as an attendee of the last Milblog Conference. You’ve never seen so many buzzcuts and heard so many “Yes, sir”s in your life (I’m betting).

    But as to your “How dare he…” question. How dare he indeed. How dare he break his oath to his country, how dare he break that unspoken oath to his comrades. I’ll let Shakespeare’s Henry V explain it to you so you might understand;

    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
    And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
    We would not die in that man’s company
    That fears his fellowship to die with us.
    This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
    And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
    But he’ll remember, with advantages,
    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
    Familiar in his mouth as household words-
    Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
    Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.