“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.”<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
That, apparently,\u00c2\u00a0was 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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<\/a>” in response to Beauchamp’s admission to his ID;<\/p>\n Mosaic (14 of 263) 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.<\/p>\n Pieces of a mosaic, if you will.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or this:<\/p>\n let me clarify (43 of 263) 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u00c2\u00a0my experience.<\/p>\n And then, over at the Weekly Standard, another blog entry from Michael Goldfarb<\/a> records nonesense from the Columbia Journalism Review from Paul McLeary entitled “Why do conservatives hate the troops?”<\/a>. McLeary writes;<\/p>\n 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<\/em> 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nposted by jeopel on 2007-07-26 09:00:04\u00c2\u00a0
\nTake the word “diarist,” say it to yourself a few times. What, exactly, are the truth claims made by a diarist? Hmmm.<\/p>\n
\nposted by MrCookie1 on 2007-07-26 12:10:59
\nI 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)<\/p>\n