The Government doesn't lie, but Scott does. I would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, which (has stood tall since the eighteen hundreds).

Might have been better off not lying in the Tillman case, then someone might believe what the Army says. As it is, they just don't have any credibility.

Open minded Liberals will find this hard to accept.

so do all of you know that this scott guy has admitted that he was lying...........sometime yesterday or the day before maybe

BL2,

The Weekly Standard says Beauchamp recanted, but the New Republic says he did not.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure which publication is lying, but one of them is.

""Open minded Liberals will find this hard to accept.""

I'll get back to you, I need to ask Jessica Lynch if I should believe this or not.

Hey, wasn't that great when those Iraqis pulled down that statue of Saddam???

The oil will probably pay for the war.

"Might have been better off not lying in the Tillman case, then someone might believe what the Army says. As it is, they just don't have any credibility."

And the New Republic has credibility!?! They cite anonymous sources (read, can't be substantiated) but the biggest clincher is that Beauchamp's wife is a reporter for the NR! There is nothing wrong wtih believing your leftist politics, but please be honest with yourself and admit there is an obvious conflict when the reporter reports her husband for a well known politically slanted rag that already has credibility issues.

Can you admit this? Didn't think so. Go back to your grazing and wait for your next command

"come, come, my little sheep!"

rev....I heard on the radio that he had recanted and even that some with the new republic were pissed that foer was still standing by him......especailly after some other problem they had recently with some of their people....

and yes I know it was on the radio and thus all a figment of my imagination.......but maybe not...
I am sure more is to come.......and then we can call them liars...........

BL2,

I'm not making any judgement on which publication is lying on this. ONE of them is, but I don't have anywhere NEAR enough evidence to decide which.

Which ever one is lying, however, is doing their readers a SERIOUS disservice.

I think we both can agree on that, yes?

As for hearing it on the radio, I have never said you can't get factual information from the radio, though you do have to be very careful when trying to sift fact from the rhetoric when dealing with the radio, regardless of where the host falls in the political spectrum.

and yes I know it was on the radio and thus all a figment of my imagination.......but maybe not...
I am sure more is to come.......and then we can call them liars...........

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-08-08 10:36 AM | Reply

You know BLT While You are quite deluded in Your thinking processes with regards to Politics This one comment was a GEM. I laughed so hard I snorted a kernel of corn in reverse. LMAO Dude that was AWESOME.

Larry

"You know BLT While You are quite deluded in "

Who is delusional, Larry? Beauchamp's wife works for the NR and yet you believe she can give an unbiased report?

I laughed so had I had a whole cob come up in reverse! Talk about delusional!

I understand, of course. It is a story that pushes a left wing agenda and the party bosses told you you must believe it no matter what inconsistencies the story contained. So you do. Your position is sad, but understandable considering the blinded partisian you are.

How many times have the righty-tighties had to swallow the most blatant lies? Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, WMD's, yellowcake uranium from Niger, Valerie Plame, Gonzo's never ending lies, torture, Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples, Bush's DUI's, Bush's NG service, "that hump on my back was a wrinkle in my shirt", Terri Schiavo was not brain dead, Kerry's war record, there's no civil war in Iraq, the President didn't want to frighten the schoolchildren on 9/11, he flew all over the country on 9/11 before getting back to DC because there were "credible terrorist threats" and on and on. I know this is a very incomplete list.

Now they don't believe this Baghdad soldier whose story as far as I understand it has been corroborated by people on the ground. Many Republicans have long since realized that this President and his administration hide what they can and lie about everything they can't hide. The rightnuts never will.

Wondering where I mentioned ANY part of the article.

Larry

"How many times have the righty-tighties had to swallow the most blatant lies?" etc. . .

So let me get this right, BnB. If all these things you quoted are false (and I'm not getting into that) then everything the NR says is always true even if the reporter does have a glaring conflict of interest. Even if the NR's credibility has previously been questioned. They must be right because of Jessica Lynce, Pat Tillman, WMD's etc.

Yeah, whatever.

You may now rejoin Larry and Danni in the pasture

Now they don't believe this Baghdad soldier whose story as far as I understand it has been corroborated by people on the ground.
Posted by BlueInBushland

One of his stories is being disputed due to the fact he wasn't even stationed in the area he was writing about. And my bet is on the Army who would have knowledge of his location.

"Wondering where I mentioned ANY part of the article."

My mistake, Larry. I assumed you read the article before you commented on it.

I keep forgetting what you write is dictated to you and that you don't dare read the article -- unless you're told to, of course.

"One of his stories is being disputed due to the fact he wasn't even stationed in the area he was writing about. "

lies, lies, lies. Just ask Larry.

"And my bet is on the Army who would have knowledge of his location"

lies, lies, lies. The army is too stupid to know the location of their own people. Just ask Larry.

GOATMAN = WOB

Larry

rev.......as im all stories that are still being written, we could either one be wrong.......that is very true but at least so far I have heard more evidence of him lying rather than the other....
BUT YET AGAIN.........the whole story is not out yet.

thanks larry.....that was meant to add some humor..see.......we will let the story play out and THEN WE WILL CALL THEM LIARS.......see how that works....this humor thing......

as far as the corn.......well, I guess we all have our little strange eating habits..........


hasta laredo amigos..........


thats barrio talk for its lunch time........

BL2,

Your position on this is a good one.

As for me, the first I'd heard of it (not being a reader of New Republic) was two days ago, when a local talk show host claimed to have had irrefutible evidence that this guy wasn't even a soldier.

Now, apparently, that host has been proven wrong.

If it turns out that New Republic lied or Beauchamp lied, it's really no problem for me inasmuch as I'm not invested in the story. We do know that there are some (a vast minority, to be sure) soldiers who will commit attrocites if given half a chance.

We also know that the system still works to the extent that at least SOME of those scum-dogs who DO commit attrocites are caught and punished. That can only be a good thing.

Beyond that, my view is this:

If Beauchamp is being honest, then there are a few more soldiers out there who need to be punished. If he's not, then he's a very creative writer who is not using his gifts correctly and who has impugned innocent people, hence, he should be punished.

"GOATMAN = WOB"

Not sure what that acronym is. I'll ask your party head when I get a chance.

Larry = admittedly blinded by the machine:


"Wondering where I mentioned ANY part of the article."

For Future Reference, Goat:

WOB = Waste Of Bandwidth

If all these things you quoted are false (and I'm not getting into that) then everything the NR says is always true even if the reporter does have a glaring conflict of interest. Even if the NR's credibility has previously been questioned.

Go ahead. Nitpick. Limbaugh, Hannity et al make a very good living at it. What do you get out of it by ignoring the 90% that is true and, prompted by them, nitpicking the 5% that is equivocal and the remaining 5% that is probably inaccurate or plain wrong?

You lose all credibility when you engage in this for about the 50th time. Noting the frequency of such occurrences is not a conspiracy, it's not Bush bashing. It is a recognition that when flocks of birds that look, walk and talk like ducks keep turning up then they're ducks.

Waste Of Bandwidth AKA Waste of time. You Lambasted Me about a comment I never made. How would YOU like it if I did that to YOU??

Larry

"Which ever one is lying, however, is doing their readers a SERIOUS disservice." - BL2

And we all know the Weekly Standard doesn't employ any professional liars......*KRISTOL*......Sorr
y I sneezed.

U.S. troops
A Zogby poll in February 2006 determined that most U.S. troops serving in Iraq think that the U.S. should exit the country within a year, i.e. before February 2007.[165] The poll found:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately"
"89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so."

Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman Oh Yeah I Remember All Those Stories. This Guy Has Not Stated Anything About Murders Just Fucked Up Treatment Of Iraqis. So The Army Asks A few Questions Of Random Guys And It Is Case Closed. How About a Polygraph On Him ? I can't Believe After All The Prison Horrors,Rapes And Murders You Guys Want To Call This Guy A Liar.

-Sarge

if beauchamp were lying and spreading such damaging stories, wouldnt he suffer worse disciplinary action than losing his cellphone and laptop for an undetermined amount of time?

So let me get this straight...

An Anonymous Investigator interviews anonymous soldiers and conclude that a soldier who gives his real name and writes things that reflect poorly on the Army is lying.

And so to refute this claim the anonymous soldiers are then asked anonymously by a the Magazine printing the stories about these same claims and say they are true.

ANOTHER rival magazine claims the stories are lies with no supporting evidence...

Oh YEAH clear as mud....

No actual evidence has been presented in either case and so who are we to believe?

So are we to believe that EVERYTHING he said was a lie? Was he lying or was it just presenting his view of what happened?

A group of people can witness the same event yet tell completely different accounts of what happened. Does that make them all liars?

The Army statement did not specify what were described as Beauchamp's falsehoods and does not plan to make its report public. "The matter is considered to be closed," said Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, an Army spokesman in Baghdad.

shows what idiots the Army PR really are... this matter is not closed at all...the real story has just started as far as I can see...

How can we discover the truth if we are busy covering everything up?

Reporters being less than candid? Reporters fudging the facts?

Ironically, isn't Jayson Blair's name noted at the bottom of the DR homepage somewhere.

Ya know you're in the big leagues when the "Pat Tillman died in a knife fight with Osama"/"Jessica Lynch took out an Iraqi armored brigade"/ "we killed a non-existent terrorist twice" Army calls you a liar. It's like Bart Starr saying you can throw a football pretty well.

"What do you get out of it by ignoring the 90% that is true and, prompted by them, nitpicking the 5% that is equivocal and the remaining 5% that is probably inaccurate or plain wrong?"


Is this an opinion or a fact? If opinion, it's not worth responding to. If a fact, cite sources please?

"You Lambasted Me about a comment I never made. How would YOU like it if I did that to YOU??"

So you are saying I fabricated -- not cut and pasted the remark -- I cited you on. Are your delusions so severe that you actually think that by denying them that someone still can't scroll up and verify you said them? You are a very sad person, Larry. Please scroll up and see for youself that you did indeed cut and pasted what you said. Then tell me you never made that comment.

It is unbelievable to me that someone can be so blindly led that they actually deny the truth when thrown in their face -- especially when it came from their own mouth.

Like I said. Sad. Indeed, quite pitiful.

So none of you left wing sheeple see any conflict with Beauchamp's wife being a reporter for the NR? I didn't see anyone justifying it, so I presume that either a) y'all are too embarassed to admit something is wrong here or b) you are indeed the sheeple I claim you to be.

IF not y'all's delusions are worse than Larry's personal ones.

Turn it around. What if one of Rove's stories was positively reported by his wife in a conservative jounal. Would this be OK and would you blindly accept it as truth? (no, they say SHEEPlishly. Rove's not a Democrat)

Turn it around. What if one of Rove's stories was positively reported by his wife in a conservative jounal. Would this be OK and would you blindly accept it as truth? (no, they say SHEEPlishly. Rove's not a Democrat)

Are you disputing the facts in the story?

If so, which ones?

Or are you merely trying to claim that the writer has no credibility and thus shouldn't be listened to at all because he's married to a NR reporter?

Dusting off yer Joe and Val material?

"His wife sent him! Don't believe a word he sez!"

How freakin' predictable is that?

The incidents he describes are minor compared to the shit that has gone done to date. Are you just instinctively shooting the messenger here in an attempt to kill the message?

Yes, Spud thinks you are.

Unless Goatman aint being serious...
Maybe it's just Satyre or sommat?

Be Well.

PS: Rudyfartpants aka Rudy in a tutu is a coward and a jerk.

All factual!

First time caller, long time listener?

"Or are you merely trying to claim that the writer has no credibility and thus shouldn't be listened to at all because he's married to a NR reporter?"

I'm claiming there is a conflict of interest. Do you agree or disagree? Simple question.

Me, I question strongly anything cited that involves a conflict of interest, especially one as egregious as this. Some people find nothing wrong with conflicts of interest, especially when it follows their party's marching orders.

So a one word answer is sufficient: Agree or disagree that Beauchamp's wife, being a reporter for the NR is a conflict of interest?

If disagree, how about the scenario I set up with Rove? Exact scenario, just opposite parties, allegiances. If you tell me you think that would be OK, I will be quite rude and call you a liar.

BTW, I've figured out all your cutesy misspellings except "sommat". I can't quite get that one into a specific context. Explain in non-cutesy English, please. Sommat?

"First time caller, long time listener?"

You could say that. I lurked for a little over a year before I became actively involved in this blog.

Goatzhedsoup,

Sommat = something

The First Time caller thing was in reference to the RudyToot post.

If ya click on the name you'll find it's an ID just made up today fer that one post so it's either a regular who doesn't want to be called down fer the remarks who's adopted a one-off ID or it's actually someone who's been reading along fer a bit and decided to make a bad start. Spud going with the former interpretation and was being kinda snarkastic with it.

Hope that explains.

Be Well.

"Goatzhedsoup,"

Great album. I remember when I bought it everyone said the "old Stones" were better. Funny looking back. Was Angie about David Bowie's wife or Andy Warhol

"Sommat = something"

Thanks

Confict of interest or not?

"If ya click on the name you'll find it's an ID just made up today fer that one post so it's either a regular who doesn't want to be called down fer the remarks"

DOn't trust anyone who has to hide when they say something.

I'm claiming there is a conflict of interest. Do you agree or disagree? Simple question

Spud sees no conflict of interest here.

They followed proper journalistic procedure here. The worst that can be sed is he sed an incident took place in Iraq that had actually taken place in Kuwait. Just because he's married to a journalist does not defacto make everything he writes suspect. Again you suspect the reporter before the facts.

If the roles were reversed?

Let's see, if Rove decided to get off his fat ass and go over to Iraq as a private? Spud's has trouble imagining that scenario right off the bat quite honestly but Spud's got a pretty good imagination so he'll give it a shot. Karl Rove goes over to Iraq as a private, he's married to let's say Micheal Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard (Civil Union, wotever ya want to call it) Then Rove sends a story back to Mikey telling him of three minor incidents that show wot? Wot did the three incidents in the original story show? That in war people get crueler and de-sensitised to death as a matter of course? Okay then, Rove sends a story back telling of three incidents in which war makes soldiers get kinder and more sensitised to death. Would Spud dispute that story as being a "conflict of interest" thing with an uncredible writer? Well... since ya picked Rove, his history of lies, inaccuracies and obfuscation is bigger than the collective rap sheet of the entire hip hop industry so yeah that would warrant a mention at some point but initially Spud would contradict the story because it didn't make sense logically.

Does that help?

Be Well.

"Spud sees no conflict of interest here."

Not surprising.

I wonder, if the problem is so widespread, she didn't simply find another soldier to tell the story? Then the question of impropriety would never come up. I would've thought differently of you spud, but it is apparent your left knee is just as jerky as the others' on this thread.

I kind of suspected it a few days ago when you accused the right wing of slinging mud at Edwards ( the $400 haircut thing) when clearly it was a democrat since this is the primarys. Not to mention, the right wing would much rather have to face edwards in '08 than Hillary. It wouldn't do them any good to sling mud at him. Anyway, OT, just pointing to jerky left knees here is all.

The contrived Rove thing you postulated is typical of a far left or right winger taking a simple questionm (I asked it in 2 sentence, 27 words (if I counted right). It really wan't necessary to contrive it into something as bizarre as you did unless you felt the need to spin.

From the Article: The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine that has led the charge against Beauchamp, cited an unnamed military source yesterday as saying that Beauchamp had signed an affidavit acknowledging that his three articles were filled with exaggerations and falsehoods. That could not be independently confirmed, but it is common practice for the subject of an investigation to sign a statement confirming or denying the conduct in question.

Foer said the New Republic had asked Maj. Steven Lamb, an Army spokesman, about the allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, and that Lamb had replied: "I have no knowledge of that." Before going incommunicado, Beauchamp "told us that he signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic," Foer said.

"Thus far," he added, "we've been provided no evidence that contradicts our original statement, despite directly asking the military for any such evidence it might have."

But Weekly Standard writer Michael Goldfarb said: "We have full confidence in our reporting that Private Beauchamp recanted under oath."

Huh, so an Army spokesman says that Beauchamp "signed a statement that did not contradict his writings for the New Republic," yet the Weekly Standard stands by its assertion that Beauchamp recanted?

New Republic has a source, what does The Weekly Standard have? And if they have no source and cannot communicate directly with Beauchamp, how can they make a factual and ethically sound asserion that Beauchamp recanted? How can the Weekly Standard be considered even remotely credible in this instance?

" How can the Weekly Standard be considered even remotely credible in this instance?"

I don't know. But it is yet another piece of information to digest by us non knee jerk people. Hopefully it will provide more data that points to the truth.

To be honest, I believe that what Beauchamp claims may be true. I had a coworker years ago who told me on his first day in Vietnam the jeep driver entered a base camp where there were several dead vietcong lying in a row. The driver drove over their heads. I think war and the soldiers' training fuck up their heads. However, that doesn't keep me from seeking the truth. NOr does it keep me from doubting a report where there is an obvious conflict of interest. Sorry if that offends you far left or far right people. Facts are better than speculation and blind belief based on political views. And "facts" from an admittedly slanted news source (NR in this case) and from a soldier whose wife is a reporter for this same organization make me ask questions.

Why are the left and right fringes afraid to ask questions and to so quick to blindly accept any story that fits into their their parties' views? I don't get it. Don't we all seek the truth? Don't we all want facts to corroborate it? Don't we want these facts to be untainted by the reporters' biases?

Why are the left and right fringes afraid to ask questions and to so quick to blindly accept any story that fits into their their parties' views? I don't get it. Don't we all seek the truth? Don't we all want facts to corroborate it? Don't we want these facts to be untainted by the reporters' biases?

right now, who can say WHO is lying or not?

The right wing "blame the soldiers first" crowd immediately piled on the guy with his boots on the ground.
Why do they hate America?

A lefty publication not telling the truth...?

I'm shocked.

If Beauchamp is being honest, then there are a few more soldiers out there who need to be punished. If he's not, then he's a very creative writer who is not using his gifts correctly and who has impugned innocent people, hence, he should be punished.

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-08-08




and if we find out that foer went ahead with the article knowing that it was lies, here is another fallout from the affair.

never believe the new republic again......or give them the jason blair award for reporting......