… the Iraq war vet who is blogging about alleged horrible things US troops have said and done in Iraq that he has supposedly witnessed, like the desecration of a grave which contained the bones of murdered children?
Now you know. Make sure to read that post in full. It’s interesting how Thomas takes the usual liberal line of attack by labeling his critics as chickenhawks - especially considering all the military vets who’ve taken issue with some of his ‘reporting.’
Shame on you, TNR.
Read lots more on this via Memeorandum.
My opinion: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is as phony as John Kerry. Maybe he’ll make a great massachusetts senator someday.
In other news…
LINK
looks like the surge is producing results.
Comment by G Monster @ 7/26/2007 - 3:28 pm
G Monster read my mind. That is exactly what I thought, it is the new John Kerry. As for me being a chickenhawk, I am a 55 year old woman, I doubt the military would have me. And if this little turncoat did not want to go, he should not have joined up. It is not as if he was kidnapped and forced to join the US military.
Comment by Terrye @ 7/26/2007 - 4:24 pm
Hilarious!! A military guy putting his life on the line for his country writes a story that doesn’t fit with your “We are winning” beliefs, and now he is the one in question. It’s sad to see the lunacy that has infected your movement.
Comment by Derrick @ 7/26/2007 - 6:25 pm
Nope. What’s “hilarious!!” is yours - and other far lefties - apparent inability to be able to distinguish between “not wanting to hear it” and “something about this guy’s story doesn’t sound right- let’s check it out.” Get. a. clue.
You’ve got military vets all over the place questioning the validity of what this guy - who has an ax to grind - is writing, but I guess in Derrick’s world the desire for accuracy takes second place (or does it even rank at all?) to jumping on the bandwagon of someone who is writing questionable ‘facts’ because, well, that’s what you want to hear, and want to believe: that is, that our troops are supposedly nothing but a bunch of heartless, murdering thugs. Anything that the left thinks ‘confirms’ this utter bull sh-t is latched onto quicker than you can say “guilty” which is why this “miltary guy” so captivated the usual suspects, such as yourself.
It’s really disgusting, claiming on one hand to “support the troops,” but at the same time being so willing to believe only the worst about them, simply because of the hatred that exists in the Democratic party for the military - especially when it’s under the control of a Republican president.
The moral depravity of the left on issues related to supporting our military knows no bounds.
You make me sick.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/26/2007 - 6:55 pm
The guy sounds like a yardbird with his bitching about cleanup duties. His rank suggests a recent demotion, and his bitching suggests he does not get along with his buddies and this was his grand get even opus.
I never quite know what to do when someone waves the chickenhawk bloody sheet, since I have the creds to fight the charge, but the charge itself is just a blind to change the subject. They are changing the direction of the argument with an argument relevant only if the other guy lays claim to expertise. This kid needs to shape up or ship out. He sounds less than useful in the line. Make him Hillary’s military aide, or Cindy’s when she takes Pelosi’s seat.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis @ 7/26/2007 - 7:05 pm
Derrick,
Did you follow the links and read what this gentleman said? Also, did you ever read the speech John Kerry read to congress?
Comment by G Monster @ 7/26/2007 - 7:06 pm
The odd thing is that daily I run into lefties who question everything you tell them even if you have the evidence in hand to prove it. A man’s testimony is nothing to these guys, yet when we question an “Anonymous” tipster for spewing garbage, our friends on the left run automatically to his defense, only because it fits their political world view. Yet we are the bad guys, right!! - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 7/26/2007 - 7:15 pm
Everyone who has served knows a guy like Beauchamp. He’s the junior enlisted guy, never gets promoted above E-4, who’s smarter and much more observant and incisive than anyone else around him. He could have been an officer, he claims, but turned it down. In his story, he even told “them” when they offered it to him that he could never be an officer because he was too smart to kiss ass, or too honest to lie for the higher up, or some such bravado. If he has some college, he either left because he wouldn’t put put up with the BS or he’s going to go back and finish his degree after discharge. That’s the generic type, anyway. Beauchamp will differ only in detail.
Maybe he’s gathering material for the next great antiwar novel. But he won’t be a new generation’s Joseph Heller or Richard Hooker because he can’t see beyond himself and thus, is incapable of creating any original characters. However much experience he gains, all he knows is himself and his own insecurities. His biggest insecurity is the fear that maybe, somehow, he is not quite as brilliant as he knows himself to be. His second is that maybe he won’t succeed in making everyone else see him for the genius he knows himself to be.
I guess what I have just described above is your typical navel gazing narcissist with literary pretensions. It’s just that this one enlisted instead of becoming a barista or bicycle messenger or pizza deliverer. Whatever - the anti military left just found itself a new hero and icon. This one’ll have way more staying power than Jesse McBeth.
Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 7/26/2007 - 8:40 pm
Absolutely Steve. Could this be the next Cindy Sheehan?? Used by the left and then tossed aside like so much garbage when they are done. It will be sad if this guy ever comes out from the shadow. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 7/26/2007 - 8:55 pm
Well, I was going to write something but S.T.’s comment pretty much said everything that I wanted to.
Thanks S.T.!!
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/26/2007 - 10:13 pm
I don’t think Derrick followed any of the links or read the story. He sees conservatives disagreeing with someone in the military and immediately takes us to task because of it, believing that Beauchamp has “street cred” by being in the military - which was Beauchamp’s goal if you follow the story.
Comment by Ryan @ 7/27/2007 - 12:11 pm