America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
An Article by Sweet Ann Coulter
Published on August 13, 2007 By Moderateman In War on Terror
In their latest demonstration of how much they love the troops, liberals have produced yet another anti-war hoax.

The New Republic has been running "true war" stories from a brave, anonymous liberal penning dispatches from Iraq. The famed "Baghdad Diarist" described his comrades joyfully using Bradley fighting vehicles to crush stray dogs, mocking a female whose face had been blown off by an IED, and defacing Iraqi corpses by wearing skull parts on their own heads.

Various conservatives began questioning the plausibility of the anonymous diarist's account -- noting, for example, that Bradley vehicles don't "swerve," as the diarist claimed. The editor of The New Republic responded by attacking the skeptics' motives, complaining that some conservatives make "a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq."
But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the "Baghdad Diarist" to be ... John Kerry! Actually it was Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Democratic candidate for president circa 2028. (That gives him 20 years to learn to pronounce "Genghis.")

In revealing himself two weeks ago, Beauchamp lashed out at "people who have never served in Iraq." He said he was too busy fighting "an actual war" to participate in "an ideological battle that I never wanted to join."

He had tried to stay out of ideological battles by writing made-up articles in a national magazine claiming soldiers in Iraq had become callous beasts because of George Bush's war, killing to "secure the riches of the empire." Alas, this proved an ineffective method of keeping his head low. Beauchamp's next bid for privacy will be an attempt to host "The Price Is Right."

In response to Beauchamp's revelation that he was the "Baghdad Diarist," the military opened an investigation into his allegations. There was no corroboration for his stories, and Beauchamp promptly signed an affidavit admitting that every single thing he wrote in The New Republic was a lie.
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
According to The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb -- who has led the charge of those who "make a living denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq" -- Maj. Steven F. Lamb, the deputy public affairs officer for Multi-National Division-Baghdad, said this of the Baghdad diarist:

"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."

In response, The New Republic went into full Dan Rather loon mode. This astonishing post showed up on The New Republic Web site on Tuesday afternoon:

"A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:

"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 Maj. 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.' When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, 'We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.' -- The Editors"

It's good to see Mary Mapes is working again.

What on earth is going on? Either the military investigation found that Beauchamp lied or it didn't. Either military personnel corroborated stories of soldiers wearing skulls as crowns or they didn't. Either Army spokesman Maj. Steven Lamb gave a statement to The Weekly Standard or he didn't.

At the same time as The New Republic was posting the above statement, which completely contradicted The Weekly Standard's update, renowned right-wing news outlet ABC News confirmed that the military has concluded that Beauchamp was writing "fiction." ABC also quoted Goldfarb's account and said that Maj. Lamb reiterated his statement that Beauchamp's stories were false to ABC. The New York Times had the same story on Wednesday.

The New Republic has gone mad. Perhaps the magazine brought its former employee, fantasist Steven Glass, out of retirement. It's long past time for The New Republic to file for intellectual Chapter 7. Arthur Andersen was implicated in fewer frauds.

And we wonder how Democratic congressmen can lie about a vote they lost on the floor of the House -- captured on CSPAN for all the world to see -- changing the vote so that they win.

America's imminent victory in Iraq and safety from terrorist attacks at home is driving them all crazy.
"
Comments (Page 5)
11 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Aug 14, 2007
Hey Dr Guy your not funny so do us all a favor and STFU...


You know it's "not" my blog, it's MM's. But since I consider MM AND DrGuy friends of mine, I will respond to this for them.

1) "YOU" don't tell anyone on this particular blog to STFU!

2) You're the only one here who's NOT funny!

3) And while I'm at it, "YOU" STFU!
on Aug 14, 2007
Hey Dr Guy your not funny so do us all a favor and STFU...


You know it's "not" my blog, it's MM's. But since I consider MM AND DrGuy friends of mine, I will respond to this for them.

1) "YOU" don't tell anyone on this particular blog to STFU!

2) You're the only one here who's NOT funny!

3) And while I'm at it, "YOU" STFU!


NO YOU STFU and I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY!
on Aug 14, 2007
Her Kerr is so funny, I had to post it twice.
on Aug 14, 2007

Hey Dr Guy your not funny so do us all a favor and STFU...

OoohHh!  Such biting wit!  You cut me to the quick!

is the hat a little too snug?

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY!

Well, at least you got one thing right.  That is one and counting.

on Aug 14, 2007

NO YOU STFU and I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY!


LIKE I SAID IT NOT "YOUR" BLOG TO TELL ANYONE TO STFU! So cram it where the sun don't shine!
on Aug 14, 2007
... this is looking more and more like a message board with each post.
on Aug 14, 2007
(Citizen)SodaihoAugust 14, 2007 14:12:54


I myself torched villes


are you admitting to a war crime? I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about but in 1965 through 1966 I never heard of such actions as you describe. I did not know a single person that did any of the war crimes Hanoijohn painted ALL OF US WITH. I have nothing but the deepest loathing for Hanoijohn, and hanoijane too.

Hanoijohn Betrayed every soldier that fought honorably in Vietnam, sure crimes were committed, but not all of us behaved in such a despicable manner.
on Aug 14, 2007
Well I'm done with this post onto the next...
on Aug 14, 2007
Well I'm done with this post onto the next...


The mothership has left the building!   
on Aug 14, 2007
No no I just moved onto other post in this forum. I'm still in the building! Watch out!
on Aug 14, 2007

Watch out!

Low flying saucers?

on Aug 14, 2007
are you admitting to a war crime? I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about but in 1965 through 1966 I never heard of such actions as you describe. I did not know a single person that did any of the war crimes Hanoijohn painted ALL OF US WITH. I have nothing but the deepest loathing for Hanoijohn, and hanoijane too.


Then you were insulated. I lit the flame myself on several hooches. War crime? Don't know. I also recall destroying food with grenades as well as a few other stupid and regretful things. I was in the Central Highlands in 1966. Kerry did not paint all of us with any such broadbrush as you say. He indicated that atrocities were happening. Listen, MM, I have spent most of my adult life as a shrink to vets, worked in Vet Centers and with VVA. In spite of what you think, I do indeed have a clue what the (in your words) fuck I am talking about. Please take awhile, do a considered read of the oral histories of that war. You will discover a ton of such incidents. While it was not common, it was hardly uncommon.

Your hatred of Senator Kerry is irrational. You might dislike him. You might think he did the wrong thing speaking to congress or tossing his medals over the white House fence, but he did these things with a point in mind: end the war. Hate is a terribly poisonous emotion. I hope you address it in therapy. A 10 year, incredibly stupid and costly war that lost 58,000 of us and wounded and maimed hundreds of thousands needed to be spoken against, just as this current ridiculous excuse for a war should be spoken against. Frankly, your apparent 'my country right or wrong' thinking makes me sad. You should know better.

Be well.
on Aug 15, 2007
Hate is a terribly poisonous emotion.


Hate is only poisonous when used in the wrong way. Like all emotions, hate in and of itself is not poisonous. His dislike - or hatred - of John Kerry is not irrational, and indeed, since it has been proven that Kerry lied, and by implication, implicated all American troops in Vietnam with his lies, he is worthy of contempt. A contempt that those who served there, and those who had loved ones in the theater, are justified in expressing and holding.

We must not hide the facts of the war, but like Beauchamp, those who lie and accuse others with lies and innuendo are not to be praised because one agrees with their ends (in your case you state he wanted to end the war). After all, (Godwin's law coming up), that is how the Nazis inflamed a nation to genocide against a group of people. By lying about what they did. Regardless of the ends, if the means are evil, the ends are not justified. This is clearly a case where his means were despicable and contemptuous, and for those who served with honor, they have a reason to heap scorn and hate upon Kerry. For in the end, the only difference between Kerry and Callie is in the ends. Not the means. Both were heinous, it was just the focus of their evil that was different.
on Aug 15, 2007
DrGuy,

Thank you, and MM for this discussion. Clearly we have serious differences. I do not think Kerry lied, as I did not lie regarding my experience in Vietnam. Because we perceive differently, because we believe differently, does not make one a liar. This is the problem with Coulter and her ilk, as well as how this discussion unfolded. Clearly atrocities were committed. Kerry said that, I said that. These are not lies. There is ample evidence, hundreds if not thousands of oral histories supporting this truth. If you believe John Kerry lied, please show me the reference. Spin is not a lie, by the way. Coulter does not lie (perhaps) but she spins. Limbaugh does not lie, but he spins; Franken does not lie, but he spins.

This is the problem: spin is not a lie, its a distortion (unless you want to be really technical and suggest the verb transitive of lie is, in fact, spin). If you want to say Kerry distorted the truth, OK. Was the distortion justified? Perhaps. In the context of a seemingly never-ending war with carpet bombing of civilian cities at stake, perhaps.

You say Kerry cast a shadow on those of us who served with honor. Perhaps. The whole war was in the shadows, just like Iraq. And so when someone tries to lift the shadow, people like you and MM want to rebuke them? For the sake of?

By the way, emotion is, by definition irrational. Emotion is not a thought, but a consequence of a thought. Again modern linguistic mud: feeling is not thought. Goodness.

Be well.
on Aug 15, 2007
I do not think Kerry lied,


One final note. I did not say I think Kerry Lied. I said he was proven a liar. There is a difference between saying "I think Kerry Lied" and saying "Kerry has been proven to be a liar".

I do not question your story, or cover up My Lai. War is not a civil game of cricket. As you correctly point out, I am sure you can find many instances of atrocities in any war. That does not mean you should lie to create more, and in the process defame the men and women who served there.
11 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last