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 7)
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Aug 15, 2007
(Citizen)SodaihoAugust 15, 2007 18:33:04


The original article is from the queen of spin and hack writing


alright buddy now you went and done it! MM slips glove off of right hands and gently whacks Sodaiho across both cheeks, duel, in the morning, as the challenged you have choice of weapons. I suggest you bring a second, one that is familar with burial rights.
on Aug 15, 2007
alright buddy now you went and done it! MM slips glove off of right hands and gently whacks Sodaiho across both cheeks, duel, in the morning, as the challenged you have choice of weapons. I suggest you bring a second, one that is familar with burial rights.


peace MM, for in his own world, it is true. Mickey Moore and moveon are the gospels of truth. If they do not say it, it is not true. no proof necessary. Only the lack of their acknowledgement of the existance of the facts is enough to prove them wrong. No amount of proof will sway this dictum. For the eternal truth is that which is spoke by the elightened ones. All else is Comics.

Thus we learn the truth of the enlightened one.
on Aug 16, 2007
Not good enough. To refer to Senators and congressmen as traitors is abhorrent, in my opinion. These individuals have a different point of view and have worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituency and the United States. We should always respect them. You may disagree, but respectfully.

As to John Kerry, I think he is a true hero. Not only did he fight on behalf of his country, received the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts, but he had the courage to stand with fellow veterans during the war to stop the bloodshed. No coward here. Frankly, anyone who thinks so is well, I can't say...

I don't know about Kerry meeting with the "enemy". At what point and in what capacity and for what purpose? I know I returned to Vietnam in the mid-eighties and met with several "enemy soldiers". We still refused to have diplomatic relations with Vietnam, so I had to get my visa through Thailand. I guess I must be a traitor as well in your book.

So, if we were to use your logic then, and Iran is part of some wicked enemy front, then shouldn't we be referring to our Secretary of State, TehranCondi?


Not so! While "still" holding a post as a commissioned Naval officer (Lieutenant) he had private talks with the North Vietnamese government officials in Paris. And that is a well documented "fact" and also against US law. And no, getting your visa in Thailand would not be considered treason. What Kerry did is and was. Try reading this:
WWW Link
on Aug 16, 2007

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, August 16, 2007
Not good enough. To refer to Senators and congressmen as traitors is abhorrent, in my opinion. These individuals have a different point of view and have worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituency and the United States. We should always respect them. You may disagree, but respectfully.

As to John Kerry, I think he is a true hero. Not only did he fight on behalf of his country, received the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts, but he had the courage to stand with fellow veterans during the war to stop the bloodshed. No coward here. Frankly, anyone who thinks so is well, I can't say...

I don't know about Kerry meeting with the "enemy". At what point and in what capacity and for what purpose? I know I returned to Vietnam in the mid-eighties and met with several "enemy soldiers". We still refused to have diplomatic relations with Vietnam, so I had to get my visa through Thailand. I guess I must be a traitor as well in your book.

So, if we were to use your logic then, and Iran is part of some wicked enemy front, then shouldn't we be referring to our Secretary of State, TehranCondi?


Not so! While "still" holding a post as a commissioned Naval officer (Lieutenant) he had private talks with the North Vietnamese government officials in Paris. And that is a well documented "fact" and also against US law. And no, getting your visa in Thailand would not be considered treason. What Kerry did is and was. Try reading this:
WWW Link

geeeze about time you showed up docM and with some brillant facts too. thanks.

on Aug 16, 2007

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Monday, August 13, 2007
The media in this country has been a fraud for year. Look at the other example I posted a few days ago about Reuters posting "news" that was never verified. Just imagine what the poll "numbers" would be if Americans actually got a fair look at both sides of Iraq.

That would be an Interesting poll, an actual poll of every one of voting age. No slanted set-up polls stacked with one side or the other. Gread idea dog

on Aug 16, 2007

Reply By: JacobKerrPosted: Monday, August 13, 2007
You do not know me... I have allot of hate for republicans because I believe allot of them are evil and are blindly working on destroying our constitution and what this country stands for! Your evil and you do not even know it...

hate? the actual emotion Hate? yikes? how do you hate 80 million people that you do not know?

on Aug 16, 2007

Reply By: Texas WahinePosted: Monday, August 13, 2007
What a douche bag.

succinctly put tex.

on Aug 16, 2007
geeeze about time you showed up docM and with some brillant facts too. thanks.


His post just touched a "very" sore spot with me. If it had been up to me, John Kerry would have been stood against a wall at dawn and shot by a firing squad!

To hear that treasonous SOB described as a "hero", PISSED me off!
on Aug 16, 2007
drmiller, thank you for that link. I read it with interest. It would appear Kerry violated the law, yet I think your reply is a tad over the top. Like this one:

In the greater scheme of things I am not sure why you would think someone should be shot for seeking peace. Recent experience suggests Conservatives tend to go for this solution. First, don't talk to your enemies. Second, claim those who do are useless or traitors. Third, have a war. Fourth, invite every one's kiddos. Fifth, make sure your son or daughter doesn't enlist. Oh, well, let's just string 'em all up. I admit, I felt the same way about GW, that draft dodging silver spooner. So, maybe you're right. Lets go shoot 'em all.

on Aug 17, 2007
LOL back to me eh? I decided that you guys are way to closed minded to at least consider anything I have to say. Something can be right in the open and underneath your nose and most of you would look to other way. Whether it's conscious or subconscious it's true. It may not be for another 100 - 500 years but I have a feeling that this story (USA and the rest of the world) is not going to have a very happy ending.
on Aug 17, 2007
geeeze about time you showed up docM and with some brillant facts too. thanks.


His post just touched a "very" sore spot with me. If it had been up to me, John Kerry would have been stood against a wall at dawn and shot by a firing squad!

To hear that treasonous SOB described as a "hero", PISSED me off!


LOL your a piece of shit you know that? No one deserves to be put up against a wall and shot by a firing squad! I would honestly like to know what this man has done to make you feel this way and I'm sure he has done no worse then allot of the people at the head of our government right now. How do you know what has been said about John Kerry is true or not? He was up against Bush and I would not trust any type of background information that came out on him because of that. How much proof do you actually have and is it any better then the documentation etc. that there is on these "conspiracy theories" on 9/11? Maybe you are just as gullible as any of us liberals? I think you all are! You eat up everything they feed you with no questions asked! If there is documentation how can you be sure of it's authenticity? One thing can be stated by one powerful and trusted person and be spread like a freaking wild fire with no questions asked. Documentation could be developed and set in place and if anything is uncovered the theory would be considered crazy. Logic is a threat is this nation now! If there's something the government wants it will crush everything in it's path and do what they can to make it look right and if it's questioned then the person with the questions is considered to be a "loon". It's so easy for them to cover up anything they want because of this. Why do you think Americans have the right to bear arms? The law was put in place just in case someone was to try to destroy the constitution and so the people would have power over the government because that was the way it was suppose to be! Now if anyone even questions the government then they are considered crazy, an anarchist, mentally challenged hippie protester!
on Aug 17, 2007
Jacob: I don't know who you think you are, but you certainly have NO RIGHT to call drmiler a piece of shit.

The problems a lot of folks on here have with John Kerry have to do with things they lived through and experienced or saw with their own eyes. It's all well-documented and accepted as fact. It's not hidden whatsoever.

You seem very young. Maybe study a little bit and then come back. And try to be a bit more respectful while you're at it.
on Aug 17, 2007
Continued from my reply above....

They are pretty much thrown out of society. Us liberals are just looking out for the best interest of this country and it's people and I do not understand why you people can not see that! It's like there's a war between the "right" and the "left" if fully analyzed which is the best half? Let me post the definition of a liberal once more:

- broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

- having political or social views favoring reform and progress

- tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

- big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

Liberal sounds pretty damn good to me. I think I'm going to fight for the good not the evil.
on Aug 17, 2007
Let me post the definition of a liberal once more:


Problem is a textbook definition doesn't equal reality. Communism sounds good to some people on paper, but it really doesn't work out well in practice does it?


on Aug 17, 2007
JacobKerrAugust 17, 2007 02:56:32


- broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

- having political or social views favoring reform and progress

- tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

- big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

Liberal sounds pretty damn good to me. I think I'm going to fight for the good not the evil.


what you just described sounds much to me like the old liberals, in the JFK mold, not today's politically correct, secular progressive {gag} pieces of shit that think they know what is better for everyone, today's liberal thinks nothing of the Murder of 20 million human fetuses but cries if a terrorists rights are violated. Today's liberals are the most full of shit motherfuckers on the planet.
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last