New Republic=left-leaning rag. Not worth spit.

A child's skull would not be "a perfect fit" over the skull of a grown man, and I daresay a skull from "Saddam's regime" would not still hold rotting flesh. This "article" is bullshit propaganda, start to finish.

You can't get thousands of people together without including a few sickos. In fact, a certain psychologist proved that human monsters capable of heinous acts are really quite ubiquitous - all they lack is opportunity. His study should prompt serious self-examination. We have to do the best we can to weed out the bad apples. These things should never be an indictment of the entire military.

>>>>

Off topic, general comment: C'mon guys. This is news.

I agree Jeff. There are sickos everywhere -- not only including military, but also teachers, priests, doctors, police, etc. Everywhere you can find a few. Some aspects of the stories sound suspect though, including the points made in the Weekly Standard piece.

Remember all of the "child rape" and "stacks of bodies" in refrigerators during Katrina?

Sadly,most of the great unwashed STILL don't know of the corrections and will never learn of what a bunch of poop this really is.

The grand inflictors of "The Big Lie" are winning folks.We shoulda let "Tailgunner Joe" tear 'em a new one.

This story got disassembled prety thoroughly over on Blackfive:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/07/the-new-republi.html

I've heard of "Gallows Humour", and this sounds like an exaggeration of the stories/jokes soldiers tell themselves to keep things from making them crazy. I highly doubt this story is anything other than fiction. I'm also keeping in mind the TNR is publishing this as a means of wholly delegitimizing the soldiers and their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. It helps their side, and it's no secret that the mag skews Left.

I was watching nightline last night, and Martin Bashir mentioned that the previous night's feature, about a group of G.I.'s in Iraq, received a great deal of hate mail, including a good number that accused them of shilling for the military. He defended the piece, and then intro'd one where the focus was on a group of Baghdad-based, college-aged male friends, and what it's like to try to live a normal life in the Iraqi capital. It was veyr moving, and for the most part quite free of the usual "mean U.S. is making life hell for the citizens of Baghdad" tripe. I'm sure they'll catch hell for focusing on something other than displaced Sunni/Shi'a women and children, but it did show that life, while different and often trying, goes on much as it did before.

These New Republic stories fit the preconceived notions that the Left have about our troops. They aren't going to 'fact check' them because "Thomas'" tales fit their agenda.

Jeff,
Nice attempt at deflection.
The NR bit is questionable at best - esp the Brad tale. I don't care how talented, one can't carve up a street chasing a dog, nor can one roll over most other motor vehicles.
Since that claim is bogus, a rational thinker then begins to question the other two parts of the tale...

J

PS - the Milgram exp was, and remains, pure garbage, suitable for no serious commentary.

Are you sure Little Dick Durbin didn't write this?

This reminds me of a rather well known article from Rolling Stone which, while not as disturbing, contained a couple glaring errors which pretty much finished off any credibility the author had by conclusively showing he was just making crap up.

A shame, too, it was well written - too bad it was BS.

You are always going to find a few freaks and wierdos in every group of individuals... ever single one. The anecdotal story (or something similar...) concerning the skull part might actually have happened - but I seriously doubt it. It more sounds like some "you know what I heard?" story that everyone is prone to, and I can only imagine that soldiers in high-stress environments with limited actitivies during their limited free time come up with some really good stories.

However, either way, using this one instance to demonize/condemn the entirety of the American Armed Forces is sheer tomfoolery, especially if the story is an urban myth (which I have little to no doubt it is). Granted, that will not stop those who hate America or her military, but it is still an idiotic course of action.

I do not believe this story and I think it is perpetrated by the left. The left has: Shot and attempted to kill a military man because he was anti-war, a leftest was going to blow up the Pa pipeline to get GW to pull the troops out of Iraq, enviro whacko's trashed a hummer in Washington D.C., and the recent list goes on. The left has lost control and they are capable of anything, even making up pieces that concern our honorable military. ww

Get on it, Media Mythbusters!

I'm sure you're riding high after you broke the lid off of that Stephen Glass story.

Next up, debunking the pernicious MSM myths that Dewey defeated Truman and Paul McCartney is dead!

Milgram dealt with subjects following the instructions of authority figures. Not the case here, unless you're suggesting that these alleged acts were performed under orders.

The left has: ...

And "the right" has only shot and killed doctors, attempted to blow up a funeral, called for the rape and murder of Dem staffers, defiled crosses marking the deaths of American soldiers, and the list goes on.

Jesus brian, can you read? The link about the "right" attempting to blow up a funeral, says nothing of the kind, it is some whack job saying he wanted to DISRUPT PROTESTORS of the funeral. Obviously we don't endorse this action, by why must you lie about it? Your link to the "right" calling for rape and murder, is a couple random nutjobs commenting on a blog, that hardly constitutes "the right" and do you really want to get into a battle of which side says the most heinous shit on blog comments?! Finally, as far as "the right" defiling crosses "marking the deaths of American soldiers", give me a fucking break, those crosses were NOT marking the deaths of American soldiers, rather the deaths of those brave soldiers were being USED as a tool of sheehan and her lunatic fringe anti-war jerk-offs, and IF you remember correctly, most all of the families of the names she chose at random were outraged and wanted those crosses taken down, in other words, they didn't want their sons and daughters names and memories being used like sheehan has used her son's.

mantis, you're so much better when you have a point. Mindless, lame-ass snark does not become you. It makes you look like a fool.

Upon further reading brian, Amanda Marcotte is NOT a Dem staffer, and why do you feel the need to write "Dem staffers" plural, when the subject at hand is one piece of shit blogger who is not a staffer? What, did she work for Edwards for all of 10 minutes? I am in no way condoning this talk mind you, before you start slinging more lies about, I find it awful and disgusting, but someone really must point out your need to lie and distort everything, such as a call for her murder, there is none.

mantis, you're so much better when you have a point.

My point must be a bit too subtle for you to grasp.

Well then, how about you make it clear for me?

The left IS: Protesting the war outside of VA hospitals, leftists are yelling at the top of their lungs that we lost the war, the left is saying the GWOT is a bumber sticker, the left says our troops in Cuba are like Nazi's, the left says our troops torture people, the left says our government is spying on all americans, the left says Abu Grahib is how our military really is, the left says our soldiers flushed the Koran down a toilet. Gosh, my fingers are tired and so much more to list. Anyway, you get the gist of it. The left cares nothing about our military. Zip. Nada. ww

Jesus H. Christ in a ferris wheel Brian... that's your worst post EVER!

Veeshir, obsess much? I do have other things to do, you know. Anyway, I did not call you stupid; my point wasn't exactly clear (laced with snark, though it was).

Lorie mentioned Stephen Glass in this piece, and included him among the few "Media Myths" entries available on the Media Mythbusters wiki at launch. I found this interesting in light of the stated purpose of the wiki:

The goal of this site is to debunk myths that take hold as a result of inaccurate or irresponsible media reports.

Glass was revealed as a fraud by the media, and that fact was widely disseminated, also by the media, even leading to a feature film being made about him in 2003. Yet Media Mythbusters (Lorie in this case) seems to think they are "debunking" the "myth" that, well hell, I don't even know what the myth is supposed to be. My point, subtle as it may have been, is that their "mythbusting" consists mostly of detailing corrections made by media outlets (Glass), and touting their own investigative work, even if their claims turned out to be false anyway (Jamil Hussein).

Essentially, what myth was debunked by the Stephen Glass entry? He made up stories, was revealed as a fraud (by the media), and was fired. We all know this. Does Lorie seriously believe that people don't know this? Does she think she's debunking something? Thus, my snarky comment. If they want to debunk some myths, they should actually, you know, find some.

Mantis, you mean besides those buried in your comments?

nice try Mantis.

a tiny little "retraction entry" buried somewhere deep in the back of a newspaper doesn't "make right" the damage done by leftist newsrags. They pull this game all the time, printing pretty much whatever they want, and when they get challenged, play the "oh, sorry - my bad" card.

I'm so sick of having conversations with lefties who just don't pay attention to those retractions, then they pull something out that's been debunked (last week, one of them started to ramble on about this fax about George Bush's National Guard service. He didn't realize that it was complete nonsense.)

Media MythBusters is a clearinghouse of those little clever tricks the media has been playing... very useful time-saving resource when trying to have a reasonable conversation with a thick headed lefty like yourself.

Hey, computerguy, are you asserting that the only evidence of Glass' fraudulent stories is a "tiny little "retraction entry" buried somewhere deep in the back?"

By the way, do you know where media watchdog Michelle Malkin's retraction regarding her assertions that Jamil Hussein didn't exist is? It's a tiny little thing buried at the bottom of this post.

Uh mantis old hissie is still a fraud. Have heard from him since? Hmmm

mantis: By the way, do you know where media watchdog Michelle Malkin's retraction regarding her assertions that Jamil Hussein didn't exist is? It's a tiny little thing buried at the bottom of this post.By the way, do you know where media watchdog Michelle Malkin's retraction regarding her assertions that Jamil Hussein didn't exist is? It's a tiny little thing buried at the bottom of this post.

I call Bull Shit. Many people claimed the knew of him... Many people claim they saw UFOs and bigfoot.

Why is it nobody can still produce him? One guy at the Interior Ministry claimed he existed.. And that "correction" was later debunked. Keep up mantis.

Mantis

Glass was revealed as a fraud by the media, and that fact was widely disseminated, also by the media, even leading to a feature film being made about him in 2003.

Where do i go for that?

BTW mantis, as Curt so eloquently put it 3 months after your "correction."

In the end one man was produced by the AP who was NOT named Jamil Hussein and claimed to NOT be the AP source.

That about sums it up.

Jesus brian, can you read? The link about the "right" attempting to blow up a funeral, says nothing of the kind, it is some whack job saying he wanted to DISRUPT PROTESTORS of the funeral.

So your point is... wanting to blow up a funeral: bad; wanting to blow up PROTESTORS of the funeral: okey dokey.

Obviously we don't endorse this action, by why must you lie about it? Your link to the "right" calling for rape and murder, is a couple random nutjobs commenting on a blog, that hardly constitutes "the right"

Shall we examine how often these very pages attribute the actions of "random nutjobs" to "the left"? How about we start with a few "random nutjobs" who vandalized a Hummer?

and IF you remember correctly, most all of the families of the names she chose at random were outraged and wanted those crosses taken down, in other words, they didn't want their sons and daughters names and memories being used like sheehan has used her son's.

Hmm, 13 out of 500. No, I guess I don't *cough* "remember correctly".

Amanda Marcotte is NOT a Dem staffer... What, did she work for Edwards for all of 10 minutes?

Contradict yourself much?

The left IS: Protesting... yelling... saying... says... says... says... says... says... Gosh, my fingers are tired and so much more to list. Anyway, you get the gist of it.

Yes, I get the gist. You're for shootings, bomb plots, and threats, but against political speech. You've made that quite clear.

Brian:

Hmm, 13 out of 500. No, I guess I don't *cough* "remember correctly".

And of course, as you must, avoid you original assertion that "markers" (i.e. graves) of dead soldiers were defiled.

They weren't markers of anything but pieces of wood stuck in the ground by a raving moonbat making a sorry attempt to politicize the deaths.

Please explain why it makes a difference whether it was 1, 13 or all 500 the took exception to the son/daughter being used this way?

I say again... it was your sorriest post EVER.

I call Bull Shit. Many people claimed the knew of him... Many people claim they saw UFOs and bigfoot.

You call bullshit on what? That Malkin retracted her assertion that Hussein did not exist, or that he existed at all?

Why is it nobody can still produce him?

Is someone supposed to?

One guy at the Interior Ministry claimed he existed.

The same guy who initially claimed he didn't exist.

And that "correction" was later debunked. Keep up mantis.

It was made clear that he was using a pseudonym, and clearly the AP was not anxious to reveal his real name.

This is all a bit interesting.
A "story" is published w/no background, no editorial notes, nor even a context, describing in one of three points something that cannot be done (see the right side of a BFV from the "perch"), yet instead of laughing off the article, some wish to deflect & defend it's publisher.
Bizzare, really. Or laughable.

J

And of course, as you must, avoid you original assertion that "markers" (i.e. graves) of dead soldiers were defiled.

And you, of course, must lie. Not once, but twice, both in claiming that I "avoided my assertion" (I'm not even sure what that means, but I retract nothing that I've said), and by inventing a claim that I stated they were graves.

Please explain why it makes a difference whether it was 1, 13 or all 500 the took exception to the son/daughter being used this way?

It was a response to the false claim made that "most" objected. Try to pay attention.

>You call bullshit on what? That Malkin retracted her assertion that Hussein did not exist, or that he existed at all?

No, your calling it definitive. She reported that someone in the IM office said he existed... No other evidence was provided other than this claim. IMO she erred by putting it in her "corrections" piece. Should should have made a new post titled "Another unsubstantiated rumor from the AP"

==============
>>Why is it nobody can still produce him?

>Is someone supposed to?

In this case yes. And you know that.
==============

>>One guy at the Interior Ministry claimed he existed.

>The same guy who initially claimed he didn't exist.

Funny but unture. The guy they fingered said he wasn't the source. And they got his name wrong. (see below)

Then a few weeks after the "correction" you highlight the MoI said that he was NOT the source. (keep up mantis)

Which version are you believing? Cuz so far I'm not buying any of it.
================
>It was made clear that he was using a pseudonym, and clearly the AP was not anxious to reveal his real name.

It was made clear? When?

After they got busted making up a source they suddenly claimed "Oh well... that was a pseudonym." -- That came AFTER they claimed it was NOT a pseudonym.

-- In fact, in the piece where they claim they got confirmation he existed, they AP insinuated the MoI was inept becasue they couldn't find him

Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein's existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record.

But that was BEFORE they claimed it was a pseudonym!

Which version of the AP "truth" do you believe?

And recall they disparaged all the people looking for him saying that if they where really in Iraq (and not sitting on their asses in the States) they could find him easily, giving his exact name and district he worked in... both of which proved to be false.....

You're way way way off base on this one mantis.

Just to respond mantis,
yes you did imply I was too stupid to understand your "point" (over my head).
As for Glass? Buh? That was just snark, how is it not? I mean, if you had some point about them but what you wrote didn't make any sense.
It implied, as your response to me proves, that you thought that they were claiming they "outed" Glass.
Here's their entry:
Stephen Glass was a reporter for The New Republic. He was fired in 1998 for writing articles based on fake quotes from people who did not exist and on events that did not occur. His fraudulent stories were exposed by Adam Penenberg in an article at Forbes.com.

Where in there do they not note who exposed Glass? Where in there do they claim they did it?

Mindless, lame as snark and then, defending it, makes you really look like a fool and does not become you.

>>Why is it nobody can still produce him?

>Is someone supposed to?

In this case yes. And you know that.

What do they need to do, fly him here?

Funny but unture. The guy they fingered said he wasn't the source. And they got his name wrong. (see below)

He said he wasn't the source? Where? I can't find that anywhere in Curt's archive (though I may have missed it), and Bob and Michelle certainly haven't claimed that.

It was made clear? When?

When Bill Costlow from CPATT talked to Khalaf:

"We couldn't identify CPT Jamil right away because the AP used the wrong name: we couldn't find a "CPT Jamil Hussein" -- but later, when we saw the name "Jamil Gulaim Hussein", it became obvious that they were talking about CPT Jamil Gulaim Innad XX XXXXXXX [Name redacted for security reasons -- Editor]" as the only 'Jamil Gulaim' assigned there (ever) and whose assignment records show he previously worked in Yarmouk, as also reported by the AP. Since the issue for us is the release of false news into the media, we're satisfied that the AP is no longer quoting a questionable source."

After they got busted making up a source they suddenly claimed "Oh well... that was a pseudonym." -- That came AFTER they claimed it was NOT a pseudonym.

It's not at all possible that they did not want to reveal his real name, as it would have put him in danger?

-- In fact, in the piece where they claim they got confirmation he existed, they AP insinuated the MoI was inept becasue they couldn't find him

But that was BEFORE they claimed it was a pseudonym!

Indeed, and Costlow confirmed that they had verified his real name with MOI prior to that piece, and yes they continued to conceal it. Again, don't you think it's possible that they didn't want to reveal his real name to protect him? Even Bob Owens and Curt declined to print his real name, "for security reasons" (though you can find it elsewhere). If the AP had no reason to conceal his real name, why did Bob and Curt do the same?

In the end, the mysterious Jamil Hussein turned out to be a pseudonym of a real person, confirmed by the MOI. I'm not claiming the AP didn't participate in a deception in concealing his real name, I just don't believe that the man doesn't exist. We know his real name, his rank, and where he works. Apparently you wouldn't be satisfied he exists unless he visited you at home.

yes you did imply I was too stupid to understand your "point" (over my head).

I never said it was over your head; I said the point was too subtle.

It implied, as your response to me proves, that you thought that they were claiming they "outed" Glass.

The stated purpose of the wiki, yet again, is:

The goal of this site is to debunk myths that take hold as a result of inaccurate or irresponsible media reports.

Where is the myth in the Stephen Glass story that they are debunking?

Where in there do they not note who exposed Glass? Where in there do they claim they did it?

Where in there are they "debunking a myth that took hold as a result of inaccurate or irresponsible media reports?"

Brain, you REALLY are an idiot. It is stunning how stupid people can be.

Brian, "So your point is... wanting to blow up a funeral: bad; wanting to blow up PROTESTORS of the funeral: okey dokey."

This is EXACTLY why I said this, "Obviously we don't endorse this action, by why must you lie about it?" Because I knew damn well Brian would try to use the argument he did instead of answering to why he lied about the incident.

Brian, "Shall we examine how often these very pages attribute the actions of "random nutjobs" to "the left"? How about we start with a few "random nutjobs" who vandalized a Hummer?"

So you read that article and came to the conclusion that it WASN'T eco/leftist nutjobs that vandalized a hummer in an obviously lefty neighborhood where people regularly rail on the guy and wear anti-hummer t-shirts? Holy crap are you dense.

Me, "And IF you remember correctly, most all of the families of the names she chose at random were outraged and wanted those crosses taken down, in other words, they didn't want their sons and daughters names and memories being used like sheehan has used her son's.

Brian, "Hmm, 13 out of 500. No, I guess I don't *cough* "remember correctly".

This is where it gets good, brian once again lying. The link you link to is talking about crosses removed on Tuesday August 23, very soon after they were put up, never mind all the crosses removed after that date though huh brian?!! And never mind the fact that the people removing the few you mentioned had a list of people that wanted the names removed but the Sheriff stopped them huh brian?!

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

"On Tuesday, some mothers of Fort Hood soldiers killed in Iraq removed their crosses from Camp Casey and transplanted them at Fort Qualls. Mothers who found duplicate crosses bearing their sons' names at the anti-war site took the extras home, Mrs. Curtis-Win said"

"On Tuesday, Mr. Garvey of Keystone Heights, Fla., removed two crosses bearing the name of his son that were posted at the Sheehan demonstration site -- dubbed "Camp Casey" -- outside the Bush ranch."

-----------------------------------------
Now, in the days AFTER brian stopped counting:

Wednesday, August 24th

" As of yesterday morning (8/24/05) at least 17 crosses bearing KIA American's names had been removed by family members, many of those 17 MORE THAN ONCE. Mr. Qualls has had to remove his son's crosses 3 DIFFERENT TIMES because the heartless and disrespectful anti-war leftists keep putting them back up. Some mothers of Fort Hood soldiers killed in Iraq who found DUPLICATE crosses of their fallen loved ones presented one cross each to Fort Qualls and took the duplicates home with them...I only know of one cross at Sheehan's camp which is there with the permission of a loved one left behind, that of her son Casey. And that cross is there without the permission of Casey's father, sisters and brother, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. So, I would have to say that Casey's cross is not there with his family's permission, only that of his poor, heartbroken mother who has allowed herself to be used by the leftist, anti-American, Hanoi Jane bloc."

http://markinmexico.blogspot.com/2005/08/families-removing-sheehans-crosses.html

------------------------

Saturday, August 27th, 2005

"I also picked up crosses of two colleagues [of his son], after their parents gave me permission to remove their crosses as well," Mr. Garvey said yesterday." Continues columnist Price.

"They had a list from families who did not want their sons' or daughters' names associated with Sheehan's group. Sheriff's deputies said they could remove the name tags but not the crosses..."We took down 11 names and the sheriff asked us to stop," Kaloogian said... He said he has received HUNDREDS of phone calls from parents who have lost children in the war in Iraq, and that many of those parents asked him to remove the names of their sons and daughters from the crosses.
The sheriff told them that if they would give him the names, he would personally see that they were removed, Kaloogian added."

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/08/28/news/politics/11_41_138_27_05.txt

-----------------------------------------

"Crosses representing those families loyal to New Iraq have been taken down at the Sheehan ditch camp-out. MORE ARE EXPECTED TO BE TAKEN DOWN AS FAMILIES COME TO REALIZE THAT THEIR YOUTHS ARE BEING UNFAIRLY REPRESENTED at the Sheehan location."

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/swank/archive/2005_08_21_archive.html

-----------------------------------------

So brian just keeps on lying. Uses the number 13 from the FIRST day of the counter protest, never mind all the people that came forward afterward to have their children's names removed, and the fact that the names were DUPLICATED all throughout!!!

"Mr. Qualls has had to remove his son's crosses 3 different times"

"Some mothers of Fort Hood soldiers killed in Iraq who found duplicate crosses of their fallen loved ones presented one cross each to Fort Qualls and took the duplicates home with them"

-----------------------------------------

Finally:
Me, "Amanda Marcotte is NOT a Dem staffer... What, did she work for Edwards for all of 10 minutes?"

Brian, "Contradict yourself much?"

Please explain how that is a contradiction. I said she is not a dem staffer, that is FACT. I even included the fact that she WAS a dem staffer for a VERY brief amount of time. An argument could be made that she wasn't even a staffer as she never did any actual work for edwards, but regardless, I said she IS not a staffer, and that is fact. So once again brian, where is the contradiction? You really are an idiot.

I had such high hopes for you mantis, I see I was wrong.
I'll leave you alone now.

When I first read the account of the woman with the melted face and side of her head, I suspected that it was a hoax. There was a story -- maybe about a year ago? -- about a servicewoman who suffered exactly these injuries in Iraq. There was particular picture of her, lying in a hospital bed stateside, with her damaged face and missing a side of her head. The picture may have been shown in Wizbang. It was an inspirational story, because she was recovering beyond expectations. I don't remember all of the specifics, but it was clear that she was in no shape for a forward deployment and would not be for a long time to come, if ever. My suspicion is that "Scott Thomas" has used this real-life story in a different guise to slander US troops.

I had such high hopes for you mantis, I see I was wrong.
I'll leave you alone now.

Many happy returns.