If this is how the left supports the troops, I wonder what it is like when they don't.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/07/get_ready_for_some_patriotic_t.php

PVT. Beauchamp may want to acquaint himself with a littel better with the UCMJ:

878. ART. 78. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

unless of course it is all BULLS**T! and if it IS, then he should know that THIS splendid provision comes into play:

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

If it really DID happen...then he is complicit per the UCMJ in not reporting it. And if it did NOT happen then he has engaged in "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces"...and he will PAY for that!

Either way this dirtbag will pay...and damn good too!

Apparantly Pvt. Beauchamp is engaged to a TNR staffer. I wonder what the ethical implications are of that?

Where are our Stalinist buddies to defend this P.O.S.? They always love guys like this....

I sense difficult times ahead for Pvt. Beauchamp, in so many ways.

Lorie,

That's The New Republic NOT The National Review as your opening link reads. (Easy mistake to make.)

I know you all know this, but I learned this in the 60's on. The left never, ever liked the military. They are just a political tool now. Their "I support the troops" is just a slogan to them. This is just another set up piece perpetrated by the left to denigrate the troops and to get GW. Disgraceful. I hope their is at least one democrat in a leadership position that will stand up and shout "Enough". This is just another Stephen Glass. ww

This can't be true because just last week the right was telling us that Scott Thomas did not exist, and TNR was just the latest example of the liberal media making ship up?

Hey Barney,
Scott Thomas doesn't exist, it's actually Scott Beauchamp. Since his name was represented falsely how can anyone be certain of the validity of the rest of his story?

"Smoldering ruin"?

I wish; but his life will be just fine. Even if there were a democrat with the rollers to stand up and say "enough!", this guy gets off the hook with, at worst (if applicable) a dishonorable.

Even though Justrand's read of the UCMJ is dead on, to cast this character into the bowels of Levenworth - where he belongs - just ain't gon' happen. And, since he's demonstrated his journalistic "chops", as it were, some leftie rag will pick him up and tout him as a victim of Bush's fascist policy of pruning out civil liberities .. blah blah blah ....

The worst for this wasted zygote has already passed (though, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a blanket party in his not-too-distant future .. *ahem*cough* ...)

I wish it weren't the case, but it is.

Neither the Army, nor the administration, want to hand the fringe a**-monkeys a martyr.

Heh - "The National Review". I guess you don't read NR, huh? Next time, read the article before you hyperlink

You guys are more upset that the Prvt exposed the ugly side of our occupation then the acts themselves.

You guys are more upset that the Prvt exposed the ugly side of our occupation then the acts themselves.

12. Posted by BarneyG2000 | July 26, 2007 6:31 PM

If by exposing the ugly side of this man's brain, you're right. Considering no evidence can corroborate his seemingly made-up stories, I'll with hold saying you guys were right, since you're usually wrong as it is.

The lefties busted AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

Love it, love it, love it.

Happy Happy Joy Joy :)

Just compare the reaction of liberals on this issue. They are assuming the worst about the US military and willing to publicly slander/denounce the troops. Compare that to the total silence on the barbaric atrocities of the AlQ terrorists. And liberals still come here to spin for the slandering of US troops. Liberal "support for the troops" is really beyond parody. Liberals cannot be even honest about their disdain for American troops.

Barneygoogle says:

>This can't be true because just last week the right was telling us that Scott Thomas did not exist, and TNR was just the latest example of the liberal media making ship up?

heh- So rather than blame the left for making shit up and disparaging our military AGAIN, Barney is pissed at the right for not having a crystal ball to figure out the exact nature of the deception.

What a freaking tool.

Hey Barney when you say things like:

"You guys are more upset that the Prvt exposed the ugly side of our occupation then the acts themselves."

Don't be too surprised when people say liberals hate the troops. You're proven it.

"Considering no evidence can corroborate his seemingly made-up stories" steve of norway

steve, one of the stories regarding the unearthing of bones during the construction of a camp, and one of the solders wearing a child's skull. This was debunked by the righties, but here is what was confirmed by the Weekly Standard:

"There was a children's cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/more_from_fob_falcon.asp

Now blow-it out your ass steve.

Classy Barney...

nice comeback steve. Now when are you going to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, and you owe the Prvt an apology?

I am a U.S. Army officer and have been stationed at FOB Falcon, Baghdad, Iraq since October of 2006. I am currently still here. The stories that "Scott Thomas" describes are completely fictional. From some of the things he talks about I am led to believe that this individual may possibly be in my unit since we are the only ones with Bradley Fighting Vehicles and I recall the child cemetery that was uncovered in our sector while constructing a Combat Outpost.

First: I have never seen a woman on the FOB that was disfigured. FOB Falcon is full of combat Soldiers (men). There are very few female Soldiers on the FOB. After being here a year surrounded by men, I can tell you what every woman on this FOB looks like. IF there had been a woman with burns covering her face, and IF some undisciplined Soldier(s) had done something like described in this guys story, he would have been dealt with swiftly and harshly. The dining facility here is small and usually crowded. Any NCO or officer that had heard or seen someone committing this type behavior would have immediately approached that group and reacted to that situation. Those Soldiers would have had UCMJ actions taken against them. No one I know, NCO, officer, or even lower enlisted, would have tolerated this.

Second: There was a children's cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied. While I was not there personally, and can not confirm or deny and actions taken by Soldiers that day, I can tell you that no Soldier put a human skull under his helmet and wore it around. The Army Combat Helmet (ACH) is form fitted to the head. Unlike the old Kevlar helmets, the ACH does not have a gap between the helmet and the liner, only pads. It would have been impossible for him to have placed and human skull, of any size, between his helmet and his head. Further more, no leader would have tolerated this type of behavior. This type of behavior is strictly forbidden in the U.S. Army and would have made the individual involved subject to UCMJ actions.

Third: When the U.S. Army takes to the streets on patrols we do it deliberately, with task and purpose. "Thomas" describes the Bradley slowing down and 'jerking' suddenly to hit dogs. This just isn't possible. If he is slowing down, then the vehicles behind him are slowing down, and there is a gap created between him and the vehicles in front of him. This would violate standard operating procedure (SOP) and make the convoy more susceptible to attack. While no one that has been to Baghdad can deny that there are large packs of wild dogs roaming the streets, to think that that is all a Bradley crew is worried about is absurd. The streets are also filled with IED's and EFP's. They line every street and and every corner. They are the number one killer in Iraq. When we travel in convoys, dogs are not our concern. We watch the streets, we look at curbs, we look at rocks, we look at windows for snipers and trigger men, we don't look at wild dogs. Also, if this guy is driving a Bradley, how is he marking his "dog kill count" in a green book. Again, any leader would have corrected this action immediately, not only because it is subject to UCMJ action, but mainly because it endangers the lives of every man in that convoy.

In a final note I would like to say this. The U.S. Army today is the most disciplined and professional Army in the history of the United States. This is the only war in our nations history where we have not instituted the draft to fill our ranks. Every man in the service today is there because he volunteered. The stood up in the face of danger, knowing we were at war, and said "I'll go". Most of these men are on their second deployment in support of the War on Terrorism, some are on their fourth and fifth. After five years of war with an increasing number of casualties, longer and more frequent deployments, and no end in site, these brave young men continue to volunteer their services, many of them reenlisting. No other Army in our history has been able to do that without the draft. Our military men and women today are true professionals, they are truly America's best and bravest. While there are some bad apples and non-conformist in our ranks, we are quick to identify them and remove them from the service. The author of this story is a bad apple. He is trying to get attention by telling wild stories. He too will be identified and removed from the service.

"Lorie, That's The New Republic NOT The National Review as your opening link reads. (Easy mistake to make.)"

Actually it is a horrible mistake to make, and I still can't believe I typed that, but I did. I link to National Review a lot and I guess my fingers were operating on automatic. I still owe National Review a big apology, which I issued in an update to the post.

Typical, someone on the left lies and Barney swears to it. Pathetic.

Admittedly I have not been following news closely this week, but those on the right that I read questioned the validity of "Scott Thomas'" claims and whether or not he was a soldier. Barney says those on the right were saying that Scott Thomas did not exist. I did not see any of that, but I saw many, especially military bloggers, question whether or not he was really a soldier because some of the stories he told are inconsistent with facts (such as the way the Bradley operates) that it would seem those in the military would know.

steve, the money quote:

"While I was not there personally, and can not confirm or deny and actions taken by Soldiers that day, .."

So we have confirmation that remains of children were found in the area as the story reported. The rest of the report is his opinion.

Barney, I freely admit that I have just skimmed your asinine comments to this point, but I gotta ask one question:

Do we have any corroboration other than Thomas' story about those children's remains?

barneyGRUBBLE:

the money quote:

The only "money quote," so to speak, is yet again you fail to give any credit or offer ANY possibility this story contains ANY factual errors. It's WAY too easy to take the story as fact isn't it GRUBBLE?

Do you honestly believe a Bradley Fighting Vehicle has the maneuverability to duck and dodge it's way thru the streets as it chases stray dogs?

If so, you're frickin' CLUELESS.

But that goes without saying.

ccg, I provided the quote and the link (see #18)

marc, did the story say "duck and dodge" or "jerk". Did the critics say the Bradley was incapable of such maneuvers as described in the story or where the maneuvers unlikely because that would have broken protocol?

Thanks for pointing me back to your earlier comment, Barney.

Since you yourself admit that one of Thomas' claims was "debunked," that therefore would make any reasonable person doubt the rest of his story.

So are you doubting the rest of Thomas' story, or are you still accepting it as the Gospel truth?

Looks like the left is willing to smear the military at any chance to have. No decent American, much less a reputable source like TNR, would publish such an account without first checking the facts. Barney is still trying to spin for this smear. Truly despicable.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/the_best_and_worst_of_beaucham.asp

Still, while Beauchamp is entitled to his opinions, he isn't entitled to his own facts. This cliche is a favorite on the left, and they ought to hold one of their own to the same standard. There remains a shortage of corroborating witnesses or evidence, and his putting his name to the story does nothing to fill that void--if anything, his penchant for creative writing as revealed on his blog only casts further doubt. Beauchamp was, after all, writing vivid accounts of the hardship and suffering on the mean streets of Baghdad before he even arrived in the country...

BTW, if Beauchamp was a witness to such atrocities, he should have reported to his superiors immediately to put a stop to it. I just look at the depth the left is willing to stoop to smear our military and compare that to the effort they would exert to excuse our enemies. This is truly anti-American of the worst kind, esp in a time of war and against such a barbaric enemies. The liberal left is truly corrupt.

ccg, the "debunked" comment was sarcastically referenced to the conservative bloggers, and not my personal opinion.

I do not know if the stories are are true, partially true or not. What I do find amusing is the way the right has totally pulled out all stops to discredit the stories. Their first attempt was to say the Prvt never existed and the stories were a hoax. Now that they have been proven wrong they are trying to spin the story in a new direction.

Is it that hard to believe that soldiers would shoot dogs or make fun of someone's appearance, or using a Bradley to smash things? I seem to recall viewing footage of patrols deliberately smashing into cars and firing on civilian vehicles.

The right is so paranoid of any negative story out of Iraq they have to do all they can to discredit it.

So, what does that mean GRUBBLE? That you believe a dog wouldn't make a VERY hard target?

And BTW, "Thomas" describes the Bradley slowing down and 'jerking' suddenly to hit dogs. You might do well to read his original peace that is now free to see as opposed to being hidden behind the pay per view scam.

Is it that hard to believe that soldiers would shoot dogs or make fun of someone's appearance, or using a Bradley to smash things? I seem to recall viewing footage of patrols deliberately smashing into cars and firing on civilian vehicles.
-------------------------------------
A cheap spin to justify a smear while a number of "discrepancies" have been pointed out. This is just another example of the despicable behavior of the liberals to assume the worst about our troops. So to be blunt, liberals are lying when they say they support the troops.

Hollywood left is going to release a batch of anti-military movies. Yet they can bother to show the heroism of our troops in Iraq vs the barbarism of AlQ (cooking the kids to intimidate the parents). The silence of the liberals wrt the terrorists 's atrocities is so despicable in light of what they are willing to do to our troops.

From the same Weekly Standard link

From a contractor who is currently serving in Iraq and who has spent time at FOB Falcon:

Please withhold my name and position as I am a civilian contractor and do not need to gain any notoriety.

I was at FOB Falcon on and off from 05 through mid 06. While I did not live there, I was a daily guest of the chow hall which was better than the locally procured and prepared Iraqi chow we got provided for us. In addition we usually hung around in between mission times trading pieces of kit and whatnot with the soldiers stationed there.

Not once did I ever notice a female, either active duty or contractor, fitting the rather overblown description in the "Shock Troops" article. Furthermore, even if such a female existed, any Joe would have adjusted the attitudes of those fictional soldiers. Mocking the wounded is simply not done. Period. Full stop. Do not pass "GO". Do not collect 200 dollars. For a soldier to not only mock, but sexually harass a wounded woman would have brought down the wrath of every senior enlisted and officer in the mess hall. Some of us get pretty protective of women over here and the chance of a 4 wall counseling session occurring immediately afterwards is around the 99th percentile.

We contractors hate IEDs as much as the military does, and jokes about them are usually followed by a thorough thrashing somewhere out of sight. For a soldier to be publicly joking about them and the effects on a person is nonsensical. Nobody would have put up with the kind of verbiage attributed to the supposed soldiers at FOB Falcon. Even if the first sentence somehow escaped the brain-mouth checkpoint- he would have been told (and not too politely) to cease and desist.

Bottom line is that this section of the article is total, complete, wholehearted, bovine scatology.

Barney, I have known many sailors and Marines over the years (my father was Navy and Naval Reserves).

I have never in my life witnessed anyone act in the way Thomas describes, nor can I see any of the fine upstanding men and women I met on the Navy bases doing such things.

So yes, it is very hard to believe.

But I guess it's not if you, like a certain well-known lefty, "loathe the military."

Your easy acceptance (and defense!) of these stories indicates your lack of respect for the armed forces louder than any words, Barney.

BGRUBBLE:

What I do find amusing is the way the right has totally pulled out all stops to discredit the stories. Their first attempt was to say the Prvt never existed and the stories were a hoax. Now that they have been proven wrong they are trying to spin the story in a new direction.

Horseshit!

SOME accounts I read initially questioned his existence based on this wild accusations (not a great crime as you are attempting to portray it and a logical conclusion given the TNR's past indescritions) AND called into question the veracity of the accusations themselves.

In fact the original disclosure by Goldfarb spent most of his piece on the accusations.

I'll ask you the same question asked above.... why given his "first hand knowledge" has he never posted anything that indicates he reported the incidents alleged to his superiors?

Hmmmmm?

marc, you did not say "jerking" you said this:

"Do you honestly believe a Bradley Fighting Vehicle has the maneuverability to duck and dodge it's way thru the streets as it chases stray dogs?

If so, you're frickin' CLUELESS." by marc #27

So now you are trying to coverup your initial statement? Which is it marc duck and dodge down the streets chasing dogs or jerking the Bradley? Do you want to step up and correct your initial statement?

Or are you "clueless"?

"I have never in my life witnessed anyone act in the way Thomas describes, nor can I see any of the fine upstanding men and women I met on the Navy bases doing such things." ccg

Ever see a soldier rape a 14-year old girl and then set her on fire and shoot her family?

Ever see a soldier rape a 14-year old girl and then set her on fire and shoot her family?
-----------------------------------
Can you give me the link to this and is this the norm of the US military?

"I have never in my life witnessed anyone act in the way Thomas describes, nor can I see any of the fine upstanding men and women I met on the Navy bases doing such things." ccg

Ever see a soldier rape a 14-year old girl and then set her on fire and shoot her family?
-----------------------------------
See how a liberal propagandist like BArney tried to change the subject and put in a smear of the military of the same time. My hat to the utmost effort liberals exert to smear the military every chance they can. Subtle swipe at the military. So predictable and so despicable.

GRUBBLE:

So now you are trying to coverup your initial statement? Which is it marc duck and dodge down the streets chasing dogs or jerking the Bradley? Do you want to step up and correct your initial statement?

You go ahead and nit pick over MY description (duck and dodge) as opposed to what you called it, "jerking" and has been used by a military member also.

It only makes you look to be the straw grasping fool.

Why didn't he report these events GRUBBLE?

Here you go lovie this is one of hundreds of stories on this case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5253160.stm

No marc! You said a Bradley was incapable of such a maneuver "Do you honestly believe a Bradley Fighting Vehicle has the maneuverability..", but you don't have the integrity to admit that you never read the story or you were making shit up.

Kind of ironic that you can't be truthful on story about possible false reports.

LAI:

Heres the link to GRUBBLES story.

Question barneyGRUBBLE.... SO, what does that incident mean?

That the US military ISN'T anything more than a microcosm of the US as a whole? That you can't take ANY 1.5 million segment of the US population and NOT find rapists and or murderer?

That a few VERY isolated incidents out of well over a million and one half soldiers, Marines and sailors that are in or have been in Iraq paints them all as rapists and murderers?

Their first attempt was to say the Prvt never existed and the stories were a hoax. Now that they have been proven wrong they are trying to spin the story in a new direction.

Not! Grim and LW at B5 have been on this from the beginning. See Lori's links. JD Johannes ID' his unit days before. Follow Lori's links again. Muddville and J D posited the very premise that he was real.

The trail to uncovering this guy is literally littered with bread crumbs that smart guys who served picked up on immediately. The difference is that they questioned and asked aggressively. And The New Republic (Marty Peretz, where are you?) folded.

Want to know the real story here? Wait a few weeks and ask yourself this question: Who will suffer most from this? In real, personal terms? Probably the Private and his NCOs'. And his unit. TNR will waltz off to the lounge and wash their hands, already having forgotten the Private's name and debating the next assault on our military and morale. And before the Libnuts start crying "But it was true! It was True!" everyone should remember that our troops stand at the wall to protect us. If they are out of line there are established rules and procedures to discipline them.....the UCMJ. Posting unsubstantiated accusations pseudonymously is not the way these rules and procedures work.

But that is the preferred method of the MSM.

You said a Bradley was incapable of such a maneuver "Do you honestly believe a Bradley Fighting Vehicle has the maneuverability..", but you don't have the integrity to admit that you never read the story or you were making shit up.

Astonishing!

You are, O.U.T OF Y.O.U.R M.I.N.D!

to my dear friends at Wizbang...

when you step in dogshit you do 2 things:
(1) say "Ewwww!"
(2) wipe it off and keep moving

BarneyG2000 on this thread (at least) is a stinking mess on the bottom of your shoe. say "Ewwww!"...wipe it off...and IGNORE IT!

Barney is defending a similar piece of canine excrement who either:
(a) witnessed but failed to report HORRIFIC and ILLEGAL events
-or-
(b) made a bunch of crap up that was clearly detrimental to the U.S. military

THEREFORE he is a CRIMINAL, guilty of either
878. ART. 78. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
-or-
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

(or both, btw)

So the sooner he is making BIG rocks into LITTLE rocks in Leavenworth the better. Barney can visit him on alternate Tuesdays!

No, Barney, I haven't. And neither have you.

Because if you did, you'd be dead too. A person like that isn't going to leave any witnesses around.

And if by some weird chance the perp didn't know you were there, you have just admitted a felony. Not reporting a crime makes you an accessory after the fact.

I am going to give you some perfectly honest advice, Barney. And it truly is for your own good (though you won't believe that):

Stop digging the hole you're in.

Your disdain, even hatred, for the military is painfully obvious. I know not what they did to draw your ire, and I honestly do not care.

That disdain makes you an extremely biased commentator on the military, and thus the only people who are going to believe you are those that already agree with you.

In short, you will not win any converts here, and all you're doing is making a bloody nuisance of yourself.

An honorable person would stop digging that hole. Are you one?

Well said HughS - Frankly I'm a bit shocked more of barneyGRUBBLEs types haven't hovered around this thread. That in of itself may indicate something GRUBBLE would never admit to.

Even more surprising since the head loon at Dkos has started (in a small way) to edit out some of his resident nutjobs. With no "home" I'd be willing to bet Wizbang and a few more "right leaning" blogs will have an influx of trolls.

CCG,
We know that the US military is not perfect. It has despicable guys like Kerry (the last Dem presidential candidate) and the guys who raped the girl. Our military punished them accordingly (Kerry not only got off but also promoted by the left). This is another example of Barney willing to take every opportunity to slander the military. This is the perfection fallacy: using the exceptions to smear. On the other hand, liberals are willing to excuse our enemies wholesale. This is predictable and despicable. Barney provided just another example fo the despicable left.

LAI:

Barney was asking if I have, personally, seen what he described. I have not.

And neither has he. And he knows it.

Here you go lovie this is one of hundreds of stories on this case.
-----------------------------------
Just another example of how despicable the liberal left is. According to Barney, they did hundreds of stories on this incident. Yet they went totally silent on AlQ atrocities. Yup, the liberal left is nothing but anti-American propaganda organ for our enemies.

CCG,
I understand that. Barney just took every opportunity to slander the US military. That 's how liberals like him support the military.

That's why I said his disdain and hatred for the military is painfully obvious.

I suspect he "loathes the military" because he knows that, by and large, they are far more honorable than he is. And rather than raise himself to their level, he chooses to try and cut them down to his level.

The coward's way out. But he can prove he is honorable by not digging his hole any deeper.

Anyone wanna wager on whether or not he will?

cog, you wrote that you have not witness or or heard of persons in the navy acting the ways depicted in the Shock Troop stories so the stories had to be true. I just pointed out how naive you are.

marc still can't admit that he did not do his homework so he made false statements. Can't you admit that a Bradley is capable of movements as reported in the story?

"CCG,
I understand that. Barney just took every opportunity to slander the US military. That 's how liberals like him support the military." lovie

Care to back that statement up, or are you just full of sh*t? Show proof of any statement I made that slandered the military, or apologize and shut the hell up.

Barney, you're making less sense than usual (and that boggles the mind!)

Because I haven't seen troops acting the way your friend Thomas reports them means they had to be true?

I've never seen a 30-foot tall green polar bear, either, does that mean there has to be one?

Oh, and I note that you're gonna keep digging that hole. Let me know when you reach Hell.

"I suspect he "loathes the military" because he knows that, by and large, they are far more honorable than he is. And rather than raise himself to their level, he chooses to try and cut them down to his level."

This is exactly what the Criminal Democrats are doing to the Republican Party with all the bogus investigations. Democrats would like to believe that they won the last election by merit. Fact is they know they are shit.

barneyGRUBBLE:

marc still can't admit that he did not do his homework so he made false statements. Can't you admit that a Bradley is capable of movements as reported in the story??

To use your phrase, "care to back that statement up," Gimme the quote AND link to a story that makes the claim a Bradley can do as you claim. (preferably from someone who holds the MOS as a Bradley operator)

While you're Flailing away with that maybe you can also "prove" how accurate the "burned face girl" portion of the story is.

You still haven't given a plausible reason why this "patriotic truth teller" hasn't reported the alleged atrocities to his chain of command either.

Care to speculate?

I've never seen a 30-foot tall green polar bear, either, does that mean there has to be one?

I believe Gore uses one as his alter in his "church."

Care to back that statement up, or are you just full of sh*t? Show proof of any statement I made that slandered the military, or apologize and shut the hell up.
-------------------------------------
You cannot be honest, can you? You implied that the shock troop story is TRUE because of the incident you link to. CCG 's basic point is that it is not the NORM of the military. You used an isolated incident to justify your spin of the shock troop story. If Scott witnessed such a storty, he should have reported to his superior. Instead of dismissing this blatant smear, you tried to justify it with a different incident.

That 's despicable in my book and you are not even honest enough to admit it.

The punk is already in hell. You support any asshole who attacks our CIC, Military or Country. You are a member of the Criminal Party of Assholes. Give us a link that proves you are not a rotten POS. Carry on shit leaking punk.

Barney,

What you fail to understand -or admit- is that the right has known from the beginning that the stories where bullshit. And we where right.

No, I admit, we didn't have a crystal ball to say exactly HOW they where bullshit but we knew it.

You and your ilk -hating American troops like you do- wanted desperately for it to be true. Now that you see it slipping away you're going off the deep end.

(supposedly) You're all excited this scumbag exists. For the life of me I don't know why you consider that good news. If he was a complete fabrication and TNR never had to admit it, the story would eventually die.

Now that the story has a "villain" it will blow up 20X the size. A story that would have stayed in the blogosphere is now going mainstream. That will make you and your pals look like the troop hating scum you are to a larger group of people.

Yippe!

So, you just go ahead and rejoice that the first guess from the right was wrong...
Heck, go get it printed on a t-shirt Barney.

Because that means nothing in the end.

What matters is that the truth is now coming out and your side is looking very, very bad.

And that Barney, no amount of your bullshit spin can change.

Cheers.

Careful on this one Lorie, lest you end up w/ egg on your face once again. You rightie wingnuts are all over this, leaping before they look.

You have a reptitive tendency to volley shit you find in your extremist blogworld that, in the past, has left you smelling like the crap you tried to parlay.

marc:
"To use your phrase, "care to back that statement up," Gimme the quote AND link to a story that makes the claim a Bradley can do as you claim. (preferably from someone who holds the MOS as a Bradley operator)"

Here is how it was reported in the Shock Troop story:
"He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks."

Here is what you wrote:
"Do you honestly believe a Bradley Fighting Vehicle has the maneuverability to duck and dodge it's way thru the streets as it chases stray dogs?

marc are you saying that a Bradley can't slow down and jerk to the side?

Lovie:
"You cannot be honest, can you? You implied that the shock troop story is TRUE because of the incident you link to."

This is what I wrote(#33):
"I do not know if the stories are are true, partially true or not. "

So again, please show us where I slandered the troops as you claimed.

ccg:
"Because I haven't seen troops acting the way your friend Thomas reports them means they had to be true?"

That is not what I said. You posted this as some kind of evidence that based on your experience the idea that our troops could act as they did in the story is hard to believe:
"Barney, I have known many sailors and Marines over the years (my father was Navy and Naval Reserves).

I have never in my life witnessed anyone act in the way Thomas describes, nor can I see any of the fine upstanding men and women I met on the Navy bases doing such things.

So yes, it is very hard to believe."

I pointed out just one incident where soldiers acted in an inhumane way. Don't forget that the military has the brig, dishonorable disagrees and military prisons (not to mention Abu griab) so yes, it is believable to think that soldiers could have acted as reported in the story.

Careful on this one Lorie, lest you end up w/ egg on your face once again. You rightie wingnuts are all over this, leaping before they look.
-------------------------------------
Oops, Lorie should have been silent so that the liberal left can smear the military at will as they always did?

Barney,
You cannot be honest. Kerry was found to be a liar. And he was a liberal and a Dem presidential candidate. Barney is a liberal. So I believed that Barney could have lied as Kerry did. So in this case, Barney is a liar who simply tried to smear the military.
This is exactly your argument.

Yes, you pointed out ONE incident.

That does not mean that the entire military is like that.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D) was once a Grand Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops (local chapter leader) of the KKK.

Does that mean the entire Democratic party is made up of Klansmen and/or white supremacists?

Of course not.

And you've been called on your attempted smear several times.

I guess your spinning helps you dig that hole, doesn't it?

CCG,
Using your example. Someone have mentioned that Barney is a racist. Since Barney is a dem, it is believable that Barney is in fact a racist.

"Oops, Lorie should have been silent so that the liberal left can smear the military at will as they always did?"

True, LAI. And the phony-baloney contradictive moniker makes perfect nonsense with the comment.

FreedomFries

Careful on this one Lorie, lest you end up w/ egg on your face once again. You rightie wingnuts are all over this, leaping before they look.

It appears, though not yet proven, that TNR leaped first. Read the whole thread here, including links and comments.

You have a reptitive tendency to volley shit you find in your extremist blogworld that, in the past, has left you smelling like the crap you tried to parlay.

You might well send that admonishment to Pvt
Beauchamp and the Editor of TNR. Afterward, you might want to contact Pvt Beauchamp's NCOs'. And the soldiers in his unit.

Setting aside whatever you think of Lori, do you have any compassion for the troops he has put in jeopardy? Do you even understand the magnitude of his actions as they will effect troop morale?

Do you even understand the magnitude of his actions as they will effect troop morale?

Of course he does.

That's why he supports TNR and "Thomas."

He wants their morale to be low.

barneyGRUBBLE:

Here is how it was reported in the Shock Troop story:
"He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks."

And then: marc are you saying that a Bradley can't slow down and jerk to the side?

No I'm sayin' I won't trust a DAMN word written by someone who by all indications at this point can't be trusted.

And will also note you failed to do what was originally asked when looking for a quote:(preferably from someone who holds the MOS as a Bradley operator)

Which means nimrod you quoting the very same individual as a defense of your position is asinine. At least.

It also means you are second to only Lee "Edward Smith" Ward when it comes to displays of asshattery.

Look on the bright side, Marc.

At least the lefties have found one soldier they really can support.

At least the lefties have found one soldier they really can support.

As they would the Moonbat of the Day.

Sorry barney, its not you. But some us are holding out hope.

I have written exactly two posts on this story and each have consisted primarily of links to things others have said on the subject. On every level this story is horrible. If the stories he told are true, Beauchamp allowed others to engage in sick behavior and did nothing to either stop them or report them. If they are not true, this was either a vicious attack on our brave men and women in uniform or the product of a sick mind -- or both.

That anyone would want to attack me for linking to others commenting on the story is bizarre. It is a story that needs to be told. The New Republic thought the stories were important enough to tell. If they were important enough to tell, then it is important to determine whether they are true -- in which case those responsible for the behavior should be punished, or not true, in which case the record should be set straight.

1) Wingnuts accuse soldier/journalist of being an impostor.

2) Wingnuts proven wrong.

3) Wingnuts backfill, engage motorized goalposts, attacks with redoubled fury.

3.5) Developing: Wingnuts completely lose narrative; form digital lynch mob; redefine success to mean utterly destroying the targeted person by any means available, short of leaving the safety of their heavily-farted computer chairs.

4) Upcoming: Wingnuts brag about triumphant victory over forces of anti-American calling-them-wrongness which are blatantly in league with the terrorists, enjoys brief period of tumescence, finds new victim.

Great job armchair soldiers, can't wait for a concrete plan for victory in Iraq.

Great job armchair soldiers, can't wait for a concrete plan for victory in Iraq.
-------------------------------------
WE have a military strategy to win in Iraq now.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

The political battle in America is definitely much harder since the liberal Dems are determined to cause an American defeat in Iraq.

BTW, when will the arm-chair peaceniks will travel to Iraq to be human shields against the terrorists? Yup, the terrorists will sue for peace with leftist liberals.

Gloat -- Which "wingnuts" are you referring to? Those stationed at FOB who questioned the truth of the stories based on their personal experience there? Those who pointed out that the diarist did nothing to stop or report obscene behavior? Those who speculated that "Scott Thomas" might be using his stories to further a political agenda? Have you read Scott Thomas' blog? Do you really want to defend this guy? Do you really think his stories should not be investigated? If they are true then that soldier who supposedly wore a child's skull with matted hair and rotting flesh under his helmet all day certainly should be kicked out of the military, don't you think? Or do you think that is just standard operating procedure for all U.S. soldiers?

I sees by the new trolls commenting here that the predicted influx of pond scum from DKos arrived on schedule. Barney, if you think you can run down a dog Bradley, you have never driven a tracked vehicle. Also, you have little knowledge of physics. A 25 ton vehicle cannot turn or stop on a dime. Acceleration is somewhat slower than a fuel funny car. But then you probably do not know what that is either.

Lorie - you suggested that "Scott Thomas" was fake.

You were proven wrong.

You should apologize to your readers and address why. I won't hold my breath.

Dean Barnett: And will they see the 160,000 honorable and noble troops that together they conspired to malign?

Dean Barnett sounds like an immature 12 year old girl with a preteen crush.

All 160,000 troops in Iraq are NOT honorable and noble. Actually, the last I heard there were not even quite that many there, but not to quibble. Are most of them reasonably honorable and noble? I would bet on it. But that is something quite different than all 160,000. Has this guy Dean ever even been in the Army. Doesn't sound like it.

He sounds so silly.

Now that I think about it isn't Dean Barnett the one who "conspired to malign" a whole generation, the "baby boomers"?

He sounds like the flip side of the same coin as The New Republic.

This all is definatly not my fathers America.

jpe:

Lorie - you suggested that "Scott Thomas" was fake.

"Scott Thomas" is fake it's his pseudonym nimrod.

And BTW, could you provide a quote from Lori that states what you allege?

Murphy:

Actually, the last I heard there were not even quite that many there, but not to quibble.

Which places you so FAR behind the 24 hour news cycle as to be considered in another universe.

OK marc, I just looked it up and found three sources that say there are 160,000 American troops in Iraq. The last number that I had seen was 157,000 some.

Obviously 160,000 is very likely an approximate number, so it could be a little more or a little less.

If it is a little less then I was right.

If it is a little more then I was wrong. But if I was off by a VERY small percentage how would that make me in "another universe"?

Were you not able to address my main points, so you went for what I had said I would not quibble about?

You just sound silly when you do that.

to the dems I Support The Troops is nothing but a bumper sticker.

Murphy:

You just sound silly when you do that.

Well thank you, glad you noticed.

Speaking of sounding silly, remind who it was that described some as "like an immature 12 year old girl with a preteen crush."

Ding... ding - DING! You win today's bobbie prize for sound sillier than I.

My husband and I on occasion have related old family stories to friends that were funny in nature. We might add a small element that isn't completely true. So sometimes we may not tell the whole truth in complete detail for the purpose of making it even funnier than it was already. It's called "embellishing".

Many false stories, especially outlandish ones, will have one small element of truth to it. It's the exact reverse of what I described above and has no benign purpose or motive. The stories are constructed for the purpose of maligning and have an underpinning of extreme bias by the storyteller.

I suspect this is what may be at play for this Beauchamp fellow. Perhaps he did see a disfigured woman in a mess hall at some point, but maybe the disfigurement wasn't as pronounced as he described. And maybe he saw someone wince at her appearance, but nothing was openly said.

Maybe he once witnessed a dog being run over by a Bradley. But maybe it was just an accident.

Maybe he was aware of a cemetery being unearthed at a military construction site and maybe someone held a skull up to compare to his own and determine that it was a child's skull.

And maybe, just maybe, his own disdain for the military is what made him take a small element of truth to each of these episodes and tell stories beyond the point of simple embellishment. At what level of embellishment does one determine that the stories can be dismissed as lies?

These are just "maybes", but they are far more plausible than the litany of atrocious behaviors he claims occurred and were reported by no one. I just find it very hard to believe that with all the people who he says were around during each of these incidents, no one reported any of it. That they were all as dishonorable as he.

Apparently, to Barney, the fact that a cemetery was uncovered at all gives the story all the credibility it needs to be entertained as truth. That no one who has actually driven a Bradley has shown up here to tell him that it's incapable of such maneuvers as described by Beauchamp, is all the proof he needs to imply the story may be true. He's so busy trying to defend what Beauchamp says that he's unwilling to offer an opinion of the fact that Beauchamp never reported any of this to his superiors, which to me, implies that he himself has not displayed any sense of honor.

Then he goes on to bring up a horrific rape and murder that no one here has denied occurred as his back up. That people sometimes do things is all the proof he needs to defend Beauchamp as possibly telling the truth without admitting that maybe he isn't.

The simple fact that IEDs are regularly planted on roadsides leads me to believe that a soldier would not purposefully drive one off to a roadside endangering himself and his mates. I find it highly unlikely that in a busy mess hall, not one person showed honor in respects to a disfigured woman and that others also joined in the ridicule. There are elements to each of his stories that defy probability. Barney won't address any of those things in detail, because he's implied here they're more likely to be true than false because things have happened in the past.

Did any or all of these things happen just as Beauchamp described them? It's highly unlikely. And until I see evidence that these incidents were corroborated and reported by others, I remain skeptical.

Murphy, if you commented and said something, another calls you on it and you say he picked it out? If you don't want specific lines to be commented on, don't write them. If you say there ARE NOT 160,000 troops in Iraq, make sure you are correct before you comment. There is nothing wrong with saying you didn't know what you were talking about on the issue.

This Scott guy is trying to make a career out of bashing our troops and he is a liberal to boot. The liberals can't even support the troops when they are a troop. LOL. ww

""Scott Thomas" is fake it's his pseudonym nimrod."

Damnit. All those years I was reading Twain! It turns out he didn't exist. Great logic kid.

Murphy
Has this guy Dean ever even been in the Army. Doesn't sound like it.

You came over here to ask that chickenhawk question? Read his blog moron.

BTW, the amswer is no: he suffers from CF.

Ah, lay off Beauchamp; he's a sweet polar bear.
============================

jp2;

Damnit. All those years I was reading Twain! It turns out he didn't exist. Great logic kid.

All this time to respond and that's all you can come up with?

Care to comment on the gist of this post? Like do you believe there was a horribly burned woman parading around a mess hall without anyone reporting the demeaning manner she was allegedly subjected to?

If you didn't prance around here like a pompous ass that offers nothing but cheap snark you may get something more than the same in return.

And BTW, where's the quote from Lori?

Come on "WW" Murphy wants me to comment on his post. I'm late, but considering the content here it is:

"-------------------------------------"

There, that about covers the substance of it.

Typically, Lorie, rather than compose her own original material, loves to jump on a story being parlayed in the extremist whacko rightie blogosphere, leaping before looking (or thinking) and all you war-hugging armchair farting generals just can't cope w/ the truth about your "glorious" war and what it does to those who are lost in its milieu & corrupted by its inhumanity.

You jerks always love war, especially when someone else is doing the bleeding & dying. Then, as dutiful goosestepping Palov puppies, you pound your chests like would-be gorillas and snort and howl when the myth about your beloved and vaunted enterprise is exposed.

You strain mightily, like super-constipated old fart, trying to impugn anything w/ your twisted and silly assumptions about Bradleys, gravesites, demeaned burn victims etc, telling yourselves that, no,something like this has to be liberal lies. Our beautiful and patriotic venture cannot have any of the ugly realities reflecting the dehumanization of our troops by the total horror of our war.

If any of you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you might try reading something like this or this and mull over the lack of merit that yours and Lorie's swill actually has.

Lorie, rather than compose her own original material,

Uh... in case you missed it... composing original material is what got Thomas/Beauchamp in hot water.

And then, after that stinging rebuke to Lorie for not composing her own original material, FF decides not to compose his own original material and instead links to others' material.

Hypocrisy, thy name is FreedomFries.

Barney, I'll answer your question about the performance charcterisics of a Bradley. I've spent a fair amount of time around BFVs and other tracked vehicles. What specifically are you trying to ascertain?
As others on the milblogs have written it would be impossible to run over a dog in the way desrcibed with a Bradley.

FF is simly a fry. He would come here and spit out the cheap liberal talking points. FF cannot even think for himself. He is just here to spout the garbage of adhominen attacks. It doesn't take much brain to know these

(1) Scott should have alerted his superior about these "shocking" events if he knew any better

(2) TNR should have fact-checked before the publication, not now. They should be apologizing now.

You wouldn't know, would you? You can only repeat what you are told.

Freedom Fries, you get a special award this AM. You've combined farts, Godwins, and chickenhawks in a mellifluous surge of spleen. Wow, we know how you feel.

But, can you think?
============

Beauchamp's best bet now is to claim he was writing fiction.
=================================

Freedom Fries: That some pretty colorful writing there. I hear the New Republic is looking for good writers who aren't afraid to ignore that the horrors of the Iraq War (and there are certainly horrors) are almost exclusively committed by terrorists and are not unique to the time frame of the war itself, but were committed on a regular basis for decades by those who were removed from power as a result of the war. Writers who, in recounting their stories, will portray themselves as the only one of a group who is still in touch with their humanity and the rest are visualized as unfeeling, unthinking or emotionally disconnected.

Even if Mr. Beauchamp is telling the unvarnished truth, it is disingenuous to imply that the behaviors he describes are on a par with or can even be compared to the atrocities committed by terrorists. Bringing that fact up to people like you makes you uncomfortable so you go further with it by accusing anyone who brings it up of excusing that behavior. It is unfair of you to make sweeping generalizations of people, calling them "war lovers", who rally those who have the courage to do something about the abuse others suffer in the only manner the abusers and killers understand - by killing them.

There is almost certainly a level of desensitization which occurs when one is faced regularly with ugliness and death. That can't be denied. Ask the Iraqi people who lived such an existence long before we arrived. Do you not care for them? Are you just content to go on your verbal rampages as long as your hands are clean?

War is a nasty proposition, but there are worse things in this world and one of them is to turn a blind eye or be inactive and allow the abuse go on in the name of "peace". Then you come in here with your sanctimonious clap-trap and have the nerve to call us your stupid little names.

Woof, Oyster. Someone bookmark that to respond to all chickenhawk and Godwin arguments.
==========================

Or any anti-war argument. What are you gonna do when they are at your door?
=======

Oclarki, here is what was written:

"Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America--providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks."

And:
"He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks."

marc said:
"Do you honestly believe a Bradley Fighting Vehicle has the maneuverability to duck and dodge it's way thru the streets as it chases stray dogs?

First, marc embellished the nature of the actions, and wont admit to it, and second all I asked was if the Bradley could maneuver as described. Marc refuses to provide information to back up his statement.

I am not asking if it happened, but could the Bradley slow down and swerve or jerk to hit a dog?

One last comment on this topic.

I have stated that I do not know if the reports are true are not true. I have found more evidence that the actions could have taken place than not. I want to know the truth; while the right just wants to discredit and smear.

I do not look at these actions as war crimes, unlike torture, murder and rape that has occurred, but as what happens when you put 18 to 25 year old soldiers a in position they were not trained for and when stationed in a ship hole for up to 14-months at a time.

I never once suggested that these actions are reflective of the military on the whole, but only pointed out that bad behavior does occur.

I have stated that I do not know if the reports are true are not true. I have found more evidence that the actions could have taken place than not. I want to know the truth; while the right just wants to discredit and smear.

I do not look at these actions as war crimes, unlike torture, murder and rape that has occurred, but as what happens when you put 18 to 25 year old soldiers a in position they were not trained for and when stationed in a ship hole for up to 14-months at a time.
-------------------------------------
Same old tired cheap arg. Cannot be honest. The left seems to be only interested in these stories. They don't seem to be interested in the NORM of heroic actions by the troops in Iraq. For all the stories in Iraq, TNR didn't publish any but this unchecked anonymous story. That should raise a red flag with any honest and decent person. But not with liberals like Barney. And he is still trying to justify it. The actions of the left seems to indicate that they want to assume the worst about the US military. The left is only interested in smearing the military. Barney simply cannot be honest again.

I have found more evidence that the actions could have taken place than not.
------------------------------------
We have seen far more evidences that the liberal left is willing to lie and smear just to cast the US troops in Iraq in a bad light.

Using Barney 's argument, we can say that the liberal left is nothing but an anti-American, anti-military propaganda organ for our enemies.

unlike torture, murder and rape that has occurred,
-------------------------------------
The liberal left is only interested in these isolated incidents to smear the military. Barney mentioned that they published the same stories hundreds of times. But they are completely silent on the real and widespread torture, murder, rape of our enemies. So despicable and so dishonest.

A blogger making the same point here. Wonder why the left is not interested in these stories.

http://zealandactivityblog.wordpress.com/

Corroboration will not be a problem. The grave's excavation was witnessed by at least five American Soldiers from C Company, 1-12 Cavalry, who are identified by name, together with Iraqi soldiers from the 3-25 (5th Division). It was captured on video and in numerous still photographs, and its GPS coordinates are available.

Of course, I'm referring to Michael Yon's dispatch "Bless the Beasts and Children." On June 29, in a village about 3.5 miles from Baqubah, the capital of Diyala Province, U.S. and Iraqi troops discovered a mass grave containing the bodies of "10-14″ villagers and children, as well as their animals.

Additional detail including a final body count is here and comments from a Diyala provincial council member are here. A video interview with American witnesses is here.

Barney,

I'll point out what me and others with tracked vehicle experience have said.

1. the nature of the drivers position in the Bradley makes it nearly impossible to purposely maneuver to hit something like a dog. The visibility is just too restricted.

That's not to say that dogs haven't been hit. Look beside any stretch of highyway in America and plenty of dogs get hit because they aren;t paying attention or are doing something to get in the vehicles way. That doesn't mean people are purposely running down dogs.

2. Tracked vehicles can turn in place but I just can't see a dog getting caught flat footed by a 35 ton vehicle given the noise and the fact that a Brad is not a sports car

Thanks Oclarki, but you did not answer the fundamental question of: can a BFV slow down, serve or jerk? That is all I am asking because marc says no.

As far as deliberating hitting a dog, that is another questions. As you point out in many cases persons have hit dogs with cars without trying. You can also assume that persons have tried to miss dogs, and still have hit them, so it is possible to project a dogs direction and swerve to try and hit a dog. Most times you will miss but sometimes you might hit the dog.

You also have to consider the health of the dogs we are talking about. These are not well feed and cared for pets these are strays that very different levels of health and sanity.

Sorry to renege on my statement to not post on this topic again, but I wanted a clarification from Oclarki.

freedomfries:

If any of you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you might try reading something like this or this and mull over the lack of merit that yours and Lorie's swill actually has.

Yep, ok, what ever.

Your first link contains this passage:

Yes, some soldiers misbehave in wartime. It's a shame, but it happens, and given the pressure they're under, I find it hard to condemn them. The TNR articles weren't, after all, describing war crimes.

Then there is this passage:

This hasn't improved the situation; in fact, the right is now pursuing Beauchamp with renewed vigor. Malkin has gone so far as to post personal information about Beauchamp.

One question FF, do you and the writer of this trash actually believe reprinting a person's myspace page info or excerpts from his blog to be "personnel?"

The only thing that MAY be "personnel" is the info reprinted that details his paygrade info. You have been misguided in the sense that that info was taken from a "secure" military site. And note, you or this writer so easily skips over the fact that "Scott" has been lying about his paygrade, he's NOT a Private First Class.

Your second link provides exactly zero, zip, nadda except this tiny bit: "They (right blogosphere) need to apologize to the people at TNR who've wasted huge amounts of time dealing with their nonsense."

Excuse ME!! That's their fricken job! They ARE (allegedly) professional journalists whether it's the blogosphere or a letter writer from Podunk NJ it's THEIR JOB to "waste huge amounts" of time verifying their story.

So in the end FF 99.99% of your comment contains exactly what you are whining about the "right" doing, name calling and wild accusations.

The other 00.01% containing the links are absolute bunk.

Pvt. Beauchamp: In Big Trouble Either Way

Here is the money quiote for you Barney...

But is Pvt. Beauchamp telling the truth about what he sees in Iraq?

In a blog entry for May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp describes an atrocity: "'Put a 556 in his head.' (The caliber of an M-16 rifle is 5.56 millimeters.) On the street below, the man's brown face dissolves in a thick red mist. The lights in the city's houses shut off in unison. Electricity rationing. Water rationing too. You ever tried to survive for more than a few hours in 120 degree weather?"

On May 8, 2006, Pvt. Beauchamp was in Germany, where temperatures rarely reach 120 degrees, and the electricity and water work just fine.

Sounds like most of this guy's stuff is pure BS. How could he have shot someone in Iraq, when he was in Germany?

Barney is really a spinner. The point Scott was trying to say is that soldier just want to kill dogs on purpose with his Bradley. Amazing how these liberals can spin the story with a straight face.

Finally, the author tells of a friend who drives a Bradley armored vehicle and has a penchant for careening around the streets of Baghdad in the hope of causing as much destruction--and killing as many stray dogs--as possible.

I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America--providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch. One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.

One simple fact renders this tale highly implausible. Such erratic driving is likely to greatly increase a vehicle's exposure to roadside bombs, which insurgents frequently hide in the corpses of animals, or beside trash-strewn curbs.

barneyGRUBBLE:

First, marc embellished the nature of the actions, and wont admit to it, and second all I asked was if the Bradley could maneuver as described. Marc refuses to provide information to back up his statement.

Your an asshat, I didn't "embellsih" anything rather than use the term "jerk" or "jerky" I used duck and dodge.

There is not substantive difference in the three terms yet you have wasted a vast amount of time crying, whining and stompping your feet about it.

All the while NOT spending appreciable time discussing the merits of the post.

You REALLY need to find a more productive hobby.

One preferably far away from the blogosphere (unless you should decide to join the Blue Crew, but you haven't the guts or talent to do that).

I have found more evidence that the actions could have taken place than not.

Barney's evidence: Beauchamp says it happened.

If someone questions Beauchamp's story, Barney refers them back to the original story... you know, the one in question.

Lefty circular reasoning at its finest. Beauchamp's story is corroborated by... Beauchamp!

Lefty circular reasoning at its finest. Beauchamp's story is corroborated by... Beauchamp!

And barney - could this be the answer to the age old question: "Why do dog sniff each others ass?"

"...you pound your chests like would-be gorillas and snort and howl..."

Wow, are you high or did you drop the scrabble game box again? Pieces everywhere! Damn!

Just what is eating away at you that you would lump everyone into the same jello mix and turn on the blender? A better question might be, where did you ever get the idea that the right wing here "always love war". That's almost as ridiculous as saying that Israel wants war. You really need to get a grip!

I say again, his best defense is to claim it was fiction. Look at the last paragraph with the description of the cloven dog. A reporter would write what he saw, which would not include dogs smiling at suns after the observer is passed. A writer might imagine a scene, but again, would not write what couldn't have been seen. He's a fabulist, and one set up by his publisher. I find, oddly, a great deal of sympathy for the likes of the 'sweet polar bear' Beauchamp, who was fed garbage throughout his education and now is sacrificed, ritually, by one of the feeders of garbage, Foer.

Foer knew or should have known that his reporting would get Beauchamp in trouble. The boy is a lamb led to slaughter by the likes of Foer, and many, many, like him.
==============================

"Here you go lovie this is one of hundreds of stories on this case."

The difference here is that these men were brought to trial. I want to see those "hundreds" of other links to said "stories". (Real news or propaganda?)

I think difficult times will come for Scott Thomas Beauchamp, sounds not to good...