That article is the Global Warming of the Winter Soldier.

This would make a great story for 20/20, or Dateline ... or better yet: 60 Minutes.

There's everything in here: deception, war, politics, ..., if there were a little sex involved (other than Beauchamp stroking of the TNR editors' desire for dirt) we'd have ourselves something worthy of a Pulitzer.

Dunno if the media was hoodwinked, or just flat out didn't want to look deeper - both?

Too bad shame won't stick on the soul-less.

The MSM will never admit to being hoodwinked, when stories that confirm their own opinions about our troops, and the MSM's 'enemies'.

They still believe in the TANG memo story, and will always keep referring to it in some form or another. So 'Shock Troops' and Scott Beauchamp will become another 'fake but accurate' reference when teaching Journalism 101.

Most of these "winter soldier" tales remind me of the classic musicians anecdote about a bass player who accidentally sat on a Pomeranian and then stuffed the dog's carcass inside a grand piano. Every new generation of bass players has heard this misdeed attributed to one musician or another, yet no one can really say for sure whether or not it ever happened.

Regardless of what John Kerry believes, our troops are not stupid, and my sense about all of this is that they smoked Beauchamp out as an arrogant, haughty smartypants as soon as he deployed; he might just as well have hung a sign around his neck saying, "Kick me."

When all is said and done in this matter, the soldiers and Marines who fed Beauchamp heaping spoonfuls of old military lore and tall tales and outright BS will be the ones who get the last laugh.

"see how many have hoodwinked the media"

It's hardly a case of being "hoodwinked". If the leftist side of the media had followed the most basic of journalistic rules and principles, none of these stories would have been published. But the stories sounded like what the left wants to believe so the left-media ran with them - truth and facts be damned.

And I doubt the internet will have any effect on the potential political careers of the authors- they are Democrats after all. The left cares not about truth or honestly. Telling lies that people want to hear was the very essence of most sucessful Democrat since the socialist-regressives took over the party in the late 60's (Clinton).

The quote from Michelle pretty much says it all. No drama, no hype, no passion, hell, no partisanship: just reasonable assertions as to why this case is more than just "one soldier's story". By asserting the "it's just one soldier's experience" canard, the Left can continue to add to what is now becoming a cacophony of anti-war, anti-military, anti-Iraq rhetoric, and they avoid having their work labelled as the slander it is.

I applaud Michelle's restraint in the article, as what she's saying really does speak for itself.

And don't for a moment think that this slander isn't orchestrated, loosely or otherwise.

That's right! All our brave fighting men and women are little angles. There is no chance that a few bad apples could slip by and commit crimes during wartime, and anyone that says differently is a traitor and should be shot. Unless the person(s) saying that is the US government:

"The files are part of a once-secret archive, assembled by a Pentagon task force in the early 1970s, that shows that confirmed atrocities by U.S. forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known.

The documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army investigators -- not including the most notorious U.S. atrocity, the 1968 My Lai massacre.

Though not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes, the archive is the largest such collection to surface to date. About 9,000 pages, it includes investigative files, sworn statements by witnesses and status reports for top military brass."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,6350517.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I likewise distrust anecdotal social reporting with a bias, just as much as I distrust 'how effectively at times, the Army can investigate allegations that -- if true -- would be extremely damaging. But what I tend to trust more, are court martial hearings in which there seems to have been abundance of evidence of wanton crimes, and even their acceptence by many of our soldiers. It is much to the US military credit, it is taking these horrific incidents much more seriously now, than it did it recently, but you have to wonder how these things 'however isolated, came to such a pass...They didn't come out of thin air.

"There is no chance that a few bad apples could slip by and commit crimes during wartime"

And into the abyss we go.

Dude, it's not that anyone ignores the fact that there are bad apples; having the media so eager to print the cries of "wolf!" by these narcissistic knuckleheads not only artificially erode the war effort (the intended purpose), they also change the context of the real crimes being committed.

I've no issue with the printing of real crimes, I do have issues with making sh*t up.

If you were true to your beliefs, you'd be just as concerned about this and would stop pointing out the bunnies.

I hope you've all seen the recent comments from a Soviet disinformation specialist with virtually a word for word delineation of Kerry's infamous Genghis Khan testimony.
=============================

The use of the term "winter soldier syndrome" to describe false accusations of war crimes by our troops is terribly ironic given the fact that pretty much everything they and John Kerry said at the time turned out to be true, even their distrust of the military investigators. Not only do we have the report to which Barneyg2000 linked above, but now we also have on the historical record the gruesome details of "Tiger Force" which include:

the routine torture and execution of prisoners[8]
the routine practice of intentionally killing unarmed Vietnamese villagers including men, women, children, and elderly people[9]
the routine practice of cutting off and collecting the ears of victims[10]
the practice of wearing necklaces composed of human ears[11]
the practice of cutting off and collecting the scalps of victims[12]
an incident where a young mother was drugged, raped, and then executed[13]
an incident where a soldier killed a baby and cut off his or her head after the baby's mother was killed[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

Since Michelle Malkin has closed registration for new commenters, no one there will have to confront the facts, and her link to wintersoldier.com will not provide any education as that organization has refused to publish any facts that corroborate what was testified in 1971.

I don't think anyone is saying atrocities don't happen in war. If anyone on the right has said that I am not aware of it and would like to see the quote. I just wonder why, if atrocities are so widespread and rampant, is it necessary to manufacture stories? If there are tons of examples, which there may be, then why are so many of the ones that have been reported made up? I think that is a valid question and one that those in the military who are not raping fellow soldiers and mocking disfigured women deserve to have answered.

that's nice Barney. Now is the TNR story true or false.

Don't expect people like Barney to change. They are part of Peeeloshi's Nazi wing of the democrat party. Two votes (losses in the house wiped out by the dhimmi leadership in one week). Don't like the vote, wipe out the computer count and just say, Ooop's. Talk about a danger to freedom across the country. When this happens twice and not one peep from the democrat party, or the antique MSM, do you need futher proof of insanity in the democrat party? BDS is no longer, it has progressed to total insanity.

I agree with Lorie's comment. So, to folks like Barney, I'll also ask if it doesn't bother you that stories were fabricated when it appears that it is easy for you to find evidence of atrocities. It stuns me to think that folks such as yourself feel that it it OK to create fiction with the hope that somewhere, sometime, somehow reality will at some point align with it. Does that practice fall into your category of responsible journalism?

Whoa! War crimes as listed in Wikipedia? Wow. Maybe I'll go over there and change some of listing.
The topic, for the leftist "special" kids, the TNR publishing (again) fake stories to denigrate our military and to jab GW. Now, what does it take for you to stay on topic? ww

Let me give you a clue Paul B., wikipedia is hardly a credible, un-biased source. Anyone can post anything on wikipedia. If you have to use it to support your argument-you arguement is very, very weak and basically unsubstantiated.

While some of the things Kerry said in his '72 congressional testimony may have happened on some rare occasions, they were not commonplace and they did not occur with full knowledge and approval of the millitary commanders. The sum and substance of what Kerry said was ultimately false. (And he knew it so he was lying.)

Hell even some of the people who Kerry used as his sources were not even soldiers- they were impersonating soldiers in order to give false testimony. Doing that was so vile, evil, sick, & twisted that it's no shock that those type of persons became the modern American Democrat Party.

barney is basically just a huge asshole. Nobody ever said there aren't bad apples, but why do we need to make stories up? Why barney? Why do you support made up shit like this? If there is so much awful shit going on like you claim why can't we just report the shit thats true?

Wikipedia used as evidence = ZERO credibility. Try again paul B.

Ah yes, fake but accurate, it has become a time honored defense now.

Robin:
Ah yes, fake but accurate, it has become a time honored defense now.

I was thinking the same thing when reading Babble2000's comment.

There is no chance that a few bad apples could slip by and commit crimes during wartime

There are also 'bad apples' that fabricate stories of atrocities of various reasons (I believe typically for attention) and yet the media seems to naively accept that there are 'bad apples' who would commit atrocities while at the same time ignoring that there are 'bad apples' who fabricate stories of atrocities. Why ?

The story is about why the media would behave so naively (I'm being nice) and whether those who do fabricate stories of crimes (wasting time and other valuable resources) are receiving just punishment NOT whether 'bad apples' do or do not exists.

I can't say I'm surprised you missed the point entirely.

"I just wonder why, if atrocities are so widespread and rampant, is it necessary to manufacture stories?"

It isn't necessary and I don't really understand this "blogswarm." We have several war crime cases of rape, torture and murder in Iraq and people are dedicated thousands of hours to a dog being hit by a tank? I understand the drive for accuracy, but it's hypocritical and more than a bit bizarre.

It's a strange frame of mind that really only you can answer Lorie. Other questions too - why you would constantly cite Michelle Malkin whose "reporting" has been about as credible as Beauchamp's?

jp2
"It isn't necessary and I don't really understand this "blogswarm." We have several war crime cases of rape, torture and murder in Iraq and people are dedicated thousands of hours to a dog being hit by a tank? I understand the drive for accuracy, but it's hypocritical and more than a bit bizarre."

"blogswarm"???? I see it differently and it is not trivial. You have the verifiable and I would say relatively RARE cases of atrocity. But these cases aren't coming fast and furious enough which is problematic for the antiwar crowd considering there is now evidence that current policies in Iraq may be making modest progress. So, if you can't find'em, heck, let's make'em up. It helps to depict the soldier turned savage as a victim of the war thing. But to get this agenda across it requires the daily hammer and if you can fake having a hammer so be it. Like someone once said jp2 a lie is as good as the truth if you can get people to believe it.

jp2, Barney, here's an answer for you:

Nearly all the allegations you tout so loudly came about because of one source, and one source along: the United States Armed Forces. It was the US Army that broke Abu Ghraib, that announced the rape and murder trials, and all those other atrocities you bring up.

If you give them such credibility on those matters, why don't you extend them the same courtesy when they say Beauchamp was full of shit? When they rule that the Haditha Marines (in full contradiction of John Murtha) were not guilty of their accused crimes?

J.

The Barneys, the jp2s, the JFOs, the Lee Wards, and their ilk, are all CAUGHT AGAIN in their lies.

LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!!!!

Libs lie. It's what they do.

Ace says it best in his headline:

"MSM: We Support Our Winter Soldiers"

Remember two things in your life. Democrats/Liberals lie, and they HATE HATE HATE America (and Americans).

Then sit back and watch all their bizarre actions and it all makes sense.

"I don't think anyone is saying atrocities don't happen in war. If anyone on the right has said that I am not aware of it and would like to see the quote."

When you and Malkin use the term "Winter Soldier" to describe false atrocity testimony, despite the fact that nearly everything they claimed has been proven true by Pentagon documents which, according to Barney's link, "...confirmed atrocities by U.S. forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known" and which:

"...describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese -- families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity.

Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam."

It amounts to atrocity denial and is a smear against brave soldiers who tried to tell their country the truth about what was done in their name.

"I just wonder why, if atrocities are so widespread and rampant, is it necessary to manufacture stories?"

It's not, and I find it just as shameful as you do when it happens and am happy to see false smears against the majority of good, brave and honest soldiers exposed and to see the institutions that publish them without due diligence lose credibility. I'm just as appalled when actual, proven crimes and atrocities are denied, whitewashed, covered up or ignored by those who have an ideological or career interest in doing so.

"Whoa! War crimes as listed in Wikipedia? Wow. Maybe I'll go over there and change some of listing."

"Let me give you a clue Paul B., wikipedia is hardly a credible, un-biased source. Anyone can post anything on wikipedia. If you have to use it to support your argument-you arguement is very, very weak and basically unsubstantiated."
"Wikipedia used as evidence = ZERO credibility. Try again paul B."

Wow - three votes against Wikipedia by people who didn't bother to check the sources WP cites. I don't have to "use it to support" my argument since the original source is available. Try refuting this: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

If you can, you may want to notify the Pulitzer committee because they gave the Toledo Blade reporters the 2004 prize for Investigative Reporting.

"If you give them such credibility on those matters, why don't you extend them the same courtesy when they say Beauchamp was full of shit? " by Jay

I will when it is announce (officially) and once again I will repeat what I have said from the start, I do not know if the statements are true or false. My issue was how quickly the right jumped on this story and did everything they could to debunk the story. First it was the soldier was made-up then it was the stories could not have possible happened happen because BFV can't maneuver that way and nobody found any graves in that area and nobody would make fun of a wounded brother (sister in this case) in arms. Both of those assumptions have proven wrong.

To me the actions described in the story was not that shocking and I was amazed how the right was making such a big deal about an article that nobody was paying attention to.

Paul you need to google "strawman agrument"

No one is disputing the atrocities happened in Vietnam. They happen in every war. (Of course you anti-military types are commonly quite shy on historical knowledge and perspective, so I wouldn't expect you to know this.)

Kerry's perjurous Winter Soldier testimony, tried to pain a picture of them being commonplace and with the full knowledege and approval of the military commander.

The term "Winter Soldier" is totally accurate and appropriate for Malkin's examples and in no way ironic. What is ironic is that you are trying to do the same evil, disingenuous propagandizing for the enemy that Kerry did.

"My issue was how quickly the right jumped on this story and did everything they could to debunk the story."

Unlike you Barney, the "right" has a problem with speading enemy propaganda and lies which are designed to defame our troops.

Jay, this is wildly off target, even by your standards.

On the armed forces...
"If you give them such credibility on those matters, why don't you extend them the same courtesy when they say Beauchamp was full of shit?"

Credibility? Like Pat Tillman?

Jessica Lynch?

Or Abu Ghraib with the brigadier general lying repeatedly?
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/14/Worldandnation/Her_job__Lock_up_Iraq.shtml

Haditha? The investigations which were reopened because of contradictions in the official reports?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/01/military.training/index.html

Also, please provide a source for your claim that Army said Beauchamp was "full of shit."

"Kerry's perjurous Winter Soldier testimony, tried to pain a picture of them being commonplace and with the full knowledege and approval of the military commander."

According to Jamie Henry, a winter soldier whose testimony has been confirmed by the Pentagon documents described above, stated upon his return, "Incidents similar to those I have described occur on a daily basis and differ one from the other only in terms of numbers killed."

As for "knowledge and approval of the military commander":

"Thirty-five years later, the My Lai massacre shares powerful parallels with the Tiger Force war-crime case.

Both Army units patrolled the same province. Both set up their camps in the same military base. Both carried out the same missions: search and destroy - just 10 miles apart.

But there was a key difference. Tiger Force arrived in the province six months before the 11th Brigade.

Shortly after their arrival, the Tigers began mutilating bodies, killing civilians, and executing prisoners, the soldiers later told investigators.

The atrocities, brought to the Army's attention in 1967, now raise a critical question: If the Army had reacted to those complaints, could safeguards have been in place to avert the rampage at My Lai?

Military experts say the massacre was merely the culmination of the Army's failure to take steps to stop the violence that had been growing against the people of Quang Ngai province.

Military experts say the massacre was merely the culmination of the Army's failure to take steps to stop the violence that had been growing against the people of Quang Ngai province.

There's no doubt that My Lai could have been prevented had the Army cracked down on atrocities," said Michael Belknap, a law professor and Vietnam veteran who authored the 2003 book, The Vietnam War On Trial.

"Remember, they heard rumors. They suspected some troops were out of control," he said.

Months before the arrival of Lt. William Calley's 11th Brigade unit in Quang Ngai province, Tiger Force already was establishing itself there as a rogue unit.

A review of thousands of Army records, including affidavits, battle reports, and logs, shows:

Two soldiers, Lt. Donald Wood and Sgt. Gerald Bruner, told investigators in 1974 they complained to commanders in August, 1967, that Tiger Force platoon leaders were killing unarmed civilians. But the attacks continued.

Tiger Force Sgt. Leo Heaney and two other soldiers were ordered to sign affidavits in May, 1967, that they were not mutilating bodies after a severed ear was discovered in an Army helicopter. But the platoon continued the practice of cutting off the ears of enemy soldiers and civilians.

One battalion officer, Dr. Bradford Mutchler, told investigators in 1975 that commanders were aware of rumors of Tiger Force war crimes in 1967 but did not investigate in fear of what might be uncovered.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/SRTIGERFORCE/110190166

So far you're O-fer, Bunyan - shame on you.