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.

P.S. Still LAUGHING at how Barney gives us a link to the LA Times!!!!

Are you freakin kidding me???

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha......

Barney, remember the doctored military photo from the LA Times??!! Let's refresh your memory.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/883094/posts

Please never quote from them again, or we will laugh you out of here.

Thanks.

barnetGRUBBLE:

How many hundreds of millions of Americans and qualed immigrants have served in the history of the U.S. Military barney?

As to you comment specifically, "great job," you have successfully resurrected (and stuffed full) Ray Bolger's most famous character.

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.

You know about the "several war crime cases of rape, torture and murder" how jp2?

Wait... let me answer that for you jp2.

Because they are, or have been, actively pursued by the media and military officials.

That's how? Did the military become aware of "scott thomas" before or after the "blogswarm?"

Did the MSM, aside from TNR, know of scott thomas before or after the "blogswarm?"

What used to amaze me but no more is the earnest interest by the liberals to make sure the troops are smeared. TNR got caught lying. But the pentagon has to tell the liberals here personally that the story was bogus. Notice they are not asking TNR to provide proof.

Paul B. has to be the most pathetic. He has to document alleged mutilation in Vietnam during the war. Why not go back to the Civil War. How about the revolutionary war. There are bad seeds every time. So, get on with your pathetic life and try to thank God for soldiers who enlist to protect our freedoms so you can write crap to put our soldiers down. Conservatives are well aware of the sacrifice they make and we appreciate it. The left loathes the military and everything about them. I believe one of your writers called them "trained killers" and "morally retarded." I have said it before, I have no idea how you can live in such a negative, self loathing world. ww

"..thank God for soldiers who enlist to protect our freedoms..""

ww, are they protecting the freedoms Bush has rescinded or the freedoms Bush is planning on rescinding?

Again you choose to miss the point Paul. No matter how well you attempt to construct your strawman, it is still a strawman.

I acknoledge that those isolated incidents happened. Say Paul, why did they stop after 7 months (of a war that lasted over a decade.)

Get it? You're citing a single unit and a 7 month period. Just because you want to believe it was commonplace does not make it so.

Poo flinger Barney is just as bad as John F'ing Kerry and all these other pussies with their sour grapes stories. Pathetic assholes, every one of them.

"Did the MSM, aside from TNR, know of scott thomas before or after the "blogswarm?""

My point is that I don't care about Beauchamp, and with far greater crimes committed, I don't understand the frenzy. There are more important events in this current war than either rude soldiers or lying wannabee journalists. His vindication or his dishonorable discharge really have no consequences of any sort.

I think this guy sums it up fairly well:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8516

"Paul B. has to be the most pathetic. He has to document alleged mutilation in Vietnam during the war. Why not go back to the Civil War. How about the revolutionary war. There are bad seeds every time. So, get on with your pathetic life and try to thank God for soldiers who enlist to protect our freedoms so you can write crap to put our soldiers down."

1) Not "alleged", proven.
2) I went back to Vietnam because Malkin and Byrd went back to Vietnam.
3) Please explain how murder, rape, torture, and mutilation of non-combatants "protects our freedoms" and if it's a good enough argument I will consider thanking God that Tiger Force and too many other "bad seeds" comitted these atrocities in my countries name.

Barney, you dumb ass, you stepped right into it all on your own, and unprovoked:

"ww, are they protecting the freedoms Bush has rescinded or the freedoms Bush is planning on rescinding?"

Name one, just one, freedom that Bush has rescinded.

Or, if you'd like, name one instance, one, where your freedoms have been personally rescinded.

One.

Just one.

This oughta' be good because no one on the left, and I do mean no one, can EVER answer that question with any sort of specific example.

Ever.

Why?

(hint: it's a fairy tale propagated by the Left. You're better served trying to find Sasquatch, a yeti, or Pvt. Charles Lamb).

jp2,
1) Frankly, how much importance you place on these false accusations is of really little concern to anyone. What is important is that the TNR itself felt the need to air them and so since that magazine has wider distribution than your opinions - and realizing the intent of those stories - it Is important to make a big deal of them.
2) Knowing your posting history here I speculate that had they been true, you would not be so dismissive.

Amen brother BillyBob,

I should be used to it by now, but it never ceases to amaze at how these self hating cowards constantly insist on transfering their own ugly, child-molesting nature onto their view of the American fighting man. I guess that spineless bedwetters like "Paul B." and "jp2" are so incapable of shame or introspection thet they feel they must spit on the honorable ones who bleed and die for all of us, even their sorry butts, without nary a bitch or a moan about the very backstabbing their own countrymen do to the joy and inspiration of the evil that is our enemy.

I'm not near as honorable as those fighting few, cause I'd be happy with the knowledge that the collaborators and friends of those who blow up children with pride were being tarred and feathered all across this great land. And a hanging or 20 for their inspirational leaders wouldn't bother me at all either. Guess I'm just spiteful that way.

Yo wrote:
Barney, you dumb ass, you stepped right into it all on your own, and unprovoked:

"ww, are they protecting the freedoms Bush has rescinded or the freedoms Bush is planning on rescinding?"

Name one, just one, freedom that Bush has rescinded.

Or, if you'd like, name one instance, one, where your freedoms have been personally rescinded.

One.

Just one.

OK YO, how about this:

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html

yo, what have you stepped in?

Paul B: "Bunyan - shame on you"

You are on this thread trying to defame the most brave, honorable, and noble perople in theis country with disingenuous propagnda and you say "shame on you"?

You obviously know even less about the meaning of shame than you do about the meaning of strawman.

"...A federal judge ruled..." is not proof of anyone having their rights violated, it is however an indication of which administration picked that judge.

Exactly right Pudge. I have not had any problems with freedom since 9/11 except for long lines at the airports and work related training. The government can read my emails here and at work, listen to my boring conversation on the phone. Anything they need to do to catch the scum who is planning on killing me, my family, my friends and other americans. I am a post 9/11 citizen. I do not live in the pre 9/11 world BG and PaulB lives in. There world is perfect. Everyone behaves. No problems. The sky is green with marshmellow clouds. ww

Oh my God, I was right. The (questionable) judge in question is none other than Anna Diggs Taylor !!! She has a record the only "conservative" (this side of David Gergen) could love is, John McCain !

Stand up and applaud if you love the alKKKeda Bill of Rights, because that's the type of legislating from the bench she's responsible for. And our current whimpy admin stands around and does nothing about (other than whine and make on themselves that is - very manly, that Bush crew. They need to cut ol' Darth loose)

"(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately."

Barney:

I remember THAT judge. Her ruling was almost immediately overturned on appeal. And the appeals court judgement upheld several times. You forgot to mention that, didn't you.

Got anything real?

Seeing Barney & the other idiotic libs in here debunked and disgraced makes my day.

Yeeeehaw!

"Say Paul, why did they stop after 7 months (of a war that lasted over a decade.)
Get it? You're citing a single unit and a 7 month period."

The Pentagon records cite atrocities taking place over a period of 5 years 1967-1971, including cases "in every Army division that operated in Vietnam."

"You are on this thread trying to defame the most brave, honorable, and noble perople in theis country with disingenuous propagnda and you say "shame on you"?

I'm on this thread defending "the most brave, honorable, and noble" people in this country against the smears by the right that they fabricated what the saw and did in Vietnam, and I'm doing so by citing facts as confirmed by the Pentagon and Pulitzer Prize winning journalism - none of which you are able to refute. Yes, shame on you for allowing your ideology to deny crimes committed in your name.

barneyGRUBBLE:

Guess you haven't noticed, or purposefully ignored, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruling is under appeal so it's hardly "settled law."

So your "proof" is nothing more than thin air.

BTW, it's also apparent you failed to notice the NSA program was just OK'd and extended by Congress.

You'll also note many dems signed on. Except idiots like Pelosi and Clinton who continue to by all "barney-like" and whine about mythical civil rights being infringed.

"U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest"

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

Friday, July 06, 2007
"Reversal in the warrantless surveillance case."

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/07/reversal-in-warrantless-surveillance.html

Hey Barney ,

"You cannot fool me ,you cannot defeat me your mind is an open book to me"

Take some time off your propaganda spreading and tell me who said the above quote. You deserve a break.

Opps! I had forgotten that Mark L, that ruling has been over turned.

Taylor's ruling was subsequently overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The Circuit Court ruled 2-1 that the people bringing the suit did not have standing. The Court's decision vacated the portion of Taylor's ruling concerning warrantless wiretaps.

What say you GRUBBLE?

"yo, what have you stepped in?"

A pile of steaming righteousness, thanks for asking.

Barney is furiously e-mailing Media Matters for not keeping him up to date in his propaganda talking points.

Bwhahahahahaha......the sit com of Barney Rubble & Co. continues.

Psssst Barney. It's August 8, 2007. Let's keep up, shall we?

I don't have to go to media matters I found what I need right from the Wa Po article provided above.

Items
"The court did not rule on the spying program's legality."

"In January, after Democrats gained control of Congress, the administration abruptly shifted its position. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced that the surveillance program would be overseen by the FISA court. "

"With the change in the program, the administration argued before the 6th Circuit that the case is moot."

So, the Bush administration knew they were wrong, so they complied with the FISA standards.

There are other cases that are pending, and the US Supremes will hear the Gitmo detainees rights case in the next secession. Also, once the Padilla petition was scheduled to go to the Federal Courts the Bush administration dropped it's objections, the crime he was arrested for and was tried in civilian court under lesser charges.

So if Bush was not violating our rights, why did he change course on the NSA program and use that compliance as an argument? If Bush was not wrong than why did he go ask Congress to approve new changes to FISA?

WW #49 above is a good description of what we all should learn to live with. I love and protect my civil liberties; we all should. But we are citizens of a nation at war.

For the libs out there who complain about wiretaps and surveillance consider this: if Osama Bin Laden were walking across the Peace Bridge talking on a cell phone, the US could intercept the call only while he was on Canadien soil, but once he literally stepped onto US soil our intelligence agencies could not intercept the call. They would have to disconnect and get a Federal Court (not from FISA Court) order.

Keep that image in mind and read some history of what our country did to protect itself in WWII. Rationing, food and fuel coupons, limited meat cosumption, no tires for sale, citizen patrols of our domestic waterways and damns...the list goes on and on. Our parents and their parents accepted those restrictions and duties because they saw and believed the threat.

There is a determined cabal of America hating leftists who are either woefully ignorant of our history or simply don't care about our security. The Winter Soldier apologists are among them. They strain to find the worst in our armed forces while ignoring the vast multitude of brave courageous men and women who serve.

"none of which you are able to refute"

Not be able to refute something, and having no desire to refute it are very different things. If you had posted that the normal color of the sky was green with purple pok-a-dots, I would not have the desire to refute that either.

And again, I am not denying that crimes were commited, but simply pointing out the fact that they were exceptions, not the rule, no matter how much you want to smear and defame the military.

Has there ever been a war in the history of the human race in which atrocities were not commited? Does that mean we should never go to war? Is that the point you're really trying to make?

BG,

whereas you may find some meat on that bone, you still haven't actually answered my question:

What freedoms have YOU lost?

As for the rest of your post:

1 - You mention Padilla and Gitmo detainees and then use the word "our" to describes whose rights had been violated.

Whereas Padilla is an American, I don't think the Gitmo chaps are. Regardless, both are charged with planning naughtiness against the US (here's where you're actually included).

When you compare the right to privacy against the right to live - which one would you consider more important?

2 - Why did he change course?

Did he, or is there more to the story than the thumbnail you're providing? I mean, I know that you know that you know everything there is to know about federal politics; but, maybe you've not been exposed to the entire scene.

And, did he really change course? Tell me how, specifically, he changed course. Seems to me that he's still tappin' them wires.

3 - If Bush was not wrong .... ?

Was he wrong, or is it a case where the FISA laws, written in the 70's, are severely out of date and not applicable to the major leaps in technology we've experienced over the last 30 years?

As for why he went to Congress to approve new changes, he has to. That's the legislative branch's gig. He MUST go to Congress for changes.

Nice job, by the way, of deflated the Left's argument that he has no regard for the Constitution. If you had any idea of how you did that, you'd kick yourself, I'm sure.

Still ..., my question to you is still on the table, and it's still unanswered.

And, I'll assume it will go so while you continue to point out the bunnies, baby.

If one person is denied his rights we are all in danger of losing our rights, so I am affected. There is also this case:
"A court in Washington has ordered the United States government to hand over nearly all the information it holds on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, marking a new blow to its controversial detention of alleged terror suspects.

The government must now provide defence lawyers with classified evidence gathered against detainees

The ruling by a federal appeals court paves the way for a fresh round of legal challenges to the detentions at the US naval base in Cuba.

The government must now provide defence lawyers with classified evidence gathered against the detainees, making it easier to challenge their designation as "unlawful enemy combatants"."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/22/wguan122.xml

"NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a setback to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the president does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant.

In a 75-page decision, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 that the U.S. government must release Jose Padilla from military custody within 30 days."

Barney

So, the Bush administration knew they were wrong, so they complied with the FISA standards.

You are much to quick to attach motive here....the Bush administration simply chose to push the limit of the law as far as possible. Why? To prevent another attack.

If spying on American citizens was their motive, they would adopted the Livingstone Doctrine and simply had raw FBI files spread around the White House basement floor...oops, sorry, that was a diversion, wasn't it? Couldn't resist....

If one person is denied his rights we are all in danger of losing our rights, so I am affected.

That's rhetoric, not argument.

"If one person is denied his rights we are all in danger of losing our rights, so I am affected."

Well, that's might ideological of you and a complete and total cop-out.

I'll credit myself with a win by forfeit.

Hell, I can only imagine the fit you'd have been in with the way FDR and Lincoln conducted their wars. Compared to those guys, Bush is a pussy-cat.

Honestly, with friends like you, who needs Gitmo?

yo serves up my favorite topic:

If I had a choice as to which Executive prosecuted this war, my choices would be, in order:

FDR
Lincoln
Bush/Cheney

Yo you wrote this:
"whereas you may find some meat on that bone, you still haven't actually answered my question:

What freedoms have YOU lost?"

But you also wrote this in the same post, and I answered that question as well so your "by default" response is nothing but sour grapes:

Yo #43 "Name one, just one, freedom that Bush has rescinded."

I have indicated at least two, and no you did not state if the freedom is inclusive of US citizens only or anyone (including enemy combatants).

jp2, just where did you hear about General Karpinski (I think was her name) lying? Who exposed her lies and punished her?

The Army.

And while no one has specifically used the term "full of shit," here is the word from Bob Owens from Confederate Yankee:

Beauchamp's stories has been flatly denied by named U.S. Army PAO's Col. Steven Boylan (PAO to General Petraeus), LTC Andy Sams, Major Steven Lamb, Major Renee D. Russo, and Major Kirk Luedeke.

Beauchamp's First Sergeant Hatley also flatly refuted the claims.

It sometimes takes them a little time, but the military as a general rule does the right thing -- eventually. Your accounts of them airing their dirty laundry show that to be the general case.

J.

GRUBBLE... GRUBBLE.... GRUBBLE... you exclaim, "If one person is denied his rights we are all in danger of losing our rights, so I am affected. There is also this case:," then cite a gitmo case.

Well, now. If there were AMERICAN citizens at Gitmo you might have a point. MIGHT.

I've heard and seen apples and oranges arguments before but this isn't even in that ballpark, more like comparing a fruit to a vegetable.

You go on to ask why Bush changed course on FISA. A quick read of the latest legislation passed Saturday will tell you.

In short FISA in its chronological irrelevancy was unable to cope with modern communications. The U.S. being the inventor of the internet (as opposed to The Gorecle) is the home of 90% (a conservative est.) of the "pipelines" for all internet comms. As such the old FISA wouldn't cover Akmed in Pakistan communicating with Joe Jihadist in Lebanon when the conversation went thru the U.S. networks.

And BTW, just what "right" have YOU been denied?

My point is that I don't care about Beauchamp, and with far greater crimes committed, I don't understand the frenzy.

Then why are you even commenting in this thread?

When will you lefties realize that commenting about how much you don't care just proves that you care enough to comment!

If a person doesn't care about something, they will pass it by, not comment on it.

So quit with the bovine fecal matter, jp2.

"I have indicated at least two, and no you did not state if the freedom is inclusive of US citizens only or anyone (including enemy combatants)"

You're picking nits, and you know it. You know full well the scope of the question that I asked and yet you refuse to answer it (even after I clarified it a bit for you).

Like I said, win by forfeit.

Not to sound too crabby, but your skills are as equally shitty as the rest of the left when it comes to this issue since you simply cannot accept the fact that within the realm of reality, you don't have a response.

The loss of civil liberties is a fuc*ing myth, and you know it.

You can speak to the greater good, and to the whole concept of "we're all losing" blah blah blah bullshit all you want.

Fact remains, you, your argument and the entirety of your ideological foundation rests upon a big hunk of nothing.

Bush isn't the devil and you cannot accept that.

Whatever. You wanna hide in the nuance when it protects you and you've been doing so all afternoon.

If I weren't such a gentleman, I'd call you a flat out pussy.

Jay

It sometimes takes them a little time, but the military as a general rule does the right thing -- eventually.

I would only add that they are somewhat distracted because they are fighting a real war out there.

Yo, you know what you wrote, I know what and everyone else does. You wrote "Name one, just one, freedom that Bush has rescinded." and I did. If you want to get real technical your post was in response of my post that Bush rescinded rights in the past. I never wrote my rights.

Whatever. If you believed in your tripe, you'd go ahead and answer the question now that it's been clarified. If anything, just to shut me up.

But you won't.

Doesn't matter. It was a rhetorical question, anyway.

Oh, and for further clarification, in the same post that you quoted, there's this little nugget:

"Or, if you'd like, name one instance, one, where your freedoms have been personally rescinded."

The "nuance" of such was still understood by just about everyone else on here, by the way.

"You wrote "Name one, just one, freedom that Bush has rescinded." and I did."

Barney:

You most certainly did not named one freedom rescinded by Bush. You named one ruling by a judge that was rescinded by a superior court.

When a superior court overrules a lower court's ruling that is not an executive branch action. That is a judiciary branch action. The President is not a member of the judiciary.

If Bush was really as power-mad and evil as Barney believes, Barney wouldn't be free to post here, he'd be behind bars or dead.

That point somehow seems to escape Barney, which leads me to a low estimate of his intellectual capacity.

C-C-G: "If Bush was really as power-mad and evil as Barney believes, Barney wouldn't be free to post here, he'd be behind bars or dead."

Which may explain why Barney never strays more than 50 feet from his parents basement! (and then only for the latest issue of "Teen" magazine)

Barney caught yet again.

"But, but, but, but, but......"

Bwahahahahahah....

Beauchamp was a lying pussy before all of this and now he is nothing but a bigger lying pussy now.

He has his legacy now, a yellow whining big pussy who is a laughing stock with a big case of MPH (my pussy hurts) joining BarneyGoogle

I'll enjoy laughing at his whiney ass for years to come.

barney,you dumbass!

It would be nice if the commentors' name was posted at the top of each comment. That way we could avoid having to wade through child-like gibberish of our socialist friends.

"Not be able to refute something, and having no desire to refute it are very different things. If you had posted that the normal color of the sky was green with purple pok-a-dots, I would not have the desire to refute that either."

No minimally reasonable person would consider citing Pentagon records as reported by Pulitzer Prize winning journalism as "disingenuous propaganda" let alone the equivalent of asserting that "the normal color of the sky was green with purple pok-a-dots" no matter what you "desire."