« Trouble in ParadiseGWOT and Suicidebomb »

(Dog’s) Breakfast of (Beau)Champions

ConfYank gets an email, investigation found Beauchamp full of it.

New Republic’s statement here.  Malkin rounds it all up here.

Topics: Iraq, media, military

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:35 am on Saturday, August 4, 2007

17 Responses to “(Dog’s) Breakfast of (Beau)Champions”

1. Lori Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 8:57 am

   I find it amazing that for how long all the focus was on the civil war, sectarian violence, blah blah blah…. Now that that has seemingly subsided, it’s the lack of political progress. What I find extremely astounding is that these comments are coming from a Congress who couldn’t wipe their ass if given a road map. All I can hope is that the American people are getting a good look at Democrats in power. It’s exactly what I envisioned.

2. RebeccaH Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am

   All I can hope is that the American people are getting a good look at Democrats in power. It’s exactly what I envisioned.

   Totally agreed. Given the recent poll numbers, I think the American people have had an eyeful… and a belly full.

3. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 10:22 am

   Nicely put, Lori!

   As for Beauchamp…..TNR won’t admit it, but they truly screwed the pooch on this one. Unfortunately, the military is in the position of proving a negative (i.e., they have show that this didn’t happen), which is difficult enough under the best of conditions. Here, the lefties will simply clap their hands over their ears, and ignore what the Army says, even though TNR actually shot themselve in the foot with that “Oh, sorry, it happened in Kuwait, not Iraq” line of crap.

4. 4iraqisfuture Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm

   The fact it happened in Kuwait and not Iraq doesn’t make a difference to people who visit the DailyKos. I’ve read the comment section. And they still think it is an attack on Beauchamp by “wingnuts”. Sound familiar? They are rallying around him, Beauchamp the victim, Beauchamp the whistleblower–not the phantom woman with “IED scars”.

   Just as the Left has been a no show for woman’s rights in the mideast it is no show again for her. Beauchamp and his adolecent buddies ridicule a women disfigured by war and get a ticker tape parade for their efforts, for showing the “real war”.

   As stated so eloquently by Mudville, the fact it happened before he got to a combat zone shows he was an asshole incarnate. Assholes are everywhere. Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Social workers, all can be rude, jerky, a-holes as well. No profession is exempt.

   Beauchamp had this in him in the US, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq. He strung together bad horror film gore and “full metal jacket” psychology for this juvenille piece of trash. He had this written before he got there.

5. 4iraqisfuture Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

   All I can hope is that the American people are getting a good look at Democrats in power. It’s exactly what I envisioned.

   Totally agreed. Given the recent poll numbers, I think the American people have had an eyeful… and a belly full.

   You’ve got to see this…”the most ethical congress ever”

   Rep. Eric Cantor writes, “First, the democrat chair closed the roll call when Republicans had won — as the voting tally indicated. Shouting erupted on the floor, as the Democrats attempted to change the outcome of the vote after the gavel had come down — the vote was closed.”

   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vlog/2007/08/roy_blunt_you_lost_the_vote.html

   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vlog/2007/08/gop_outrage_at_house_democrats.html

6. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

   Oh, yeah, 4iraqisfuture. Beauchamp has this delusion of being the next Hemingway. More fool he.

7. alphie Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

   Jamail Hussein turned out to be a real person, remember, guys?

   I wouldn’t put too much faith in the Army mouthpiece’s attempt to smear Beauchamp.

   Or in the latest gay porn star servicing the wingnuts news needs.

8. spqrzilla Says:
   August 4th, 2007 at 11:51 pm

   The bottom line remains that even the TNR admit that Beauchamp’s work is fiction. It will probably turn out to be mostly fiction and grotesque exaggeration.

9. Purple Avenger Says:
   August 5th, 2007 at 12:10 am

   Jamail Hussein turned out to be a real person…

   Who spouted jihadi propaganda. Your point?

10. alphie Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 1:34 am

    Yeah, spqr

    On the day an American soldier is sentenced to 110 yeara in prison for raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl, then killing her and her family:

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3447964

    The faith-based community is trying to convince themselves that none of “our boys” would ever run over a dog.

    God, you guys are pathetic.

11. 4iraqisfuture Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 2:32 am

    Alphatard to the rescue!

    Soldiers never commit crimes is that what this thread is about? can I join in? I’m sure a dog has been run over in some war. Dogs get run over in peacetime. I know I’ve seen ‘em. P-p-Pa-pa-pathetic, yeah, that’s what you guys are.

    HISTORY’S BEST-BEHAVED MILITARY

    by Ralph Peters

    …While crimes committed by our troops can’t be condoned (and they certainly aren’t), official crime statistics make it clear that we have the best-behaved military in history - one that’s vastly more law-abiding than our general population.

    The here-at-home numbers are readily available from public sources. So let’s compare some domestic crime rates with the misdeeds of those vicious storm-troopers of ours.

    In the 19-month period - over a year and a half - from Jan. 1, 2006 until the morning you read this, misbehavior by our troops resulted in a total of 59 scheduled court-martials in Iraq - 21 of them general court-martials, which are reserved for the most-serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, assault, arson and so forth). The other 38 were special court-martials, invoked for lesser offenses, such as disciplinary infractions or petty theft.

    OK: 59 trials in 19 months, among an average troop population of almost 140,000. Compare that to civilian crime statistics back home, and it’s clear that any of us would welcome the chance to live among such model citizens - even though our troops are overwhelmingly within the age window where criminal behavior is most frequent.

    Start with a city that Money magazine rated as “one of the 10 best places to live” in the United States: Ann Arbor, Mich. Home to a great university, the town has a population of about 113,300 - about 20,000 lower than our pre-surge troop numbers in Iraq.

    In 2005 (the last year for which statistics are available), that ideal place to live recorded 1,476 crimes that, if committed by a soldier, would have required a general court-martial - plus a further 2,282 thefts and similar infractions that, depending on the details, would have been handled by either a general or a special court-martial.

    Twelve months in Ann Arbor, 3,758 court-martial-equivalent trials. If all the crimes had been taken to court, which one doubts. Nineteen months in Iraq, under the complex stresses of combat? Fifty-nine court-martials. Guess that bastion of ethical liberalism in Michigan needs to go through basic training.

    But let’s give peace a chance: The most dogmatically left-wing city in the United States is undoubtedly (the People’s Republic of) Santa Cruz, Calif. With a population of some 55,000 - about a third of our current troop numbers in Iraq - Santa Cruz, where the Age of Aquarius reigns, had 503 violent crimes in 2004 (the latest statistics available) and a total of 3,665 crimes that would qualify for court-martials.

    Extrapolate those numbers to match our current troop strength, and you’d have a requirement for more than 10,000 court-martial equivalents. If Santa Cruz were as serious about punishing its criminals as our military is . . .

    The military doesn’t do warnings and probation. If a soldier does the crime, he or she will do the time or pay the other relevant penalty - court-martials directly reflect the number of crimes committed. That means that our troops in a combat zone have had less than 1 percent of the crime rate in Santa Cruz - whose City Council in 2003 was proud to be the first in the United States to adopt a resolution denouncing the war in Iraq.

    continued…

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/troops__crimes_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0

12. alphie Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 3:41 am

    Too funny, 4somepeoplesfuture,

    Ralph Peters?

    The Army gets to decide what is…and what isn’t…a crime in Iraq and Afghanistan…a rather unique situation, even for American troops.

    Check out this small sample of the 12,000 or so charges filed against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by civilians of those countries:

    “Claims filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife and sibling. [Redacted] was driving produce from his farm to the market when he was shot by Coalition Forces (CF). The CF stated that [Redacted] ‘demonstrated hostile intent by pulling into the middle of the convoy.’ Finding: not negligent.”

    “Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by his wife. [Redacted] was working as a guard at the Dep’t of Agriculture when a Coalition Forces (CF) convoy passed and shot and killed him. According to the wife’s statement, the CF ’started shooting randomly responding to the shooting.’ Finding: denied due to combat exemption.”

    “Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], a student, was standing in the doorway of his house with his brothers when he was struck by a stray bullet from Coalition Forces (CF) and anti-CF fighting. [Redacted] died in the hospital. Finding: denied due to combat exception.”

    http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/log.html

    When you can shoot people and get away with it, what is a “crime?”

13. The_Real_JeffS Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am

    The Army gets to decide what is…and what isn’t…a crime in Iraq and Afghanistan…a rather unique situation, even for American troops.

    Not a unique situation. This is always the case in a combat zone. Not that THE ALPHTARD™ will grasp the difference, of course, but I point this out for the intelligent people reading this thread.

    Using THE ALPHTARD™’s second example, an investigation was conducted, and the shooting was deemed as accidental. That’s what “stray bullet” means, although I have to wonder why people are always standing in the open when there is shooting near by. I’m guessing that’s part of the “combat exception” denial. In the first example, anyone behaving aggressively around a Coalition convoy in Iraq gets lit up. THE ALPHTARD™ may thank his jihad brothers and their use of suicide bombers for that.

    The only question here, posed by THE ALPHTARD™ and the ACLU*, is the impartiality of the investigation. Hmmmmmm…….jihad boy and the “American” Civil Liberties Union questioning the objectivity of anyone? Pot, meet kettle. Add in the fact that the US military actually does prosecute personnel for crimes, unlike all of the terrorists, which THE ALPHTARD™ and the “A”CLU completely ignore, and my irony meter just exploded!

    It’s also important to understand that, under the Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commanders have the authority to enforce non-judicial punishment (the infamous “Article 15″). I believe that an Article 15 is the equivalent of a misdemeanor charge, but my point is that such records are not made public (although they do stay in the records of the military personnel). Not all crimes committed in a combat zone are war crimes. Only the serious crimes (as defined by the military, who has the authority to do so) are handled by court martial.

    BTW, in cases where US forces are in a foreign country where there is no combat (e.g., Europe), something called a “Status Of Forces Agreement”. In those cases, the host nation generally has first say on prosecuting crimes involving their citizens. This is a practice of long standing, so it’s not like the US military is inexperienced in dealing with the criminal acts of military personnel against foreign citizens.

    ===============================

    *: I’m still shaking my head over the fact that the “A”CLU is concerned about other nations when Emperor McChimpy is busy passing such nasty legislation like the TSP and FISA, and stomping on rights here at home……what? Oh, the Democrat controlled Congress did that? Well, then, we really need the “A”CLU to stay home!!! “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”

    By the way, does the ACLU also track all the murders, rapes, and tortures committed by the terrorists? Without hitting Google…..I doubt it.

14. saltydog Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Yeah, but he supports the troops. He’s concerned about them. He wants them out of harm’s way and back home–where they will be disbanded and sent on their way, since we have no need for a military.

    Being a thorough collectivist, Alf cannot fathom that not all members of group are the same.

    And have you noticed that he’s changed his label for us from neo-cons to “faith-based”? He’s a silly little ant.

15. alphie Says:
    August 5th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    You guys are the ones who keep saying our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are just like our occupations of Germany and Japan.

    I’ll believe it when our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are subject to local laws, just like they are in…Germany and Japan.

16. Dave Surls Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 2:48 am

    “You guys are the ones who keep saying our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are just like our occupations of Germany and Japan.”

    Well, yeah, except we didn’t slaughter a million or so civilians first, like the liberal Dems did in WWII. That’s because GOP types are a lot more civilized than liberals.

17. Dave Surls Says:
    August 6th, 2007 at 2:52 am

    “Beauchamp”

    Speaking of uncivilized lefty types.

    Have they booted this lowlife out of the military yet?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.