Cole Post Shifts
John Cole, email exchange with Crittenden, 10-29-07, re Crittenden’s mockery* of Cole’s mockery of Crittenden’s mockery of Greenwald:
Actually, I am not a lefty …
John Cole, Juice Balloon, 10-31-07:
Say Hello to the Newest Member of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
That was fast! These are troubled times we live in, that challenge people’s core beliefs and sometimes cause them to reconsider their views and allegiances. I know I have. I haven’t read enough of Cole to have any deep thoughts on his journey except to note that, despite his protests to the contrary, he seems to have been there for a while. It isn’t quite the land speed record it would appear to be. Also, given his heavy reliance in his political commentary on terms such as “prick,” ”assholes,” “bitches” and phrases such as “whatever the fuck it is you are currently,” he should do well there.**
Welcome Balloonists! Come on in. That guy you’ve been hanging out with is a dolt but you’re welcome here. Welcome FDL! Someone teach Trex how to read, the big lizard’s a little behind the curve. And now we have incoming Sullivanites! Someone needs to give him the update, too, he’s three days behind the curve. Do these people actually read what they link to? Anyway, who would have thought Cole is ashamed of where he works? Or maybe, where he works is ashamed of him? Turns out mocking someone’s profession is a one-way street. Lefty on righty only.
As long as you’re here, let’s make it a learning moment. Here’s AP on the turnaround. It’s in Iraq, but who or what could possibly be turning around there? Here’s some Saud news. Caution, it may also challenge a couple of your most deeply held urban myths. But you’ll like this better. Which GOP campaign has a dirty little Hsecret?
Footnotes:
* full text of exchange:
Re: Juiced
Sent: Mon 10/29/07 12:06 AM
From: John ColeActually, I am not a lefty, and you and I corresponded in the past when the Army was being unfairly smeared for attacking an Italian army crew. You were at the time embedded with the 4/64 Armor.
On 10/28/07 j crittenden wrote:
I believe that calls for an “I know you are, but what am I?” Anyway, always glad to provide lefty readers a window into the meltdown. It’s so terrible … the melting.
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:14:16 -0400
From: jcole
To: jcrittenden
Subject: Re: JuicedActually, I added it at the end of another post then made it its own post, it was so absurd.
On 10/28/07, John Cole wrote:
Excellent!
On 10/28/07, j crittenden wrote:
FYI: your corrections are posting as pings, enhancing cleverness!
- Balloon Juice Says:
October 28th, 2007 at 9:39 pm e […] journamamamalist, attempts to cut Glenn down to size by attacking his websites art. And sadly, I am serious. If the right-wing meltdown continues any faster, I predict that by the end of the week, prominent […]- Balloon Juice Says:
October 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pm e […] Jules Crittenden, journamamamalist, attempts to cut Glenn down to size regarding the questionable (and if legit, wholly unprofessional) Col. Boylan emails by attacking Glenn’s website art. And sadly, I am serious. […]
Greenwaldian*** deconstruction: Readers will note that in the above exchange, although Cole is denying a leftward tilt and gratuitously citing mutual troop-support past, Crittenden didn’t actually apply the lefty smear to Cole. That was applied to Cole’s readers, to whom Cole was offering up Crittenden’s post as evidence of “right-wing meltdown.” Crittenden has a vague recollection of one or two email exchanges with Cole in the past, but Cole’s reference (”when the Army was being unfairly smeared for attacking an Italian army crew. You were at the time embedded with the 4/64 Armor”) appears to be a composite of events that were spread over a period of several years. Readers may also be interested to note that professional, widely disseminated bloggers in their personal exchanges are every bit as juvenile as they are on their blogs.
** Heavy reliance on profanity in political discourse could make an interesting case study … in an online education course at a communications department, for example. Does the heavy use of profanity in political discourse help or hinder communication of ideas? What does it tell you about the speaker, his state of mind and his thought process? Is it more likely to be an indicator of (a) strongly held beliefs, (b) derangement, or (c) poor vocabulary? Are readers likely to be more or less persuaded? How does the manner in which the heavy use of profanity in political discourse is received differ among readers of varying economic and educational backgrounds?
*** Please excuse the footnote to a footnote. Due to the ease with which Internet communications are manipulated, and the manner in which the Internet encourages imposters, sockpuppets, etc., the management cannot confirm that any of the people referenced in the above exchange (”j crittenden,” “John Cole,” “Glenn,” and “Col. Boylan”) actually are who they say they are.
UPDATE MCMLXX:
Cole invites me to keep writing “dumb things” but wants me to remove his email address and place of employment. I wasn’t aware either were big secrets, and not wanting to be an “asshole,” “prick” or “bitch” about it, I’ve done that. Though frankly I think the employment issue is somewhat relevant. I would however like to thank Cole for permission to keep the post up.
Cole, by the way, keeps suggesting I called him a lefty, and that I can’t tell the difference between a lefty and a non-Republican. In his case, I’m having an increasingly hard time, but as academics and journalists I believe it is important that we be accurate in what we write. So let me be clear:
I never actually called Cole a lefty. I called his readers lefties, then pointed out that two days after denying he was a lefty, he called himself a Democrat and a member of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Which apparently is different than being a lefty. I also noted that he “seems” to have been part of all that prior to self-identifying.
This may all be a big misunderstanding on my part. It’s possible that Cole is in fact some kind of conservative strangely infected with BDS, which we’ve observed presents in many ways like Tourette’s, and therefore he is not in control of what he is saying. That would make him politically ill. And that means I really ought to stop mocking him.
Topics: blogs
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:07 am on Thursday, November 1, 2007
65 Responses to “Cole Post Shifts”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:11 am
[...] Explained. [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 10:42 am
[...] am not sure what journanmamalist Jules Crittenden thinks he is proving here. I’m still not a lefty. I’m just not a Republican anymore. Deal with [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
He’s been tacking leftward for quite a while, mostly regarding Iraq and waterboarding. His first real point of departure was Abu Ghraib, which he insisted was some some of vast Rumsfeld-inspired conspiracy to abuse prisoners for no apparent reason, rather than a few miscreants getting their kicks abusing their power the way some prison guards always have.
Not sure where he stands on other issues, but I can see why he wouldn’t perceive himself as a lefty; he works in academia and as many have noted, his commenters tend to be frothing-left. So in his context, he’s probably the only one who doesn’t see Bush as worse than Hitler, which makes him centrist in relation those around him.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Wow. Aren’t you a sweetie, posting John’s email address (and not the contact one listed on his blog) and his employment information? Do you do that to everybody who disagrees with your viewpoints?
November 1st, 2007 at 11:08 am
Sweet Jules!
Can you publish his home address too? Perhaps followed up by a youtube video of you in a cheerleaders outfit?
Classy journalist you are.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
BDS changed the guy, or more likely reverted him to his true colors. Balloon Juice used to be a regular read for me, but when it lurched hard left into moonbat territory my visits declined to perhaps twice a year.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:31 am
I’m still not a lefty. I’m just not a Republican anymore.
I’m not a leftie, and I’m not a Republican. Indeed, I’ve never been one, officially or unofficially. Just like I’ve never been a Democrat. So I suppose that John and I have that much in common.
But I still think that John Cole is a left leaning, non-troop supporting bone head. Imagine that.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
RedKitten, Davebo, not that I agree or disagree with you, but please note that Jules posted his own e-mail address as well. Which implies that Jules might have done so by accident, perhaps by posting in haste.
Of course, I’m sure that neither of you has evah done something by accident. Picture perfect, first time, each and every time. Right?
November 1st, 2007 at 11:43 am
RealJeff,
Are you a Quartermaster? An Apache pilot? Or perhaps a Warthog pilot?
Because if not, you aren’t supporting the troops. It may make you feel good to believe you are supporting the troops, be it through magnets on your car or even a cash contribution to the USO, but trust me, you aren’t.
At a minumum, we can say that Cole was a troop (like myself) but I don’t think he hold’s any illusion that he supports the troops today. He, like most of us, simply isn’t in a position to do so.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’m not sure Boylan is our hero, here, Jules.
The best broadside I ever read in the TNR affair against MNF-I’s spokesman was penned by an officer fresh from Iraq during this dust-up on SWJ. It begins with some canned copy from SWJ’s editor, and then follows with the officer’s response.
An e-mail recieved today from Colonel Steve Boylan, MNF-I CG PAO. The subject line: The Issues with Beauchamp…
(There is) …a wide variety of opinions on the issue of PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp who wrote three articles for The New Republic. These have come to a head and is more time consuming for us on the ground with real issues to deal with than whether or not TNR should have run them, should they have had better fact checking, should they have granted him a pseudonym, etc.
It doesn’t matter anymore. An investigation was completed at the unit level and it was found that there was nobody that could support his claims. The young PVT has now decided at least for the time being from what I have been told, not to engage with the media whether they be traditional media or alternative media (blogs/online pubs, etc).
That is his right.
This has become a huge distraction for the unit and those above him. The issue has been taken care of within the unit as it should be. I ask that all that feel compelled to continue this discourse to STOP. Enough is enough. We have a lot more to worry about than what one young albeit perhaps wet behind the ears Private chooses to write about that turns out not to be very accurate and made its way into the online world of media. This should have never, never made it over to the main media and should stop.
In the end, the Army took care of it. Now let media (traditional/non-traditional) police their own, but leave us out of it. We should stop trying to distract a young kid who is in the middle of patrols, etc….he and we have a lot more to worry about.
Thanks,
Steve
Well said and spot-on. Time to leave well enough alone and let the warfighters get back to doing ‘what needs to be done’…
Which received this response:
I think, perhaps, the problem is more with COL Boylan than PVT Beauchamp. Why would I say this? Because at least PVT Beauchamp’s lies have a sense of the truth to them, whereas the colonel’s lies, perhaps more polished, have worn thin over the years.
For those of us who actually have served in combat in Iraq (sit down, Colonel, my second pair of boots saw more blood than you ever shall), the Beauchamp stories have a ring of truth to them. How many of us have witnessed incidents we believed to border on war crimes? How much asshattery did we notice that made a PFC wearing a skull or a SPC Brad driver with a dislike of canines seem quaint in comparison?
During all his days in Iraq, in various guises, LTC, then COL, Boylan was been there to service the gospel as proclaimed by Casey, Abizaid and Bremer.
Bon mots:
“Celebrate the daily milestones, the accomplishments they have secured and look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq and to the day that all of our troops return home to the heroes welcome they deserve.”
That was LTC Boylan in 2005, when most of us serving in Anbar began to believe the man was either unhinged or in the pay of lunatics.
My daily milestones? How about the 25 dead in my AO? The afternoon our medic had his throat shot off? The morning I opened up a burning 5-ton’s door and a severed leg fell on me?
Light at the end of the tunnel. Stepping down so they can step up. Fill in your euphemism for incompetence here.
The work that was being done by real men in battle was completed in spite of the Boylans of the military, under conditions that appeared to be more accurately rendered by the creative writing of the Beauchamp than all the MNF-I press releases compiled for proper wiping protocol.
I fault this blog — which has been so astute about the ongoing tactical and strategic problems in Iraq, many of which were framed for public consumption by Boylan and his staff in the years before the so-called “Surge” — for failing to notice the irony of COL Boylan speaking about the virtues of truth and the vices of fiction.
PVT Beauchamp’s sin might go to the fact that he’s “wet behind the ears.”
What was Boylan’s excuse?
Posted by SoldierNoLongerInIraq
November 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Are you a Quartermaster? An Apache pilot? Or perhaps a Warthog pilot?
Retired LTC, Engineers, US Army Reserve, with 27 years time in service, including one tour to CENTCOM (2005).
Prettty stupid non-sequitur that you spewed out, Davebo. Non-original and of the chickenhawk meme.
now, how about just dealing with the possibility that Jules made a simple mistake, and you made another by over reacting?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
RealJeff,
I certainly never called you a chickenhawk. Sad that you’d rush to that misconception. But as a retired LTC you better than most know that my statement regarding “supporting the troops” is ture.
And I didn’t overreact. Just pointed out the obvious. Thankfully Jules corrected his mistake so I don’t think he requires your valient defense anymore.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
[...] rat’s ass that I’m keeping, but if you’re a kerfuffle junkie, you might want to check this out. Posted by Dan Collins @ 3:48 pm | Trackback Share [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I certainly never called you a chickenhawk.
And I never said you did. But you implied that my opinion was worthless unless I was in the military, “Because if not, you aren’t supporting the troops“..That’s the “chickenhawk” meme, dude.
Sad that you’d rush to that misconception.
The only misconception is where you think I’m stupid enough to swallow your spin.
But as a retired LTC you better than most know that my statement regarding “supporting the troops” is ture.
I’m assuming that you mean “ture” as in “TRUE”, not as in “carouse”.
And, no, I don’t know that it’s true. Some of the best support that I ever got while on active duty was from…….civilians who never saw a day of military service. Imagine that! A veteran who thinks that the chickenhawk meme is crap.
Indeed, it’s merely a silly attempt to assume the moral high ground by claiming that only veterans and military personnel can “support the troops”, “support the war”, etc.
Too bad you don’t read much more than John Cole, else you would have seen this meme shot down everytime it’s brought up.
And I didn’t overreact. Just pointed out the obvious.
In a rather blunt and (IMHO) rude manner; me, I just sent him a private e-mail, through his “contact” link at top of the page. But that’s just the way I do thinkgs.
Thankfully Jules corrected his mistake so I don’t think he requires your valient defense anymore.
I just wanted to point out that you assumed the worst case, when in fact it might be due to a simple mistake. Or misunderstanding, as jules implies in that update. You know, looking for the root causes, and all that.
BTW, that’s spelled “valiant”. Not that I’m nitpicking or anything. No more than you used the chickenhawk meme as a non-sequitur to deflect the conversation.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
At a minumum, we can say that Cole was a troop (like myself) but I don’t think he hold’s any illusion that he supports the troops today. He, like most of us, simply isn’t in a position to do so.
Well, you’ve taken the usual lefty literal position on “supporting the troops” (including, I’ve noticed, how so many of you misuse apostrophes). But how about we say “supporting the troops” to most of us means not undermining them at home?
November 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Nicely said, Rebecca!
Alas, Davebo simply doesn’t support the troops, which I meant to comment on earlier:
He, like most of us, simply isn’t in a position to do so.
Which tells me that Davebo doesn’t support the troops, even though s/he claims veteran status. Because, y’know, it’s impossible, through some convoluted reasoning.
I’m guessing that this is a variation of the “chickenhawk” meme resulting from the “chickendove” meme.
See, if an anti-war person says that a war supporter has to be a veteran or member of the military to support the troops/GWOT/etc, it follows that the anti-war person has to be a terrorist or former terrorist to not support the troops/GWOT/etc.
Since the anti-war types are all talk and no action (except for making paper mache heads and signs to carry in safety), putting their tender hides in the way of danger, regardless of the cause, is simply off the table.
Therefore, no one can support the troops/GWOT/etc unless they are themselves a troop on active duty.
Which means, of course, that only terrorists can not support the troops/GWOT/etc.
Thus, NO ONE outside of the military and Al Queada can voice their support or non-support.
Which means that Davebo is talking out of turn.
/leftie psychobabble.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I’ve noticed it before, John Cole repeatedly makes some kind of big deal about leaving being a “Republican” behind.
Is this relevant on some planet somewhere ?
Does the heavy use of profanity in political discourse help or hinder communication of ideas?
Hinders
What does it tell you about the speaker, his state of mind and his thought process? Is it more likely to be an indicator of (a) strongly held beliefs, (b) derangement, or (c) poor vocabulary?
Mild (or not so mild) desperation.
Are readers likely to be more or less persuaded?
Less.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Jules,
OT:
Climate Change hit. Taking on Water:
WSJ link
IPCC Too Corrupt To Save
November 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
PVT Beauchamp’s sin might go to the fact that he’s “wet behind the ears.”
Beauchamp himself has fessed up to delusions of grandeur as…
“The Next Hemingway”
Whereas many marginal things happen in any war setting, Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s personal litany of happenings is not among them.
Attempts at rehabilitating the credibility of this single individual and his supporting publishing “organ”, The National Republic, should fall on completely deaf ears.
God, I’m sick of this crap.
(izzat profanity ?)
November 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I liked the ‘if you supported the troops, you’d make them surrender’ meme more than the ‘the only way to support the troops is with close air-support’ one.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
TRJS, I admit that I looked forward to your response to that snark. At least we know that this troop, if that is what he is or was, knows how to backpedal and equivocate. I’d say he has a future in politics!
So there are troops who say that their experience is such that they believe Beauchamp, and there are those whose experience says otherwise. Surprise! Different areas within a theater were and are different, rendering different experiences? Do they teach that in the academies?
Beauchamp behaved stupidly, and I’ve no doubt that he is paying for it. I hope he learns from his mistakes; he’ll live a miserable life if he doesn’t. Those who ought to have known better in the first place, have already made life miserable for themselves. John Cole is a miserable life. Is GG alive, or is he a sockpuppet?
November 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
The whole “support the troops/don’t support the troops”…
meme
Is yet another indication of the descent into puerility of the “thinking” of the American Mind.
Which descent into ignorance of the dialogue is more challenging to the survival of the democratic Republic than is Islamofascism.
(yes, I “support the troops” and $4+ million just raised for the MCLEF scholarship fund, which will be a great boon to the children of injured or deceased military service personnel, since over 99% of those charitable donations actually goes to the recipients, rare for “charitable giving”)
November 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
…Is yet another indication of the descent into puerility of the “thinking” of the American Mind.
I agree, tanstaafl. Which is why I view this as supporting the mission. Or not, in the case of Davebo.
TRJS, I admit that I looked forward to your response to that snark. At least we know that this troop, if that is what he is or was, knows how to backpedal and equivocate. I’d say he has a future in politics!
salty, I think it more likely that he has a future as a sockpuppet. Maybe GiGi’s arm is getting tired?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I believe the point the officer was making was that Beauchamp was a young man who was a Soldier and moonlighted as a little white lie fabulist for an unread journal, whereas Boylan professionally has honed the art of the big lies, ones he dutifully paraded out like so many circus animals during his service to MNF-I under its various guises.
The irony, I believe the author would say, is that the idiocies Col Boylan was spouting in 2004 and 2005 were the very artifacts of a failed strategy his current boss, Gen Petraeus, was sent to remedy.
In the end, it’s not about Beauchamp. It’s about the hypocrisy of Boylan, which was the point the author was making.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
He’s been tacking leftward for quite a while, mostly regarding Iraq and waterboarding. His first real point of departure was Abu Ghraib, which he insisted was some some of vast Rumsfeld-inspired conspiracy
TallDave, I don’t think that was it. Cole was reasoned about Abu Ghraib for a long time — taking Democrats to task over the Nazi comparisons, not wanting to blame big-name GOPpers until things were, you know, proved — until a couple of other events that turned him left.
He seemed disproportionally outraged about the Air Force “proselytizing” story and then driven to distraction by Terri Schiavo. After that, his blog got very silly and all the great right-leaning posters like yourself and Rick left, and horrible, sad noob-left commenters took over the place after Kos and DU linked Cole as a dissenter on Schiavo. Now, BJ is pretty much a cesspool of anti-intellectualism.
So I’d say it wasn’t his opposition to torture that turned John into a “Everything Bush Will Ever Do Is Bad” drone. It was his opposition to the Bushian Christian Conspiracy of the Air Force Dominionists! Or somesuch insane prattle.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
To the anit-war left, “support the troops” is a concept mostly rooted in its inherent class warfare meme. So, the troops they are talking about are mostly enlisted. There are exceptions to this of course: the young 1Lt the other year who refused to deploy, the female General officer in command of Abu Ghraib who got demoted and is now an administration critic, etc. But they prefer junior enlisted, because the senior enlisted are by and large merely brainwashed tools of the establishment and officers are clearly ot of bounds (”we support our troops when the kill their officers”). There are distinctions within the junior enlisted as well. Some or most are simply corn fed bloodthirsty red state buffoons and do not merit lefty support. The rest are either helpless victims (despite the fact there is no draft) or they are the thinking man’s wannabe Hemingways (Beauchamp): poor misplaced souls caught at the bottom of the abyss and smart enough to see with clarity the whole inhumane enterprise for the fraud it surely must be. They are the troops the caring and sharing set supports.
Of course all of these distinctions are meaningless if we are talking about either wars advocated by Democrat administrations or “Wars of National Liberation”, in which case all troops must be supported (as long as they are on the left side). Which may explain their bizarre affection for suicide bombers (Michael Moore’s “Minutemen”) and various rapacious civilian killing “freedom fighters”.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
The irony, I believe the author would say, is that the idiocies Col Boylan was spouting in 2004 and 2005 were the very artifacts of a failed strategy his current boss, Gen Petraeus, was sent to remedy.
Ummmmmm……Carl, I think you need to reconsider this statement. Knowing what I know about the Iraq troop rotation schedule and military assignments process (especially for senior field grade officers), I think it highly unlikely that COL Boylan was stationed at the HQ for MNF-I (in Camp Victory) from 2004 until now, as you imply.
Tours are generally 14-16 months for the Army, *including* processing time through Kuwait. COL Boylan may have been in Iraq for another tour in (say) 2004, which may or may not have been at MNF-I. It’s not impossible, of course, but the odds are against it.
My point being, your whole post seems to assume that COL Boylan has been the PAO chief for MNF-I for a long time. I seriously doubt that’s the case. In which case, I’d have to rely on the likelihood that COL Boylan has more time in service than Beauchamp has in school……and take him more seriously as a result.
Unless, of course, you have documentation of COL Boylan performing these duties and speaking these “idiocies”, given that he is in the PAO office, that should be easy for you to research and link to……since it’s your assertion, and not mine, I won’t be hitting the MNF-I web site to find out.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“…and officers are clearly out of bounds…”
Unless they are retired officers, VotC, whereupon they have oodles and oodles of credibility. Unless they are Rethuglican neco-con tools like me, whereupon I don’t support the troops because I’m “not in a position to do”.
The leftie mind, it boggles me.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Yeah, I’m a retired O-5 myself JeffS. Even though I had a fairly dangerous job (helicopter pilot) and in fact am quite lucky to be here, I’m apparently still some kind of fascist “chickenhawk” because I support our efforts to kill the worst people on earth before they kill us, but I am too old to go do it myself.
Well, if I have to be a member of a club, I can’t think of one I’d rather be in or people I’d rather be associated with! So I would say God bless you Army (but Go Navy!)
November 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I never said Boylan was spokesman for MNF-I in 2004, did I?
He was under Casey in 2005, when I was there. In 2004, Boylan was in OIF, too (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/23/iraq.main/index.html and http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_110504_Gear,00.html), but I don’t know how long because he also was senior PAO for 8th Army in Korea for part of that year, a tour that seems to have begun in 2002 and continued into 2003 (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/20/sprj.irq.korea/index.html and http://rokdrop.com/2007/10/30/former-8th-army-spokesman-in-middle-of-controversy/).
He was back in CONUS for much of 2006, then returned with Petraeus (http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/10/interview-with-col-steven-boylan-mnf-i.html) in December for the so-called “Surge.”
He’s completed what appears to be two tours in MNF-I for parts of 2004-2005 (http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=1239), a month of 2006, and much of 2007.
I don’t know if there are many officers who could say they were in OIF for at least parts of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007!
I might suggest that much of the what the officer discussed about the silken idiocies of Boylan in 2004, 2005 and a sliver of 2006 probably isn’t work the Colonel really admires, and he likely take on a staff like that belonging to Petraeus.
Now, I personally have absolutely nothing against Col Boylan. I’ve met him and he’s, personally, affable and competent. But I believe the officer posting on SWJ reflected the perspective of LTCs and below who viewed CMNF-I and his staff during the Sanchez and Casey years as increasingly out of touch with the reality in the field.
A cursory review of Col Boylan’s statements on behalf of CNMF-I during those years would support that, and indeed much of his current chief’s job is to change the dynamic that led to those misguided quotes.
The point made by the officer, it seems to me, is that Beauchamp’s white lies and exaggerations nevertheless seemed to ring true for someone with a great deal of combat experience in Iraq, whereas Boylan’s apriori pronouncements over the years increasingly rang hollow.
Not original, that, but well written, which is why I reposted it here.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
For some reason my comment isn’t printing.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Certain words trigger moderation of a post, Carl. It’s in the queue and Jules has the discretion to read it first before it’s posted.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
RealJeff et al (if that is indeed your real name?) ;0)
For someone who doesn’t claim to be called a chickenhawk you sure seem to use the phrase a lot.
So now I don’t support the troops, probably never really served, and want the US to lose.
Incredible really. All by repeating a line about supporting the troops originally written by, an active duty serviceman in Iraq! Oops, I obvioulsy meant to say phony troop. The loser probably donated to Ron Paul like all those other phonies in the military.
And really, you guys need to get over these “memes” because despite what you might think, there’s really nothing cultural about the discussion.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“Ummmmmm……Carl, I think you need to reconsider this statement.”
I went back and researched it (my originally comment, when sent, never seemed to make it through wordpress; you might need to fix that, Jules).
The skinny: Boylan was with 8th Army in ROK (getting stabbed, if I recall) in 2003-04, arrived at MNF-I in late 2004 and stayed through 2005, returned to CONUS for much of 2006, and then re-emerged as the spokesman of the so-called “Surge” in December of 2006 and has lasted at that post for much of 2007.
So he’s one of those unique officers who has been in OIF in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. And I thought my time there dragged!
The perspective of the officer who wrote that response to more Boylanisms in SWJ reflects, to me anyway, what has become a well documented divide between many of the LTCs and below who were in the field and the various staff members beholden to CMNF-I during the Sanchez and Casey years. Many of these combat officers began to believe Boylan’s cheerful words and breezy statements increasingly out of touch with the facts on the ground.
To put it mildly.
I, myself, recall Boylan’s sugary assurances during the 2005-06 Iraqi election cycle to have bordered on, well, insanity.
This was a gem others have discussed, too:
“There’s still a very good chance that they (insurgents) can do some spectacular events. But the situation does get better each day, all the time.”
March 24, 2005. Yep. I saw a lot of “spectacular” and “not so spectacular” events against my ass in the hot zone, good thing that the elections were, in the words of the spokesman, such a “turning point.”
But that was under Casey. While on the staff of Petraeus, he doesn’t seem to be sending nearly as many seemingly majnoon emails to bloggers he doesn’t like, and often pens essays (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22855) or speaks about issues in more complex ways than what used to be the norm.
And at least now no crazed Koreans are stabbing him for being the face of 8th Army in ROK.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Ok, how about this:
I support our troops and their mission. (No matter who the President is). I think their mission is noble and honorable. If for some reason I did not think that, no amount of political pressure or goodies from the public trough could make me think otherwise. I do not care how many disaffected privates or sour grapes generals disagree with me. While they may be operating in good faith, I think they are wrong. I don’t care if you ever served and it doesn’t matter if I did.
Is that devoid enough of cultural “memes” for ya?
November 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
As a civilian who’s never served but supports the mission in Iraq…
Bravo to all you who have sacrificed so much to pull off the upcoming total victory.
I always knew you could do it. I never lost faith in you. Likewise, I never lost faith in the American people. Even in the darkest days, when the media and the Dems were trumpeting failure at every turn, I knew–being a history major–that of all the wars we’ve fought, this one has suffered from the least mistakes of all.
There were no Tet Offensives, no Battles of the Bulge. Very few senior commanders were relieved because of incompetence. There were no training accidents that killed hundreds, no intelligence failures that killed thousands, no horrendously obsolete weapons or tactics that cost thousands of lives. There was no crisis in morale, either.
You’ve adapted into the most lethal anti-terrorist fighting force on the planet. Every time the enemy shifted tactics, you shifted, too, and you defeated him. You learned faster and more comprehensibly than in any other conflict.
You’ve faced the most demonic, inhumanly savage enemy in our history, men who had all the advantages in terms of media support, freedom from any rules of combat, initial support from the population, support from some of the most effective military-intelligence organizations in the world–yet you beat him. Without leveling entire cities, you defeated him.
You tuned out the stupid nattering back home, the posturing, sanctimony, self-righteousness, lies, spin, distortions, defeatism, cowardice, and you got the job done.
It’s a spectacular victory, and you did it voluntarily.
You’re much better people than most of us.
Thank you for your service and your victory.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“The loser probably donated to Ron Paul like all those other phonies in the military.”
This has been such a canard. It implies that because someone lists employment with a military agency such as DoD that 1) he or she is on active or reserve duty status and not, as is more often the case, retired; or 2) a civilian employee of DoD and NOT in uniform.
Also, the rules governing contributions to those seeking office are fairly restrictive. If someone is paid out of the federal treasury (such as the CINC), technically no officer on active duty can support him or her (which also removes a few incumbents) under 18 U.S.C. § 603 (although contributing to a party is acceptable).
No member of the military can make contributions to someone else affiliated with DoD (such as many of the reservists running for Congress in the previous cycle).
Those in uniform can’t even sell tickets or promote attendance at the next county Jefferson-Jackson or Lincoln rubber chicken dinners.
This is why most officers and senior enlisted simply avoid partisan politics altogether.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
So he’s one of those unique officers who has been in OIF in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. And I thought my time there dragged!
Thanks, Carl…..unique, indeed. When I was there through 2005 (in Kuwait, truth be told, where the time indeed did drag), CENTCOM was making people toe the line on limiting length of tours. I knew a couple who skirted that policy, although no where near as long as Boylan seems to have.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
And really, you guys need to get over these “memes” because despite what you might think, there’s really nothing cultural about the discussion.
Uh huh.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Oops! Sorry, Carl, I forgot to add, I see your point about Boylan. This I’ll have to think about.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
The_Real_JeffS Says:“Isee your point about Boylan. This I’ll have to think about.
I quote the above, not as a point made about the topic at hand, but to point out the difference between someone who is honest in discussing a point, and shows integrity and the proper methodology in his thinking, and those who come here to piss on whatever is being said. Pissers don’t actually “think about” much of anything. They merely repeat the script written by others because it makes them feel good. This type of person feels good, not because he has the confidence earned by honest inquiry and diligent thought, but because he likes to piss on that ability and that confidence.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Oh shoot. I didn’t close the italics. Does Andrea come here?
November 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I believe the point the officer was making was that Beauchamp was a young man who was a Soldier and moonlighted as a little white lie fabulist for an unread journal
Beauchamp is still a young man and (apparently) still a Soldier. An individual who willingly made up stuff that was pleasing to the editors at a reasonably well read publication.
His lies were despicable and if he’ll do this kind of stuff in his early 20’s(?) he’ll still be trying it in his early 40’s.
Can you say Jayson Blair, NYTimes fabulist ?
Beauchamp’s white lies and exaggerations nevertheless seemed to ring true for someone with a great deal of combat experience in Iraq, whereas Boylan’s apriori pronouncements over the years increasingly rang hollow
All kinds of things happen in war. But you don’t make them up out of whole cloth. Making up false scenarios and sending them for print is not “white lies and exaggerations”.
I know nothing of Boylan, but the comparison to Beauchamp seems specious.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I would agree completely. As an 11B in OIF, PVT Beauchamp has done far, far more for his nation in sacrifice than Col Boylan ever shall.
It most certainly would be specious to compare the two men. One risks his life daily in combat. The other writes press releases.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
It most certainly would be specious to compare the two men\.
The statement of comparison of Beauchamp and Boylan was a direct quote from Carl P.
Is Carl P II a different incarnation. ? :)
Both Carl P and his double Carl P II seem to want to give the dissembling crook, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, some kind of free ride.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
And, again, the most we can say about Beauchamp is that there is some dispute about his version of events outside a FOB. If he made them up, they still ring pretty true.
No matter how one might wish to polish this turd, it’s tragically callow, if not deliberately false:
“There’s still a very good chance that they (insurgents) can do some spectacular events. But the situation does get better each day, all the time.”
Again, Boylan in March of 2005.
He wasn’t alone as a roadie on the Dreamland Tour 03-05..
Francis Harvey, former Secretary of the Army before getting fired by SecDef Gates when he arrived to clean house, gave us this steaming pile of horsesh*t just days after Boylan dropped his:
“There are people — the people that I met are really, really dedicated to defeating this insurgency and getting on with the business of democracy and freedom and prosperity and economic development. So my limited exposure to Iraqi officials, I was very impressed with their courage. ”
Anyone here served a tour in Mosul since?
It really was nothing more than the same pablum ladled out by the gallon from SecDef Snowflake (”In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, Gen. (Tommy) Franks and his team are rooting them out. In short, the coalition is making good progress.”) — this from the man who believed the insurgencies weren’t forming into networks of more than 10 rebels.
Heck, in 2004 Rummie was calling Samarra a “model” in the counter-insurgency fight and, when it absolutely imploded in 2006, refused to see the dynamic as a civil war and said as much.
And I think that’s why I highlighted the officer’s words. Compared to Beauchamp, who’s lying?
Beauchamp’s words ring true, even if false. There’s nothing true about the words said above by Col Boylan, Secretary of the Army Harvey or his boss, Donald Rumsfeld.
If they weren’t intentional lies, they were just as destructive as ones that are. Beauchamp’s youthful jottings led to a battalion investigation and some files leaked to Drudge and a lot of shocked indignation amongst the milblogs (and crocodile tears amongst the anti-war bloggers).
But the lies — intentional or not — of Rumsfeld, Boylan and Harvey misled the public, dug a chasm between generations of officers and are little today but signposts of missed chances, incompetent strategies and wholesale disregard for the reality on the ground.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
We’re the same people. I was just having delays posting under the first name, so I switched to a second that seems to have eased the time constraints.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Both Carl P and his double Carl P II seem to want to give the dissembling crook, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, some kind of free ride.
That’s my problem as well, tanstaafl. I’ve known plenty of staff pukes who weren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell. While PAO types are in that category, not all of them are. Boylan may be a career staffer, but that doesn’t make him wrong.
OTOH, a young grunt (like, oh, say, Beauchamp) out there on the pointed end of the stick, but impugning atrocious behavior on his fellow soldiers just to score literary points later in life, well, that doesn’t make him right, either.
Ethics are a tricky game, and we have a fine example of ying & yang here.
In my case, I formed my opinion of Beauchamp long before Boylan came on the scene. IMHO, Boylan is not substantial to the discussion as a whole; in fact, he can be viewed as a distraction. An amusing one (assuming he was the guy who spanked GiGi), but still a distraction.
The subject is Beauchamp’s a$$hattery, plus TNR and their highly unethical conduct.
.
So I think I’ll just filter comments from/about Boylan out, a simple thing given that I never really worried about his thoughts in the first place.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I don’t see how Pvt Beauchamp got a “free ride.” Someone from the Army has leaked internal documents intentionally to shame him. Whoever did this also let the blogosphere know that the young man is receiving psychiatric care.
These are egregious leaks designed only to destroy the reputation of a young serving Soldier. Regardless of what one thinks of his literary efforts, he doesn’t seem to have violated the UCMJ in any major way, nor has he sought to remain in the public light as a martyr.
He likely continues to go outside the wire with his fellow Soldiers, his character demeaned.
I guess what bothers me is the thought that a PAO pogue is behind it. For all his faults in embellishment, Pvt Beauchamp was walking some serious walk. Who is some REMF to email Drudge internal files designed to intentionally harm him? And if he is undergoing psychiatric care, then how was the global release of that salient detail supposed to help him recover?
I don’t like the meme that purports to feature every Soldier as a “victim.” Hell, I’m going to bear the physical trauma of the last IED that got me for the rest of my life, and I would NEVER say I’m a victim. I’m very proud to have served.
But if there’s anyone who has been made a victim in the latest round of leaked internal files, it’s been Scott Beauchamp. For all his alleged sins, he didn’t deserve that.
Shame on the person in uniform who did it. And shame on anyone who says he “supports the troops” for condoning that.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Beauchamp …If he made them up, they still ring pretty true.
You know, that reminds me of a couple of other recent instances in reportage/journalism.
First of all, when Evan Thomas, Newsweek editor said about the Duke fiasco…
“The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”
And Dan Rather-ese for explaining the false “Bush” documents…
“Fake, but accurate.”
These are all very disturbing trends in journalism.
Anyway, you seem to personally have a BBB (Big Boylan Bee) in your bonnet.
Fine, your prerogative, but you should divorce any of that from discussion of Scott Beauchamp.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“OTOH, a young grunt (like, oh, say, Beauchamp) out there on the pointed end of the stick, but impugning atrocious behavior on his fellow soldiers just to score literary points later in life, well, that doesn’t make him right, either.”
If you wanted to hear about atrocious behavior of troops sometime, you should’ve come to some of the court martial proceedings we conducted in my battalion for, among other things, stealing property from Iraqis, spreading VD to other Soldiers and detainee mistreatment — not to mention the documented violations of ROE, the “bad shoots” we discussed in our AAs, the innocents who got shot up, the guys we had to start keeping inside the wire because we feared they were sociopaths.
Have I now dishonored my battalion for saying what is obvious to pretty much anyone who has served in an infantry unit in OIF?
I guess that kind of bothered about the Beauchamp affair, too. A lot that he was writing was actually pretty tame compared to some stuff that officer featured above and I saw. We just didn’t write it up in TNR. If we had, would anyone question what we experienced?
I don’t much like the “chickenhawk” argument either, but it struck me as a bit hypocritical for so many bloggers and staffers at certain DC-based conservative publications who never had the balls to put on a uniform themselves to start deciding what sounded fishy and what didn’t.
How would they know?
November 1st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I don’t see how Pvt Beauchamp got a “free ride.”
My statement was that you seem to want to give him a free ride, as in make excuses for him, diminish the impact of his acts etc.
Dinnertime here, BBL.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
But if there’s anyone who has been made a victim in the latest round of leaked internal files, it’s been Scott Beauchamp. For all his alleged sins, he didn’t deserve that.
Carl, I was pretty surprised to see them posted openly on the INTERNET. I assumed (initially, and wrongly) that someone had gone through FOIA to get them.
While Beauchamp inserted his d**k into the meat grinder willingly at first, I think that he understands that he made a mistake and tried to disengage. I’m not convinced he understands why that was a mistake (my impression from reading the transcripts, plus his initial foray into fabulism), but he at least tried to shut things down when he discovered his errors. For that, I will give him plenty of credit.
But life ain’t fair, and this isn’t going away soon, in no small part thanks to TNR. Who, quite frankly, are doing Beauchamp a disservice by not owning up to the facts. Closure requires action on the parts of ALL parties. Let’s keep that fact in mind.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
it struck me as a bit hypocritical for so many bloggers and staffers at certain DC-based conservative publications who never had the balls to put on a uniform themselves to start deciding what sounded fishy and what didn’t.
When someone hands you a nice steamy turd and claims its a rose, you don’t need a degree in horticulture to suspct its not a rose.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
If you wanted to hear about atrocious behavior of troops sometime, you should’ve come to some of the court martial proceedings we conducted in my battalion for, among other things, stealing property from Iraqis, spreading VD to other Soldiers and detainee mistreatment — not to mention the documented violations of ROE, the “bad shoots” we discussed in our AAs, the innocents who got shot up, the guys we had to start keeping inside the wire because we feared they were sociopaths.
Carl, if you want to go for a game of one upmanship on who had the most repugnant criminal acts in their unit, we could go on all day. I remember the time when a first sergeant shot another NCO dead on the floor of a dance hall, in full sight of every single senior NCO on the kaserne, for reasons that I won’t discuss.
Or we could discuss the crimes that took place in and around my base, ranging from rape to robbery to assault. None of which has to do with this discussion. Every unit has their bad apples. And their good apples. And some apples, if you pardon my stretching the analogy, who have their bad sides, but are still good otherwise.
Beauchamp is one of those in between apples. In part, this is his fault, because he penned the words. No one coerced him. He wouldn’t back up TNR, which is a credit to him. But he wanted to be another Hemingway, and sort of forgot that not all publicity is good. He stained himself, and gets to live with that for the rest of his life.
Whoever released those documents shouldn’t have, but TNR had at least one of them in their hands weeks ago — the transcripts (which appear not to be FOUO material…..AFAIK). Those alone could have taken some of the heat off of Beauchamp, but TNR sat on them.
Let’s keep in mind that this is not black and white, as nice as that would be.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
You write very well Carl and articulately.
I just don’t happen to see things the same way.
Hell, I’m going to bear the physical trauma of the last IED that got me for the rest of my life, and I would NEVER say I’m a victim. I’m very proud to have served.
I’m very sorry to hear this happened . I think the IED/EFP is an extremely below board, dirty pool form of warfare.
Not to mention other unspeakable atrocities perpetrated by this enemy.
I know this might lead into a very long rebuttal of American perpetrated atrocities, but you will never find me able to equate “our” warfare with things like the intentional slaughter of Iraqi civilians perpetrated by AQ in Iraq and their sympathizers.
Buenas noches, take care.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden Vs. John Cole [Print This Post] [permalink] [Trackback URI] [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
[...] Called Conservative Democrats 2 11 2007 I’ve was reading the little blogrow between Jules Crittenden and John Cole overnight. To be honest, I don’t read Balloon Juice as often as I used to, [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
If he made them up, they still ring pretty true.
This is called the “Fake But Accurate” defense, in case you didn’t know.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
If he made them up, they still ring pretty true.
Only to those without a clue.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 am
“Fake but accurate” does not justify what Beauchamp did. Neither does anything anyone else did. This was an act by a frivolous, thoughtless young man. He slandered his fellow troops. Regardless of what others may or may not have done, those in his unit did not do what he said.
I do not see anything in this that constitutes a moral gray area. Anyone who engages in unjust or unsanctioned actions in a war zone ought to face charges, and by all accounts, they have. That is as it ought to be. How does that fact make the charges Beauchamp made against some in his unit just? It doesn’t, not in any way, shape or form. The actions of one individual do not apply to any other individual.
I grew up listening to my dad and his mates (I’m a Navy brat), as they sat around our kitchen table, discussing the various morons, brown-nosers, liars, those just-plain-too-stupid-to-live, petty tyrants, etal, on a weekly basis. I’ve had those conversations myself. It is odd to have them take place in front of civilians, so to speak. Most civilians don’t think of the military as a branch of the government, with the requisite bureaucracy and all that implies. They see the fighting men, not the bean counters, PR folks, JAG officers, and all the rest whose job isn’t on the front line–and who makes up the balk of military personnel.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
Who in the hell is John Cole? I read most of this thinking it was about Juan Cole.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
“Anyone who engages in unjust or unsanctioned actions in a war zone ought to face charges, and by all accounts, they have.”
Oh, come on!
“Only to those without a clue.”
Tell us about your experience in combat in OIF. It would come as some surprise to anyone in a rifle company to NOT experience some of the abject stupidity fictionalized (probably) by Beauchamp.
It’s not a parade ground. It’s combat.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
It would come as some surprise to anyone in a rifle company to NOT experience some of the abject stupidity fictionalized (probably) by Beauchamp.
Carl, the “Fake But Accurate” mantra is not something to endorse. And has nothing to do with parade grounds or battle fields. It has to do with people accepting fiction as reality because it fits their belief system. Which that puts their belief system into question. Serious question.
OTOH, if you have witnessed “abject stupidity” similar to what Beauchamp “probably” fictionalized, you ought to bring that up. Especially if they were actionable under UCMJ, as some of the tales that Beauchamp spun were. And especially since the Army took them seriously enough to investigate.
Unless, of course, you witnessed simple human stupidity in action, the sort of thing one sees in many places, but are amplified in a combat zone, due to the margin of error getting shaved to nearly zero. In which case, you have my sympathies…..but there’/s little else to do about them, until science somehow cures stupidity.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 am
Sir,
You are making a mockery of mockery.
I like that.