Michael Yon on the Scott Beauchamp story, and redemption:
As the real story unfolded, The New Republic looked increasingly culpable and ridiculous trying to hide behind a fact-checking process that was clearly stuck on the difference between fact and fabrication. In the lingering spotlight, no one seemed to appreciate the soft shoe.
It was not a story I followed closely because then–as now–I was focused on the war. But what struck me as most important was not that Beauchamp wrote some bad combat stress fiction, but that a media organization printed it as truth.
And what of Beauchamp? Because he was the man who originally wrote the lurid overwrought fable of puppy-killing among the grave-desecrating cretins who made fun of a woman disfigured by bombs, the tepid outcome left many people unhappy. Especially those who wanted to see him humiliated (he has been plenty humiliated.) Beauchamp was allowed to stay in the Army and suffered only a minor administrative setback.
I was at a reconciliation meeting between Sunni and Shia in the West Rashid district of Baghdad on 24 October, and it happened by complete coincidence that I was with Beauchamp’s battalion. In fact, I was with his old company commander for much of the day, although I had no idea for most of it that I was with Beauchamp’s old company commander.
At the reconciliation meeting, Beauchamp’s battalion commander, LTC George Glaze, politely introduced himself and asked who I wrote for. When I replied that I just have a little blog, the word caught his ears and he mentioned Beauchamp, who I acknowledged having heard something about. LTC Glaze seemed protective of Beauchamp, despite how the young soldier had maligned his fellow soldiers. In fact, the commander said Beauchamp, having learned his lesson, was given the chance to leave or stay.
It can be pretty tough over here. The soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit have seen a lot of combat. Often times soldiers are working in long stretches of urban guerrilla combat dogged by fatigue and sleep deprivation. This is likely one of the most stressful jobs in the world, especially when millions of people are screaming at you for failures that happened three years or more ago, and for decisions to invade Iraq that were made when you were still a teenager. Just as bad is the silence from the untold millions who have already written off your effort as hopeless. Add that to the fact that buddies are getting killed in front of you. (More than 70 killed in Beauchamp’s brigade.) I see what these young men and women go through, and the extraordinary professionalism they nearly always manage to exude awes me on a daily basis.
Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake.
Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.
The commander said I was welcome to talk with Beauchamp, but clearly he did not want anyone else coming at his soldier. LTC Glaze told me that at least one blog had even called for Beauchamp to be killed, which seems rather extreme even on a very bad day. LTC Glaze wants to keep Beauchamp, and hopes folks will let it rest. I’m with LTC Glaze on this: it’s time to let Beauchamp get back to the war. The young soldier learned his lessons. He paid enough to earn his second chance that he must know he will never get a third.
Though Beauchamp is close, I’m not going to spend half a day tracking him down when just this morning I woke to rockets launching from nearby and landing on an American base. Who has time to skin Beauchamp? We need him on his post and focused.
As for The New Republic, some on the staff may feel like they’ve been hounded and treed, but it’s hard to feel the same sympathy for a group of cowards who won’t fess up and can’t face the scorn of American combat soldiers who were injured by their collective lapse of judgment. It’s up to their readers to decide the ultimate fate.
The New Republic treed like a bandit … personally, I think they would make a nice Daniel Boone hat.
And he is 100% right. You can count me as being in the “skin Beauchamp” camp but after reading Yon’s usual clearheaded thinking I believe the man IS trying to make it right. While I don’t doubt he wrote the lies because he is against the war and wanted the people back home to believe it was Vietnam all over again while at the same time he wanted to become the next “Hemingway” but once caught he apparently made good. He stayed with his comrades, he took their punishment like a man and faced the piper, and for that I hope he is forgiven.
Of course all this may be different if Foer’s statement last night is true:
Despite the contentious conversation, Foer continued to defend the
article days later. He did so again yesterday, reiterating that other soldiers
whom the magazine would not identify had confirmed the allegations.While Beauchamp “didn’t stand by his stories in that conversation, he didn’t
recant his stories,” Foer said in an interview. “He obviously was under
considerable duress during that conversation, with his commanding officer in the
room with him.”While the discussion “was extremely frustrating and engendered doubts,” Foer
said, Beauchamp defended his story in a subsequent conversation that was
conducted with no superiors present.
If he did in fact decide to defend the lies then all that I have written can be thrown out the window.
But so far we have learned much on Foer and TNR. They cannot be trusted and as Michael Yon said, are the ones who deserve to be treed.
No one has even addressed the story at The Plank,
TNR’s staff blog. No one, from Martin Peretz on down, has bothered to give an
explanation for the transcript in which Foer threatened Beauchamp with his
wife’s job if he recanted, or the named soldiers in the Army report who denied
Beauchamp’s claims. All Foer can do is to argue — through Kurtz — that he has
verified the stories with anonymous sources.I find it hilariously ironic that Foer refuses to defend himself and TNR in
his own magazine, but instead goes whining to Howard Kurtz — at the newspaper
that he demanded Beauchamp refuse to engage. I wonder why Kurtz didn’t ask him
about that, and ask Foer why he was talking to the Post when he didn’t want
Beauchamp to do so. Foer’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Bryan at Hot Air:
The phone call in which Scott Thomas Beauchamp delivers the Mother of All No Comments, thereby refusing to stand by his own work for TNR, took place on September 7, 2007. So from that date forward, Foer has had a piece of knowledge in his head that he has refused to divulge publicly; namely, that when pressed, Beauchamp did not stand by his stories. But what did Foer’s TNR say after September 7, 2007?
Nothing.
Go back to what Foer’s TNR said on July 26, 2007.
Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail. This process takes considerable time, as the primary subjects are on another continent, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we’ve found nothing to disprove the facts in the article; we will release the full results of our search when it is completed.
Look at that last line again. Did TNR release the full results of its search when it was completed? I suppose they could argue that it wasn’t completed even as of today, but once they knew that Beauchamp no longer stood by his stories, they had all they needed to know. They knew that on September 7.
And they sat on it.
Foer was a party to the call. He didn’t have to wait for the Army to do a thing, and in fact owed it to his readers and his employers, one of whom was also a party to the call, to come clean. He didn’t.
And there’s another lie in that same paragraph. If the original article had been fact-checked at all, it wouldn’t have been run because the facts would not have checked out. So there’s lie #3. Their re-reporting evidently amounted to asking one of Beauchamp’s mates enough questions to get vague confirmations that have turned out to be false, and to ask misleading questions of a subject-matter expert to skew his findings toward an angle that benefited TNR. Lies 4 and 5.
And there’s one more: TNR has consistently accused the Army of keeping Beauchamp from talking to them. He’s been free to talk to them since August 6. Lie #6. They were the ones who told him not to talk to media. It’s right there in the transcript that Foer evidently never intended to see the light of day.
Now, compare and contrast all of this to the last scandal to hit the conservative yin to The New Republic’s yang, National Review Online. In March 2006, when NRO became aware that they had published many pieces written by a man who was being accused of plagiarism, they investigated. They didn’t attack the critics. They went through all of the accused’s articles and checked them for evidence of plagiarism, and when they found that he was guilty, they acknowledged their errors and apologized. National Review handled that scandal exactly as it should have been handled. Their example should have served to guide NRO’s friends at TNR during the Beauchamp scandal. But it obviously didn’t.
And their digging that hole even deeper for themselves. Maybe they think this whole thing will blow over, at this point I can’t imagine what they are thinking by refusing to acknowledge that the gig is up.
I guess it all comes down to the usual leftist drivel. “Sure, the story may be fraudulent, but the lie tells a bigger truth about the evil war perpetrated by Bushitler so its ok to keep the lie going.”
Makes sense right?
See author page
Curt,
I agree with Yon and yourself. I wanted the PVT’s blood when this happened too.
However, his BC says the punishment is complete ant the Soldier (now with a large S) chose to stay in Iraq and make ammends. A LTC, US Army, COMMANDING stated that the punishment is complete and his Soldier is doing the right thing. That is all I need to know. This kid wanted to have his 15 minutes of fame, got his 15 minutes of infamy, paid for it, and is apparently now working to make things right. When UCMJ is complete, the slate is cleared.
Curt knows why I put “commanding” in caps. I wonder if the trolls know?
ON THE OTHER HAND….
The New Republic (or is the “The New Soviet Republic”?) gets nothing but scorn and contempt from me for their lies, willful obvuscation of the investigation, continued attacks against honest criticism, and their threats against PVT Beauchamp.
Well said Curt. Our judgment and opining is only as good as the information we come by, filtered through the quality of our own set of beliefs. And sometimes the information we get is incomplete, and we don’t have the “full story” to pass fair judgment.
NO!
At first, after reading Yon’s description and his commander’s description, I agreed, but no longer. The damage done by this soldier is not limited to his small unit, his company, or even his battalion. He has disgraced the entire United States Armed services, disgraced those who are working hard to make things in Iraq succeed, and he’s deliberately tried to undermine the nation’s war effort. Absolutely NOTHING shy of equivocal apologies and mea culpa will suffice. I’m sorry, but this guy could go out and get blown away, and sad as it would be, he would not have come close to repairing the damage he’s done. By comparison, if the NYT has a full page ad denouncing an American soldier to make a political jab at the President, then I think the NYT would have to apologize on a full page ad, in the same size type, and on the same page. My namesake has not, will not, and doesn’t care to try to make a quid pro quo effort. Until he repairs the damage he’s done with his lies, I am not at all warm and fuzzy over his efforts to kiss ass to a few people after influencing tens of millions with lies.
From this distance we just can’t judge Beauchamp. How much did TNR rewrite his stories? What was the influence of his wife (no longer with TNR)? Maybe one or both encouraged him to include examples of rumors, which were then turned into the main thrust. After seeing ABC edit comments on their blog to change meaning and intent I could believe it.
What were the conditions for him leaving his unit, a dishonorable discharge?
I’m not saying any of those occurred, just that a small effect on any one of those aspects would have a large effect on my judgment of Beauchamp. Which probably means there are other aspects I’m unaware of that could also greatly affect the assessment. Too much distance in time and space. The same conditions TNR took advantage of.
Only time will tell, and it probably won’t.
As an aside, reading the excerpts on Snapping Turtle post made something plain. “(unintelligible)” from Foer means &%*#, probably heartfelt. Well excerpted Snapping Turtle.
No plaigerism in this story.
And, according to Mark Steyn, (who knows the Asper Family. The family that owns TNR), he tells that Franklin Foer is 31 years old. And, has been at TNR since he graduated college. He’s been in ONLY this one work environment. He knows of no other. And, he’s under threat.
I’m not a psychologist, or anything like that. But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Foer’s gone “catatonic.” Sort’a the way Nixon looked and felt. At the end. When there’s nothing you can do but lose your reputation. And, leave.
Who’d be in a rush to do that?
Given, as I said, that the Asper’s are referred to by Steyn “as family” … And, this stuff hurts like the devil. They’ve got a guy on their hands. Who climbed to the top in a very short period of time. But he knows no other work environment. Who’d want to push him out the window?
War is hell.
And, if you go back in history, you’d find that Ulysses S. Grant suffered from Haleck. Who accused Grant of being a terrible general. While the failure? That was Halleck’s.
And, our military doesn’t even learn of the distortions until the BRITISH begin examining the Civil War battle fields; recognizing Ulysses S. Grant for the genius he is.
Here? You’d have to read FULLER.
Human behaviors, especially when you’ve got hacks on your hands; tends to be very poisonous.
Maybe, there’s something else to learn, here?
That lots of people who support the troops, cannot fathom why Bush gives so much credence to the saud’s. As if we’re in Irak, to get them “something.”
It’s a mess.
What we’ve been doing, hasn’t produced heroes Americans are impressed with. Or you’d see a sunni name, or a shi’a name, or a kurdish name; ranking high as “brave.” And, a character Americans could identify with …
There’s so much stuff UNSPOKEN. It’s not even just Foer.
And, he gets destroyed.
But no one will benefit.
At least Michael Yon has added to Beuachamp’s side of things.
Perhaps? Some day, he will explain why he risked the lives of the very people he knew?
Well, what about office politics?
You trust everyone around ya?
The military, here, will come off fine.
Beauchamp couldn’t get out from under what was going on at TNR. As Foer flexed his muscle.
But if you told me Drudge got to see the papers, with the help of Beauchamp’s lawyer, I wouldn’t be surprised!
Beauchamp, it seems, knew he wasn’t gonna get a fair shake at the WaPo. Or Newsweak. Or from Foer.
I’d also bet he never expected a piece for TNR to blow up like this!
The Net’s funny, in what it notices.
Those are good points, but if his point was distorted, he’s CLEARLY had the opportunity to clear the record. A simple email to any number of a zillion sites on the web would do the job. No. This guy tried to make a distortion, he was part of it, got caught, regretted it-sorta, and now only sorta wants to correct the record…oh wait. No. He doesn’t. He just wants it to go away-not be correct, just ignored.
Apologies and penance efforts should match the sin in quantity or quality or both.
He’s not asking for forgiveness, or trying to be clear. He wants us to pretend he didn’t do anything, but he did. He needs to make amends.
Where does one draw the line?
If he makes good with his 2, 3, or 4 best friends, is that the end of it?
How about his platoon?
How about his company, his battalion?
At what point has he made an effort to repair the damage he’s done? Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword because it can do more damage. The war in Iraq drags on and on not because of people fighting it, but because the enemy still sees hope in forcing a politically-driven rout. He was part of the effort to support that, and if the war dragged on for 1 minute longer because of that, then he’s gotta work to make it end 1 minute faster by saying clearly and very publicly that he was wrong, or that he was manipulated, or that he was stupid. Saying you’re sorry to 2,3, 4, 30, 200, 800 people doesn’t cut it when hit comments had an effect on 10,000,000’s of people and were inspiration for the enemy’s hope in a politically-driven rout.
Scott, what you say makes alot of sense. I guess I shouldn’t say he will get forgiven, more like he is on the right path to redemption but your right….he needs to apologize completely before that is given.
definitely on the right path….but stopped about 99 yards shy of the end zone imo. All throughout those transcripts he’s given chance after chance to apologize, and make clear that
1) he was wrong
2) he was stupid
3) he was misinterpreted/used
Instead of any of those three, he balks, and asks not for forgiveness, but for ignorance; please ignore what he’s said.
I thought the three components of an apology listed in the Rep Stark apology section were really good, but Stark only made one raving lunatic comment, and at least said, “I apologize” Something’s better than nothing in his case. In Scott’s…nada.
I dunno if it’s because my wife may have totalled our brand new car that I’m so po’d, or if it’s the entire disinformation and deliberate division of the nation and the world on the part of people like Scott, like TNR, like Howard Dean, Pelosi, Biden, and hundreds of thousands of others who still rant on about Bush lied, illegal war, no wmd, no ties to AQ, AQI’s not really AQ, just cut and run and things will be better, etc. There is a massive disinformation campaign that’s been going on for years now. It should have stopped on 911, but instead we had people who were so frustrated at a string of political defeats and embarrassments, plus some people who were straight up terrified by terrorism, plus some people who don’t give a falling star or a bleeding stripe about this country as much as they do their own professional political playground in DC…add all that up, and we’ve got a buzzillion Scott Beauchamps out there who feel it’s perfectly ok to say anything and do anything without consequence.
But there are consequences.
You canNOT deter a dictator or a terrorist or leaders of nations that support them…by opposing their removal, by opposing efforts to combat them. Evil exists, yet the Scott Beauchamps of America and the world want to pretend it exists in “Chimpy” or “Shrub” or that the entire war on terror doesn’t exist.
Pelosi tells us that the war in Iraq’s a situation
Reid says the situation is lost on the eve of an offensive
Biden tells us that Al Queda in Iraq’s different from Al Queda despite all evidence to the contrary.
Kennedy and limitless others claim there was no WMD threat despite 1000 page report detailing it
Albright, H Clinton, even Powell tell us Iraq was a war of choice, but the pics from that same 1000+ page Deulfer report show there was no other choice (inspections weren’t/couldn’t work)
Edwards tells us that there is no war on terror-just a bumper sticker, yet he doesn’t explain why it’s on NYC firetrucks and police cars
Scott Beauchamp is a cog in the wheel, but the wheel ain’t gonna stop until one by one the spokes stop turning. One by one people need to be reminded that there’s a death cult of hundreds of thousands of Islamic Holy Warriors out there aiming to kill us, to imprison/enslave our women, and to make my little girl wear a bhurka.
no
NO!
I say they can have my bratwurst when they pry it from my cold dead fingers (made cold by the alcoholic BEER my hand held as well).
I’m tired of these misled, misleading morons. They know the reality. Scott Beauchamp knows the reality. He sees it, and he knows it, and that’s why he’s back there. It’s why he’s ashamed to admit how stupid his comments were. It’s why he and the rest of the Democratic Party base is in a state of shock, awe, and apathy. They can see they were misled by their leaders, but facing it…well, facing it is as hard as it is for Scott Beauchamp to tell the world he was one of the misleaders.
Let’s face it, no one LIKES war. Whether it’s the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, the war at sea, intelligence operations, etc. No one likes it, but the people who are most adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are generally not motivated by peace. They’re motivated by political alienation, dissatisfaction, fear, and the catalyst that is BDS.
If they REALLY wanted to prevent war and save Americans, they’d go to Iraq to protest in neon pink, or they’d at least march in front of the Iranian embassy with signs about EFPs. No, they never march against the terrorists, but they’ve got no problem carrying signs repeating the terrorists casus belli and their objectives.
I’ll believe Beauchamp’s “sorry” when he apologizes and tells the world he was either
1) he was wrong
2) he was stupid
3) he was misinterpreted/used
and I’ve the EXACT same sentiments for all of the Democratic Presidential nominees, all of the senior senators and House reps, the DNC leadership, the leading protesters/advocats of American defeat and Iraqi genocide, and in particular…the Maple Syrup King and global jihad expert Gov Howard Dean who started all of this in May of 2002.
Correction, the car’s not totaled (yet). Just up to $6300+ so far, but their gonna pull out all the seats and floor to check the frame, exhaust and drive train. If the car that hit the backside did go under as it looks, and if we can get another $5000+ then it’s totaled.
Yeah, a little fired up-sorry
But I don’t think the comments were
wrong
stoopiidid
or misleading
Paulbots are sure to differ
It sounds like Beauchamp has grown up a bit. He may have a ways to go, but he’s made a start. The Marines will do that to a young man.
Scott, I understand where you’re coming from and I’m not going to say you’re wrong, but some mistakes can’t be reversed and still need to be let go.
If the marines succeed in making Beauchamp into a man, he’ll _want_ to apologize – but at the same time, what difference will that apology make? If there’s harm done, it’s done. There’s no way to stuff the feathers back into the pillow once it’s been cut open. What you want may be impossible, but if he stays and finishes what he’s started, maybe that’s the best he can do.
I dunno suek. I mean, if they’re making a man out of him, then why doesn’t he apologize? And as to putting feathers back on, I think that a lot can be done from an apology-something the transcript clearly shows he wants to avoid. Besides, isn’t admitting one has a problem or made a mistake the first step towards correcting it? And if all mistakes were treated as, no-point-in-trying-to-fix-it, then would anything ever get corrected?
>>…if they’re making a man out of him, then why doesn’t he apologize?>>
Present imperfect tense…job not yet completed.
Has Scott Thomas Beauchamp given something in writing that he will not go out and recant this whole non-apology once he leaves the military? If not, then no, I will not let this guy off the hook.
The reason that most of us are so upset over this is because, as Scott said, his made-up stories smeared the entire military and undermined the entire war effort. And now we are supposed to just say, oh no problem, as you were.
What is to stop someone from doing this again? What is to stop what many of us believe will happen when he leaves the military and then becomes a lefty hero and claims that everything he said was true, he was just pressured by the military and then comes out with some full blown expose of all the horrible things the military has done in Iraq in some NYT Best-Seller?
This strikes me as “hey, we need this guy to win the war, so we are not going to punish him as we should”. Just wonderful. So now anyone can smear their fellow soldiers and undermine the entire mission with enemy propaganda and lies and get away with it.
This is absolutely unacceptable. Just like the Democrats and the Left have gotten away with borderline treason and lies and smears for the past 4 years.
I don’t really care about an apology from this scumbag. To me that’s like saying so long as he apologizes, I can forgive him for raping my sister. No effin way.
This stuff needs to be punished to the full extent. Publicly. We are in a major propaganda war and he is not the first and now won’t be the last to try to destroy the war effort from within the military.
I respect Michael Yon immensely, but I disagree with him and the others here taking his stand.
Michael in MI again here (not sure why I show up Anonymous)
I’m still baffled by this. If I wrote some bullshiite stories about my company, smearing my fellow coworkers and the company for which I work, I would be FIRED. My arse would be GONE. No apology would save my hide.
Why the different standard here? Me writing stories about my company is a lot less harmful to the world than what Scott Thomas Beauchamp did. Yet he keeps his job and we are supposed to all be ‘awwwwww it’s okay, he’s finding redemption now.’
I’m sorry. I call bullshiite. And the military is setting a HORRIBLE precedent and standard for the punishment of soldiers who do this. And Michael Yon and others forget it was bloggers back here in the United States, who support the military, who debunked this arsehole on his bullshiite. Without them, the military would have a huge scandal on their hands. And this is the thanks they get? Thanks bloggers for finding a scumbag among us, but hey, cut him some slack, he’s finding redemption now. WTF? Why bother helping the military with their propaganda problems then if they don’t get a rats rear end?
I’ve changed your “posted by” to Michael in MI. Are you filling out the name, email addy and url when you post?
Curt – It says I am signed in, but then when I post it shows me as anonymous. I didn’t have that issue at work or on my Mozilla here at home. It happened though when I was posting through my AOL internet connection. So that was probably it. No big deal. Thanks for fixing that though.
I’ve changed the comments a bit since people were having a hard time commenting. Now you may need to input your name and info instead of signing in.
Curt – I have reading many people around the blogs and milblogs urging people to cut Beauchamp some slack, because he supposedly has learned his lesson and instead of agreeing to a dishonorable discharge, is being a man and staying in Iraq. So, for that, we are supposed to give him major kudos.
Well, with regards to the dishonorable discharge, do military members who are dishonorably discharged from the military still get the military benefits of someone who fulfilled their committment to the military? I ask this, because I wonder if he decided to stay in and fulfill his military contract so he could make sure to get his military benefits.
If the military benefits are still given even with a dishonorable discharge, then nevermind.
Regardless, I still think he is getting off easy. Were anyone else in any other profession (save journalism) to do this to their employer, they would be fired, no questions asked. But somehow, if a scumbag leftist soldier does it to the military, the mission and his country, we are to accept his apology. Sorry, not gonna happen.
>>So, for that, we are supposed to give him major kudos.>>
No…just stop giving him major whacks.
>>Well, with regards to the dishonorable discharge, do military members who are dishonorably discharged from the military still get the military benefits of someone who fulfilled their committment to the military?>>
Generally, no. I say “generally” because I don’t know what would happen if a man was seriously injured with permanent disabilities in the service, and then dishonorably discharged for other reasons. I’d think medical care might continue, but I don’t know. Usually – no military disabilities involved – dishonorable discharge means no benefits.
>>But somehow, if a scumbag leftist soldier does it to the military, the mission and his country, we are to accept his apology.>>
I’ve always had a problem with people who “forgive” murderers some time during that person’s lifetime…church ministers who say we should forgive them their sins. I don’t think it’s _my_ place to forgive someone who has done someone _else_ harm. On the other hand, this person has done harm to those in the military. If _they_ are willing to allow him to earn forgiveness – and believe me, don’t think he won’t have to earn it, but they _are_ giving him a chance to do so – are you justified in holding onto that grievance? Don’t mistake me – I don’t think it’s enough for him to just say “I’m sorry”, but I do think his actions speak louder than words. He’s not finished yet – will he be able to? What kind of a man will he be when he completes his service? The same self-centered person he was before? Leopards rarely change their spots. What about his marriage? Have you thought about that? If he _really_ changes, his wife will find herself married to a person who’s entirely different from the person she _thought_ she was married to. And…if he _really_ changes, will he want to be married to that same person he was in love with before – the one who wanted to harm the military? If I were a writer….!!!
>>Sorry, not gonna happen.>>
What would it take? He can’t undo what he’s done…so what would it take for you to forgive?
suek – What it comes down to for me is this. I am tired of these leftist a-holes undermining the war effort and getting away with it. Maybe he got the crap beat out of him. So what? Do you really believe that will set an example for others to not attempt to do the same thing (Lie about war crimes to smear the military and undermine the war?) in the future? Especially when his so-called punishment was not even made public? So no leftist soldier who aspires to be the next DailyKos hero and undermine the war has anything to make him think twice about doing it. As it is, Scott Thomas Beauchamp is now a household name. He is also now being sold as some great soldier, who learned his lesson, is seeking redemption and we are all to support him.
Well that’s just brilliant.
Reminds me of athletes in High School and college who could get away with anything and were protected, because they were athletes who were valuable to the school. Yeah, that set a great example for other athletes. Just taught them that since they were athletes, they could do whatever the eff they wanted.
Same thing here. Undermine the entire war and smear your fellow soldiers, because you are a lefty prick? Ah, no problem. You’re a soldier and valuable to the war. We’ll beat the shiite out of ya for a day or two and then all is forgiven.
I’m sorry, this disgusts me and makes me have a lot less respect for the military. Especially when those of us back home and doing are effing damndest to fight all these lies and propaganda BS from the left. Only to see the military tell me to lay off him, he’s a swell guy in our book now.
Well, great. Then they can fight their own propaganda battles from now on.
“Especially when those of us back home and doing are effing damndest to fight all these lies and propaganda BS from the left.”
That would be “…back home are doing our…”
This is why I shouldn’t post when I am emotionally charged up about something.
Latest from TNR:
Just posted on their response, thanks word.