July 31, 2007

A Community-Based Reality

I think that the phrase borrowed from commenter at Riehl Word View quite accurately reflects a growing "conventional wisdom" among a peculiar group of bloggers that military and conservative bloggers attempted to claim that "Scott Thomas" didn't actually exist.

"Scott Thomas," of course, was the pseudonym chosen by U.S. Army PV-2 Scott Thomas Beauchamp when he posted a series of three dispatches in the magazine The New Republic.

The most recent post, "Shock Troops," (subscription required) became the focus of Michael Goldfarb on July 18 because of some very strong claims of various kinds of abuse alleged by "Scott Thomas" of himself and other soldiers. These claims are now the subject of investigations by the U.S. Army (real) and the magazine that carried the claims, The New Republic (which critics have dismissed as an attempt at face-saving and job-keeping by the editors, and little more).

Soon afterward, Beauchamp's previous post, "Dead of Night" came under scrutiny, and two claims he made there were conclusively debunked.

Military bloggers began zeroing in on the identity of "Scott Thomas" within days— Marine turned documentary filmmaker JD Johannes had his unit narrowed to the 1-18 Infantry by the following Saturday—forcing Thomas into a position where he felt the need to reveal himself days later.

On the afternoon Beauchamp came forward on July 26, severel prominent bloggers began to compose a narrative every bit as fictional as that of Beauchamp himself, and apparently, for equally dishonorable reasons.

On that afternoon in The Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum seems to have manufactured the controversy:


Conservative sites went crazy. Thomas didn't really exist. His stories were made up. The left hates the troops. Etc. etc.

At Sadly No!, Gavin M. claimed:


1) WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor.

2) WingNet proven wrong.

At alicubog:


ATTENTION COMRADES! Previous meme "Scott Thomas does not exist" is no longer operative. Please to substitute "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a bad man" or "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is Oliver Stone" or "Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a semiotic construct" or "We'll get Scott Thomas Beauchamp fired" or whatever damn thing you can think of.

By the next day, Americablog had latched onto this creative fiction as well:


Of course, the right wing blogosphere went nuts, accusing TNR of fabricating a soldier and lying about his experiences. There were repeated attempts to prove that Scott Thomas was a fake.

Even yesterday, at Mercury Rising yesterday, a blogger wrote:


Of course, once they found out about it, all of the Usual Suspects in the conservative’s mighty Wurlitzer - Malkin, Powerline, the whole schmear - set out to prove that “Scott Thomas” didn’t exist and that this was all just liberal lies to smear the armed forces and turn the country against the war. They went berzerk proving to themselves through “semiotic analysis” and other such crapola that this whole thing was just made-up liberal media lies.

And so it is that "this whole thing"—the claim that conservative bloggers said Thomas didn’t exist or wasn’t a soldier—comes squarely back onto the shoulders of liberal bloggers who created the meme themselves.

When pressed to provide a specific quote from any conservative blog stating that Scott Thomas didnÂ’t really exist, was fabricated, or was an imposter, these and other liberal bloggers have utterly failed to do so.

Why they failed should now be obvious: they made up these claims themselves.

Update: A bit dog barks. Gavin M. at Sadly No! (cited above for claiming "WingNet accuses soldier/journalist of being an impostor") tries to support liberal bloggers' charges that conservative bloggers said Beauchamp didnÂ’t exist, was fabricated, or was an impostor.

How does he mount his brilliant defense?

He cites devastating examples, such as Bryan at Hot Air using scare quotes around the word soldier... Twice. He also highlights a truism observed by Bryan in that post that anyone in the military would be able to tell the difference between a fellow soldier's uniform and that of a civilian contractor.

A great defense mounted so far, but wait, there's more!

Gavin M. blasts Charles at LGF for using the phrase, "purported to be written by a soldier." Charles used the "P" word to describe someone hiding behind a pseudonym? Why, that's the exact same thing as directly calling him an impostor, isn't it folks?

And yet Gavin presumably has a day job that doesn't involve balloon animals.

But hang on, he has more evidence... Ace of Spades also used the damning scare quotes... twice. Gavin's a regular Perry Mason, isn't he?

And the killing blow... before Beauchamp came out, Michelle Malkin, vile, prevaricating Malkin, addressed the liberal blogosphere's greatest unknown soldier as--and watch out for the scare quotes--as "alleged."

Purported and alleged, two bread-and-butter words in any journalist's quiver for when the facts are hazy in the least, have--according to Gavin--become the same as calling him an impostor. Using scare quotes in the same manner is morphed by Gavin into a declarative emphatically stating that he doesn't exist.

That's his case. Really.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:06 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 8 kb.

Sanchez on Beauchamp

... from FOB Falcon itself.

A taste:


"Record Media Attention"

New York Times, O'Reilly Factor, ABC, CNN, Hot Air, in the past two weeks, Major Luedeke has dealt with more media inquiries over the Beauchamp controversy than any other subject in his entire career.

After several terse conversations, it was obvious soldiers at FOB Falcon took the events described in The New Republic very seriously. What was not so obvious was how seriously The New Republic editorial staff treated the matter. If the investigation proves the "Baghdad Diarist" stories to be false, what will The New Republic do? Will they retract the story? Will they reveal the process they used to vet the original information? Every soldier I spoke to realizes he or she is accountable for what is said and done while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Careers can be ruined because of scandals like the "Baghdad Diarist."

Getting a Fair Shake

"The Army works hard to get the soldier's story out to the media, unfortunately the media only wants to hear about bad things," said several soldiers who did not want to be identified. Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp is currently on FOB Falcon, but unavailable for comment. Once the official investigation started, the key issue was to protect the soldier's rights. Needless to say, The New Republic has no such responsibility.

I'll have a bit more to say about the subject--specifically, the dishonesty of some of those blogging about the unfolding Beauchchamp/New Republic scandal--in the very near future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:46 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Stop the hate

Some, including the host of this fine weblog, seem to doubt the authenticity of the recent claims made by Scott Thomas Beauchamp. I for one, however, have no doubt Mr. Beauchamp is speaking the "truth" as he knows it.

Conservative webloggers, ace from ace of spades, Bryan and Allahpundit of Hotair, Michelle Malkin and countless others have tried to dispute his claims making wild and baseless accusations. So far they have successfully managed to have all forms of his communication cut off, except for his prestigious weblog, scottthomas.us.

For the life of me, I cannot seem to figure out why these "webloggers" insist on harping on this one pour pitiful soul, who is obviously lost and far from home. Do we doubt General J.C. Christian, the manliest of all conservative "webloggers", when he eviscerates liberals like Bill O'Reilly who are trying to pose as conservatives? Do we doubt the concern tbogg displays so proudly for our conservative brethren? Who could forget the sincerity displayed by Markos Zúniga when he expressed concern for anyone, especially civilian contractors, overseas in Iraq.

Yet, those billing themselves as "conservatives" continue to mock and shame Mr. Beauchamp for trying to shed light on a very difficult situation in Iraq. When Michelle Malkin's commentors revolted and showed support for him did she change her mind? Not even in the slightest. Even though Franklin Foer has launched and investigation and confirmed Mr. Beauchamp's allegations, the mocking continues. I suspect the only comfort Mr. Beauchamp is able to find is in the wanton arms of the ethnically pure women in Germany who keep throwing themselves at him.

To Mr. Beauchamp, I say soldier on. This to shall pass and the "truth" will set you free. Just as we've confirmed that 9/11 was a plot by President Bush and that Karl Rove is using mind control beams to make us all his subjects. Luckily there's a place like this, under the big-tin-foil-tent, to keep us safe from harm.

Posted by: phin at 11:58 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.

July 27, 2007

Scott Beauchamp's Problems Are Just Beginning

In addition to his short-lived career as a probable fabulist in The New Republic, Scott Thomas Beauchamp's blog has turned up a self-incriminating clear violation of operational security:


Another long day...cleaning an M16, landscaping, dipping Pro Masks (gas masks to civilians) into strange concotions, a little bit of office work...basically a hodpodge of menially tasks to keep me busy.
We finally got official dates on Iraq deployment:
May 15 - Our Bradleys get shipped to Kuwaite
June 11- Advanced Units move in
June 28 - Bravo Team, second squad, first platoon, Alpha Company, first battalion, 18th brigade, first infantry division (the breakdown of who I belong to) deploys.
Were probably going to sit in Kuwaite for some unknown amount of time, and then move into Baghdad...

That post is over a year old and was obsoleted be a changed deployment schedule, but the facts are clear: Beauchamp clearly violated operational security regulations by posting the deployment schedule for his unit to his blog.

Major Kirk Luedeke, PAO for 4th IBCT, 1st ID at FOB Falcon, stated in response to my inquiry about this blog entry:


It most certainly is an OPSEC violation.

What the U.S. Army decides to do about this operational security violation will probably be kept under wraps until their investigation is complete, but I would not be surprised if Beauchamp soon finds himself charged with UCMJ violations.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:51 AM | Comments (144) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

July 26, 2007

Blog History Repeating

The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Scott Thomas Comes Forward... And Answers Precisely Nothing

The New Republic blog The Plank is featuring an entry from disputed diarist Scott Thomas, who has now come forward as Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and now the fun truly begins.

There are two parts to this entry: a preface from "the editors," and then a statement by Beauchamp himself. I'll now discuss each at length, and in turn. more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:44 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 2606 words, total size 17 kb.

July 25, 2007

House of Glass

Incredible Claims
It was precisely one week ago yesterday that Michael Goldfarb focused the blogosphere on the third in a series of dispatches from a U.S. Army soldier in Iraq, posting under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas" in the magazine, The New Republic.

The name of third dispatch was "Shock Troops," (subscription apparently no longer required). In it, Thomas showed a callous and shocking disregard for a series of brutalities. These included a vicious verbal assault on a woman for disfiguring facial injuries she sustained as the result of an explosion of an improvised explosive device, or IED. This assault allegedly occurred in the dining facility at Forward Operating Base Falcon.

Thomas maintains that during the construction of a combat outpost southwest of Baghdad, soldiers constructing the outpost uncovered the bones of children, and a fellow soldier wore part of a skull he found that "...even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt," on top of his head for the rest of the day and night, and even wore it under his helmet. Thomas further claims that:


No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included.

The third story Thomas relays in "Shock Troops" was of a sadistic Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) driver who liked:


...to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs.

In his blog entry entitled "Fact or Fiction?," Goldfarb, asked the milblogging (military blogging) community to investigate the veracity of Thomas claims.

Doubters—including active duty U.S. Army soldiers currently or formerly posted at FOB Falcon and nearby areas—immediately began to deconstruct and dismiss Thomas' claims as probable works of fiction.

Soldiers stationed at FOB Falcon in the recent past and present deny ever seeing a burned woman such as Thomas described as being on the base. To date there has been no corroboration that a wounded woman matching this description has ever been at FOB Falcon.

Other soldiers have cost doubts on whether there was ever a grave full of children's remains uncovered while constructing a combat outpost southwest of Baghdad, though others find it plausible that an unmarked cemetery—apparently not all that uncommon in the area—may have been found and moved. Regardless of whether or not a cemetery may have been uncovered, other soldiers flatly deny that the close-fitting modern Army helmet has enough room for anything other than the wearer's own skull.

Soldiers and military vehicle specialists intimately familiar with Bradley IFVs have flatly stated that these vehicles cannot be driven as described in Thomas' account due to their construction and the limitations of the laws of physics.

In all three examples cited by Thomas in this third dispatch, the behavior of the actors and the apathy displayed by apparently dozens of soldiers during each atrocity has been heavily criticized by military veterans who flatly deny that such events could take place in a military culture where such inaction can be a criminal offense for those who refuse to report it or intervene.

Absolutely Fabulist
Elements of Thomas' two previous dispatches have also come under fire for being very unlikely.

In "War Bonds" (subscription required), Thomas claims that:


In Baghdad, a busted infrastructure has left entire neighborhoods navigable by vehicle only. The sector we soldiers patrol is known unaffectionately as "Little Venice" because of the dark brown rivers of sewage that backwash from broken pipes. The biggest fear in these parts isn't sniper fire or IEDs, but a flat tire that forces you to wade through the reeking fluids.

The brief amount of information allowed outside the New Republic subscriber firewall neglects to mention the specific kind of vehicle in question, but as only wheeled vehicles have tires, the description weeds out both Bradley IFVs and M1 Abrams tanks. That leaves us with HMMWVs (Humvees) and eight-wheeled Stryker Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs) as the two most-common wheeled vehicles used on patrols. Both of these vehicles classes are equipped with run-flat tires designed to go for miles before needing to be changed. That intentional design detail engendered into both vehicles would make changing a tire in a river of "reeking fluids" a very unlikely event.

Sandwiched between these two increasingly suspect stories was Thomas' second dispatch, one that I think should have sent up a red flag to the editors of The New Republic.

In "Dead of Night," (subscription required), Thomas made an embarrassing gaffe, followed by a potentially defamatory charge:


Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belongs to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of modern firearms knows that no pistol, rifle, submachine gun, or machine gun deployed in the world today uses ammunition "with a square back," in 9mm Parabellum, or in any other caliber. For feeding reliability, all currently used ammunition has tubular cases with a round rim. But past this wildly inaccurate of description of the recovered casing , Thomas went on to defame the Iraqi police, inaccurately stating as fact that, "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

That statement is so astoundingly incorrect as to be laughable. While Glocks are carried by many Iraqi police officers, Glocks are among the most common handguns in Iraq, easily found and purchased, and carried by those on each side of the conflict and Iraqi civilians alike.

A Pattern of Failed Editorial Oversight
All three stories sent to The New Republic by the soldier writing under the pseudonym "Scott Thomas" has elements that may have been worth questioning by an alert editor.

I honestly doubt that most editors would have known that many American wheeled combat vehicles have run flat tires, and so I can readily forgive them for not making that particular catch. I'm still left to wonder, however, if having a sharp editor with a military background might have been able to deflate Thomas as a fabulist in advance of the publication of his very first post.

But even without a military background, I'd expect for most editors to recognize the red flag present in his second post--when he makes the claim of a "square back" cartridge casing--just from watching the occasional episode of CSI. I'd also expect them to make at least a cursory attempt to check Thomas' inflammatory claim only the Iraqi police carry Glocks, and recognize all the political undertones that such a loaded charge implies.

It would have taken very little effort—no more than several minutes on Google with any variation of "iraq" and "glock" as the search terms—to note that these pistols are very popular and quite common in Iraq, being coveted by soldiers, police, militiamen, insurgents, criminal gangs, contractors, and civilians alike. These few brief moments un-taken would have shown Thomas' claim and implication to be flatly wrong.

The editors at The New Republic did not bother to take that time.

TNR editors apparently did not bother to challenge Thomas to provide support for the verbal assault he claims to have committed again a disfigured woman on FOB Falcon. There is no indication that they ever made the attempt to contact the Public Affairs Officer at FOB Falcon to see if such a woman even existed, even though I've found in my experience PAOs are typically far more likely to respond to requests from journalists—and even bloggers—in a more timely manner than would an infantry soldier on extended patrols.

TNR editors apparently failed to ask the common sense questions about the desecrated bodies claim. Why would any soldier subject himself to wearing a section of a human skull covered with rotting flesh both day and night? Even if the audience did find it uproariously funny, what sight gag remains entertaining for hour after hour? Why would any group, no matter how jaded, be "folding in half with laughter" at the sight of a man parading around wearing a portion of child's rotting skull as a cap? Could a soldier even get a piece of skull into an Army helmet and wear it?

There is no evidence that TNR saw fit to question any of this story at all.

Likewise, either through carelessness or laziness, Franklin Foer and his editorial staff never apparently made the common-sense connection that Bradley drivers do not have the latitude to joyride alone through the streets of Iraqi towns, randomly and sadistically destroying infrastructure, buildings, and stalls in crowded markets, while swerving recklessly to attack dogs. The unlikelihood of this story being true, again, apparently went unchallenged until after publication.

Picking Up The Pieces at The New Republic
So what becomes of Franklin Foer and the now twice-fooled New Republic? We'll know soon enough if there are any jobs lost as a result of this scandal, but I would opine that if dismissals do result, there is certainly enough justification for them.

One thing I would hope that TNR and other news organizations might now consider is hiring military veterans to vet stories coming out of combat zones for obvious inconsistencies. It would, at the very least, provide a more contextual, experienced layer of fact-checking to flag stories that may not be accurate.

And What of Scott Thomas?
The New Republic has an interesting decision to make regarding Scott Thomas. While I'd generally consider advising against "outing" lairs hidden by pseudonyms, Thomas apparently created stories that were little more than defamous fiction.

They owe Scott Thomas nothing for his treacherous deceit of both TNR and the U.S. Army. Publicly publishing who he is—or at least communicating his name to his commanders—might be the first step in recovering from this debacle.

It's time to pay the piper. I wonder how many people will share paying the bill.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 1654 words, total size 11 kb.

July 24, 2007

Two Simple Questions for Franklin Foer

Yesterday, after days of withering criticism by named military officers, well-recognized combat journalists, and anonymous soldiers over the claims made by pseudonym-hidden "Scott Thomas," I suggested that the New Republic boil down their investigation to answering two simple questions:

  • When did the verbal assault take place on the badly-burned woman at FOB Falcon?
  • What was the name and location of the combat outpost where a mass grave was discovered?

This are eminently reasonable questions to ask at this time and I think most would agree that these questions should have been asked by Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic, well before Thomas' claims were published in the first place.

The New Republic has had six days to investigate Thomas' disputed claims. I think the time has come for Franklin Foer to provide detailed answers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

July 23, 2007

Near Certainty

For his sake, I hope that Franklin Foer, editor of the New Republic, is merely suffering from unfortunate phrasing:


The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.

Considering the explosive allegations made in Thomas' claims against both American soldiers and the Iraqi Police, Foer meant "absolute certainty," didn't he?

(h/t reader AMac)

Update: Yes, he did.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

RIP: Christiana Hendrix

Christiana Hendrix, wife of Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury, died this weekend in a motorcycle accident. Mike, you and your family have my sincere condolences and prayers in this most tragic of times.


1 I lift up my eyes to the hills—

where does my help come from?

2 My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

3 He will not let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will not slumber;

4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.

5 The LORD watches over you—
the LORD is your shade at your right hand;

6 the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night.

7 The LORD will keep you from all harm—
he will watch over your life;

8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore.

--Psalm 121: 1-8.

As Glenn notes, "Words are completely inadequate in these situations, but they're also essential."

Please stop by and offer your condolences for the loss Mike and Christiana's family is experiencing, and if you are a religious person, consider offering up a prayer for those who remain behind.

Update: Jeff Goldstein's grandmother passed away today as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Doubting Thomas: Simple Questions for the New Republic

As time wears on, it seems increasingly unlikely that the writings of the pseudonym-shielded soldier "Scott Thomas" in the New Republic are anything other than works of macabre creative fiction.

"Thomas" has written three "dispatches" for the New Republic thus far, but once the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb began questioning the veracity of claims made in Thomas' third story, experienced military veterans and observers in the blogosphere who read the account began to doubt that these claims took place.

In his third dispatch, Thomas claimed that he and another soldier openly, verbally assaulted the appearance of a severely burned woman who had survived a prior attack by an improvised explosive device, or IED. The alleged attack took place at the dining facility of Forward Operating Base (FOB) Falcon.

Presumably, this episode was meant to show the brutality and inhumanity of soldiers thoroughly desensitized to basic human decency and dignity because of the on-going violence of the Iraq War.

It is perhaps a "larger truth" that war does horrible things to the psyche of those who experience it. That some do and say horrible things as a direct or indirect result of their experiences during such turbulent circumstances, and sometimes for years afterward, is beyond dispute.

But though strong adverse reactions may indeed be true for some veterans who experience such brutality, it is by no means true for all.

It is also equally true that there seems to be very little concrete support for this specific allegation, and significant anecdotal evidence against it.

Major Kirk Luedeke, the Public Affairs Officer at FOB Falcon, categorically denies the presence of a woman with these unmistakable severe burns at the base. Another man who claims to be a soldier currently deployed to FOB Falcon states that:


In the 11 months I've been here I've never once seen a female contractor with a burned face. In a compact place like this with only one mess hall I or one of my guys would certainly have noticed someone like that. There are a few female contractors, I think maybe a dozen, but none fit the horrific description given in that article. Further, I've personally seen guys threatened with severe physical harm for making jokes of any kind about IED victims given the number of casualties all the units on this FOB have sustained. It is not a subject we take lightly.

Another claims:


I was based at Falcon last year for six months with the 101st Airborne. I never saw a woman who fits Thomas's description. That's not conclusive since I haven't been there for almost eight months.

Another soldier (an officer whose ID I have positively identified but whose name I do not have permission to publish) who has been at FOB Falcon since March describes the claims of Thomas as "total nonsense."

The New Republic must establish the following if they intend to continue claiming that this story of abuse by Thomas is true.

They must produce the year, month, and week that this attack took place, and make this time public knowledge.

If the New Republic cannot or will not release the time-frame during which the claimed assault took place, then there is no way for the military and agencies employing contractors at FOB Falcon to check their logs to prove or disprove the existence of a severely wounded soldier or contractor matching the description provided by Thomas.

The only reason for the New Republic not to release this information is to cover up the distinct possibility that Thomas' claims is false.

If the New Republic wants its readers to believe it is operating honestly and ethically, they cannot refuse to release the date of the alleged assault as precisely and as soon as possible.

Tuesday, July 24, while an arbitrary date, is a reasonable release date for this information, as the New Republic claims to have been investigating the claims made by Thomas for nearly a week, and they should have already acquired this information prior to the story's publication.

Another claim made by Thomas in his third dispatch to the New Republic is that his unit, while spending several weeks building a combat outpost southwest of Baghdad, uncovered a mass grave containing the remains of children, presumably from the time of Saddam Hussein's reign. Thomas then claims that an extended desecration of the bodies was perpetrated by a fellow soldier, without fellow soldiers, more senior enlisted men, of officers stepping in.

Returning once again to the blog of combat correspondent Matt Sanchez, we encounter the claim from FOB Falcon PAO Major Luedeke there were no mass graves uncovered during the construction of any combat outposts in the Rashid District, at any time.

This strong refutation is a definitive statement by a U.S. Army soldier, for the public record.

If the New Republic wishes to continue to stand behind this Thomas claim, they have no choice but to publicly publish the name and location of the combat outpost where the mass grave is supposed to exist.

I am fairly certain that if the New Republic were to make this information available, that the United States military would be very interested in exhuming those who fell at Saddam's brutal hands so that they could be given a proper, dignified burial. Further, I'm reasonably confident that the military would allow the media to document the exhumation and reburial... if such a mass grave exists.

Once again, the only plausible reason for the New Republic to not release the name of the combat outpost and the location of the mass grave in question, is to obfuscate whether or not Thomas is providing the New Republic with an accurate account, or a clever work of fiction.

As the New Republic should probably have already obtained the name of the base and the location of the alleged mass grave prior to publication, and would certainly ask for this information during the course of their investigation into Thomas' claims, a Tuesday, July 24 deadline to publish this information seems quite reasonable.

In my mind, Thomas' third claim, that a private took great joy in smashing a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) through curbs, concrete barriers, and market stalls, along with using the vehicle to deftly attack and kill dogs with the vehicle's tracks, is too absurd to even need further refutation.

While apparently a claim that the New Republic was willing to publish based upon Thomas' credibility, it ignores the fact that Bradley drivers are not left unattended to use their vehicles as destructive playthings as they see fit. A driver follows the orders of his vehicle commander, who must protect the lives of his crew and the soldiers in the fire team the IFV carries. Further, Bradley IFVs rarely, if ever, operate alone.

Bradleys typically operate in the support of larger American formations involving other Bradley IFVs, American Abrams tanks, Stryker armored vehicles, Humvees, other medium and heavy trucks, and squads, platoons, and companies of soldiers.

For Thomas' claims to be true regarding this driver, it would probably require that dozens of soldiers and their commanders repeatedly allow their lives to be needlessly risked and their mission subverted, so that one sadistic, destructive driver could attempt canine homicide.

Thomas' story would also require that the driver and vehicle perform at or beyond a Bradley IFV's upper limits of performance, stealth, vision, maneuverability, and structural strengths.

There is no evidence that the New Republic can produce to substantiate this claimed series of atrocities short of unedited videotaped footage showing the vehicle and driver performing these incredible acts.

And so we we are left asking the New Republic to answer two very basic, very simple questions that any journalism student should have been able to answer before publishing a similar story:

  • When did the verbal assault take place on the badly-burned woman at FOB Falcon?
  • What was the name and location of the combat outpost where a mass grave was discovered?

If the New Republic cannot or will not specifically answer these quite reasonable and very basic journalistic questions, then we will be forced to ask the magazine's senior editors and its publisher far more probing questions in the near future.

Update: Via Sitemeter, I noticed three different visitors from the New Republic dropped by early this afternoon in the span of half an hour. Obviously, they got the message, and it only remains to be seen whether or not they will provide a response.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:50 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1422 words, total size 9 kb.

July 20, 2007

The Previous Libel of the New Republic's Scott Thomas

Michael Goldfarb, who been leading the charge against suspicious and apparently false reporting by the New Republic's "Scott Thomas," posts some interesting content from a previous Thomas story:


Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Many people have keyed in on the fact that no Glock pistol (or any modern mass-produced commercial or military firearm, for that matter) has ever fired a 9mm cartridge that had a square case rim as "Thomas" so poorlyand inaccurately wrote here. What Thomas was ineptly trying to describe is that the striker of Glock pistols can leaved a squared mark on the primer of a fired shell, as opposed to the more common rounded edges of marks of firing pins of most other pistols.

But far more damning than Thomas' incompetence is the demonstrably false assertion he made that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police."

Glock pistols have been on the commercial market for decades, and are quite common worldwide. Glocks are a common and favored handgun on the Iraqi black market:


Glock pistols were also easy to find. One young Iraqi man, Rebwar Mustafa, showed a Glock 19 he had bought at the bazaar in Kirkuk last year for $900. Five of his friends have bought identical models, he said.

There are literally dozens of stories of Glock pistols being recovered from insurgents, terrorists, and militiamen. They have been captured in cordon-and-search operations, in targeted raids, in weapons caches, and of course, from the dead and wounded in violent confrontations.

American soldiers have them, as do civilian contractors from many nations in many lines of work. Ordinary Iraqi civilans (men and women) buy them to protect their families as well. Glock are quite likely the most ubiquious handgun in Iraq, carried officially or unofficially by those on all sides, and those on no side at all.

For "Scott Thomas" to claim that "the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police" is laughable, and coming from someone who claims to be a United State soldier in Iraq who would certainly know that to be a false statement, is perhaps as clear an audacious a display of willfully libeling the Iraqi police as has been written in the American media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:00 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

A Matter of Lessening Credibility

I just sent the following to letters@tnr.com:


Dear The New Republic,

I just finished re-reading the claims made in Shock Troops, an article by "Scott Thomas" in The New Republic containing very inflammatory, very hard to believe claims.

TNR states that Thomas is a pseudonym for someone that claims to be a soldier operating in Iraq.

An active duty officer currently serving at Camp Falcon considers the Thomas stories "absolute nonsense." Highly-respected Iraq War combat journalist Michael Yon, who has embedded with the 1-4 Cav stationed at Camp Falcon, emailed me a while ago to state that the story "sounds like complete garbage."

But perhaps more problematic for TNR are the biological, medical, and forensic improbabilities--and what some experts consider absolute mechanical impossibilities--of the stories told by this author. I am forced to conclude that the claims made by "Scott Thomas" are either gross exaggerations or outright lies that TNR editors could have easily verified before publishing this inflammatory article if they were interested in publishing an account that meets assumed journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and editorial integrity.

Did New Republic editors ask for credible documentation from "Scott Thomas" to prove his identity as a present duty soldier or as a discharged veteran? If so, did they receive such documentation, and did New Republic editors make an attempt to verify the accuracy of that documentation? Considering not dissimilar and thoroughly debunked claims by fake Ranger and former member of the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) Jesse MacBeth, this would be the only prudent first reaction upon reading such dramatic claims as those made by Thomas, especially considering TNR's own Stephen Glass problem.

Did it ever cross the minds of New Republic editors to determine the approximate date that the burned woman in the dining facility was verbally brutalized by Thomas? Did it ever occur to the New Republic to check with the military to see if such a person existed at that base, at that time, or ever?

Did the New Republic ask for verification of the mass grave discovered at the site of a combat outpost south of Baghdad, to see if the story was even possible? Did it not seem unlikely to NR editors from even the fictional television forensic dramas such as CSI, that Saddam-era mass graves would contain extremely decomposed bodies, not those like the author claimed were still rotting?

Did it ever occur to any New Republic editor to contact someone who is an expert on Bradley IFVs--say, the companies who build them, the soldiers that drive and them, etc--to see if Thomas claims of being able to attack dogs and structures in such a manner are even technically possible? Former Bradley drivers and other tracked vehicle personnel have all stated Thomas' claims verge from improbable to impossible.

But beyond merely fact-checking Thomas' series of suspicious and unlikely claims, where was an opposing viewpoint? Where is even the appearance of journalistic objectivity in this article?

To borrow a phrase from another periodical with apparently similar standards, "enquiring minds want to know."

Update: Does anyone know Richard Peters? Stationed at Camp Falcon from "15 Nov 05 - 18 Nov 06," I'd be willing to bet that if Iraq Veterans Against the War Member Peters has heard or witnessed the stories told by Thomas, then he'd probably be more than willing to share or confirm them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:09 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

July 18, 2007

A Series of Highly Incredible Events

Has the greed of the New Republic for stories depicting our nation's soldiers as depraved barbarians led to a downfall of what little credibility the rag still maintained?

Writing today at the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb thinks he smells a rat in the writing of a man who claims to be a soldier currently serving in Iraq, discussing a series of brutal allegations concerning the alleged verbal abuse of a burn victim, the wearing of child's skull, and a dog-murdering Bradley IFV driver.

Let's look at few problems with each of the claims of "Scott Thomas," the pseudonym of man who authored the New Republic article.

The burn victim story.
First, it is all but impossible for a U.S. soldier not to be able to determine the uniform differences between an active-duty soldier's unifrom and a civilian contractor's apparel. Second, it is highly unlikely that a person as horribly burned as the one described would be medically fit for active duty. Third, if two soldiers began taunting a wounded IED survivor, I think it quite likely that other soldiers would quickly and violently end their display.

The child's skull story.
First, it is biologically improbable that a piece of a child's skull would fit on an adult human's head. Second, it biologically improbable that a Saddam-era mass grave in a hot desert country like Iraq would contain flesh that was still rotting. Third, it is highly unlikely that any military unit would stand for such behavior.

The dog-murdering Bradley IFV driver.
The most preposterous story of all. IFV drivers don't run willy-nilly around and over everything in their path, and have to answer to his own vehicle commander, the rest of the crew, and any infantrymen carried by the vehicle if they make erratic, dangerous, and perhaps life-threatening decisions such as those claimed here. There is also the fact that Bradley's cannot slip up on a dog and run him over as claimed, and I find it highly unlikely that this Bradley is so nimble that the driver could repeatedly hit, wound and kill dogs, or that he would be allowed to repeatedly hit stationary objects, without being removed from his position by his immediate commander, his platoon commander, his company commander, or others.

I think it is highly probable that each of these stories is false, and will be very interested to see if the New Republic can in anyway support these outlandish claims.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:35 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Errata

Wait a minute... This can't be right, can it?


...Senate Republicans pushed through a nonbinding resolution stating that "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq would "create a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies." The vote was 94-3.

Last I checked, there are right around 100 Senators, total.

If the Politico is accurate in their overwhelming vote count of 94-3, then this strongly suggests that a supermajority of Democrat Senators are admitting that the withdraw plan they clamor for will result in creating "a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies," and they still favor it.

Please tell me why these Democrat Senators will admit that they support a plan that they believe will encourage terrorism?

This telling vote was pulled from an article about how Republicans are rallying around the President and are attempting to surge in support of the surge, even as grandstanding Democrats plan to hold a sleepover in protest, no doubt telling themselves for the hundredth time that the war is lost in an effort to make that sentiment a reality.

Interestingly enough, as Senate Democrats "rough it" for the cameras on hotel-quality rolling beds, men who would consider such "hardships" a luxury are telling quite a different story.

Max Boot notes the dramatic turnaround in al Anbar Province, and posts a letter from a U.S. Army Colonel in Ramadi stating precisely how much things have changed.

General Peter Pace, the out-going chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more-or-less dumped by an un-supportive Bush Administration, has few political reasons to help Bush, and yet, he says things like this:


After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday.

He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to secure Baghdad and Anbar province.

"It will because what I'm hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here," he replied. "It's no longer a matter of pushing Al Qaeda out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems."

Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the U.S. military is continuing various options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost.

Interestingly enough, the military's consideration for increasing troop numbers because of the success of the surge thus far, comes just one day after Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said that if the success of the surge continues in his area of responsibility, then the number of troops he requires may be halved.

Some folks seem to think this is a contradiction, but that simply shows that they don't understand how counterinsurgency operations are being run.

As some areas see a significant long-term turn-around, the communities they are in stabilize, begin to normalize, and have less need of a large number of combat forces. This is what Mixon was relating.

Because the new counterinsurgency strategy is showing significant signs of progress in many areas where it is being implemented--Pace called it a "sea change," remember?--the Democrat Congress and Senate are increasingly desperate to lose the war while they still can (see the overnight loserpalooza engineered by Senate Democrats tonight as a prime example of this). Should they fail to lose and Iraq emerge as some sort of even moderately successful representative government, they'll lose their foreign policy credibility for decades to come.

Knowing the sharp knives aimed at their backs and feeling a successful strategy is well within their grasp, it is quite logical that some military general officers may desire to expand the counterinsurgency operations to many other areas of Iraq perhaps faster than they otherwise might in order to satisfy a politically-craven call for an arbitrary withdrawal date.

Because of these realities, these seemingly (but not really) contradictory things could happen at the same time. While troop strength could lessen and perhaps even halve in areas where the counterinsurgency has matured, there could be a significant push to expand the "surge," requiring an influx of troops overall.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:18 AM | Comments (46) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

July 16, 2007

Definitive Surge Progress Could Lead to Troop Reductions

The Coalition counterinsurgency strategy dubbed the "surge" has been so successful that U.S. soldiers in one part of Iraq could be halved by January, 2008:


Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing "definitive progress" and the number of forces serving in IraqÂ’s Multi-National Division-North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said.

A reduction of U.S. forces under the general's command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference.

Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division-North and the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern Iraq, including the city of Baqubah -- site of the ongoing Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

He said he has given U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a plan indicating a possible reduction of force in Multi-National Division-North during 2008.

Mixon said the current debate over troop withdrawal should revolve around reaching a strategic "end state."

"It seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world, and then determine how we can reach that end state, and how much time that will take," he said. "To me, that seems to be the most important thing, because there will be consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq."

"It cannot be a strategy based on, 'Well, we need to leave,'" he added. "That's not a strategy, thatÂ’s a withdrawal."

But, doesn't the General know that the new Pelosi-led Congress and Reid-led Senate--deliberative bodies with roughly as many major legislative accomplishments as the Iraqi Parliament they criticize--are far better judges of success or failure in Iraq than the officers and soldiers actually waging the war?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:26 AM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

July 15, 2007

Iranian Rockets Recovered In Iraq [with Photos]

Via MNF-I:


After several rockets hit FOB Hammer on July 11, the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team maneuvered to find the source of the attack.

Early on July 12, the 3rd HBCTÂ’s unmanned aerial vehicle located 46 rocket launchers in the northern section of Besmaya Range Complex aimed at FOB Hammer. Thirty-four of the launchers were armed with Iranian 107mm rockets. The Besmaya Range Complex is adjacent to the Coalition Force base.

Soldiers of the 789th Explosive Ordnance Disposal team, currently attached to the 3rd HBCT, immediately responded to the site.

According to Capt. Justin Gerken, from Red Wing, Minn., commander of the 789th EOD team, 12 of the 46 rockets had already been used to attack FOB Hammer the day prior. EOD Soldiers were able to determine that the rockets originated from Iran after analyzing the unexploded ordnance.

The 789th EOD team was successful in neutralizing the remaining rockets.

That press release went up yesterday. I got copies of the photographs documenting the scene from MNF-I PAO this morning.


DSC00089
Iranian 107mm rocket captured while aimed at U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq. (click photo for full size).






DSC00084
U.S. Army EOD securing Iranian 107mm rockets and launchers captured in Iraq. (click photo for full size).






IMG_0023
Unfired Iranian 107mm rockets recovered after attack on U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq. (click photo for full size).

Update: Some seem to expect these rockets and previously-captured Iranian munitions to be marked with some sort of "Iranian" language markings, whether Farsi or Persian or some other regional language.

The fact of the matter is that many countries, including Iran, use English language markings on some or all of their military ordnance, and Iran even has an English-language web site for exporting these and other military munitions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:33 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

July 14, 2007

Anti-Bush Terrorist Convicted

It's pathetic how far BDS will lead some people.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

July 13, 2007

Neighbors: Edwards Campaign HQ A Nuisance

Silky Pony's campaign headquarters is not feeling the love:


Thursday marked the second postal scare in four months at John Edwards’ campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill.

Both incidents proved to be harmless, but for businesses in Southern Village, Edwards’ headquarters is becoming more of a nuisance.

Businesses complain that they're losing money. Some of them shut down for the day. Business owners told WRAL they're tired of the scares and tired of the business day interruptions. One business owner plans to do something about it.

Dr. Annelise Hardin runs a pediatric dentist office on the same floor as Edwards’ campaign headquarters. She said she has had enough of bomb scares and evacuations.

Her office plans to draft a letter to the building's management expressing frustration about the loss of business. She is planning to get other companies in Southern Village to sign the letter.

Keith Getchell runs a restaurant two doors down from Edwards’ campaign headquarters. The bomb scare wiped out his lunch crowd, he said. He, too, is frustrated and plans to sign Hardin's letter.

This is actually the third time Edwards campaign HQ has been evacuated. While the latest scare involved digital watches, the two previous threatening packages involved an inert white powder.

Chapel Hill Police have narrowed down the suspects in these three cases to the rest of the North Carolina.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:19 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

July 12, 2007

Harry Reid's Attemped Dodge

ABC's Jake Tapper attempted to get Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to answer a simple question: Will Iraq be safer for Iraqi civilians if we pull out?

He spins, he twists, he dives, but Harry Reid refuses to answer the question.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:47 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 2 >>
530kb generated in CPU 0.1252, elapsed 0.2313 seconds.
72 queries taking 0.1702 seconds, 749 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

  • penis advantage reviews Yet, the best male enhancement method acting that is proved to be the mastering the items infra good... entry
  • destockchine Do not lower, virtually all a person is depressed, as you are do not no who's falling out obsessed a... entry
  • chine destock During prosperity our own neighbors find out all of; when it comes to adversity we understand our ow... entry
  • tubal reversal I was very amazing why i not see your web page before i would come returning. tubal rever... entry
  • tubal reversal The simplest way to evade being disliked is to mind your own business and keep from giving goo... entry
  • outlet You will find certainly quite lots of particulars like that to take into consideration. That could b... entry
  • outlet I'm now not positive exactly where you might be acquiring your information, but great subject. I nee... entry
  • shoes There couple of fascinating points with time in this post but I don't know if these center to heart... entry
  • chanel outlet Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a blog ... entry
  • Canada Goose Norge Would you like to leave a message? Are you sure? Draw your chair up to the table.It seems to me that... entry

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 12736
  • Files: 58
  • Bytes: 221.2M
  • CPU Time: 6:53
  • Queries: 659525

Content

  • Posts: 3653
  • Comments: 35960

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0