Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Leaping Private Beauchamp: The Baghdad Poet
The
right-wing blogosphere is baying for blood, charging The New
Republic's pseudonymous "Baghdad Diarist" Scott Thomas—and it
is, as Andrew Sullivan points out, a poor nom de guerre at
that; his real name is Scott Thomas Beauchamp—with multiple counts
of Stephen-Glassery. After a few days of speculation and skepticism
on various conservative and military blogs, mainstream
outlets like the New York Times and ABC News picked up the story, provoking an
investigation by TNR editor Franklin Foer. The
Times explains:
The diaries have described some shocking incidents of military life, including soldiers openly mocking a disfigured woman on their base and a private wearing a found piece of a child's skull under his helmet.
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.
After this article appeared, Mr. Foer said he was "absolutely certain" that the author is a soldier.
Beauchamp may very turn out to be a fabulist and, if this is
indeed the case, TNR will (deservedly) take its lumps. And the fake
soldier—or the real soldier faking "experiences"—is something of
an American tradition. But it should also be noted that,
if Beauchamp is telling the truth, it would hardly be the first
"trophy skull" taken by an American soldier in
wartime. In 1943, Life Magazine published a photo of a
woman staring at a Japanese skull her soldier boyfriend send her
from Guadalcanal. (The photo's original caption: "Arizona war
worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull
he sent her.") During the Vietnam War, severing the ears of dead
Vietnamese soldiers, said one Army investigation,
was "routine."
Regardless of the outcome of TNR's investigation, full
credit to the magazine's editors who, like a Photoshop wizard
at Redbook magazine, took
Beauchamp's ridiculous prose and made it half-way readable.
According to his personal blog, Private Thomas/Beauchamp saw his a
tour in Iraq as an entry into the world of journalism. In a post
headlined "ill (sic) return to america an author," he offers
readers a taste of his mad author skillz:
bavarian stories in some sort of rounded metaphysical order...personality death stories intersecting with poesy home memory reflections. You begin with a place and an action and let it carry in every direction till the words are vibrating on the page, dripping in thick robust delapidated (sic) barnhouses of adjectives and pronouns...no time for the subtle gray faced calculations of a PERFORMED intimacy...go...but remember what Kerouac forgot: revision is spontaneous also. a brief coming back to america introduction, stories about soldiers, prositutes (sic), innocent students rendered featherless by dark rivets of experience and the decadence of human pursuits in every vein...and then there's the veins...follow 'em. Cut your wrist let it bleed onto the paper in unique soulpatterns of mindthoughts.
Seriously. If nothing else, can't we court martial this guy for pretentious writing unbecoming an enlisted man?
(Lame headline reference here)
kap|7.26.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Beauchamp is apparently either married to or the fiance of TNR
staffer Elspeth Reeve. Also, TNR apparently fired another staffer
who leaked this this morning.
This is becoming rather entertaining.
see here.
|7.26.07 @ 5:32PM|#
"unique soulpatterns of mindthoughts"...I don't really have anything to say. I just wanted to type that phrase. Are mindthoughts like mouthspeech?
kap|7.26.07 @ 5:42PM|#
A more direct
link concerning the fired staffer.
Also, his prior-life blogtrail is revealing such nuggets as his
stating he only joined the service so he could write a book about
it, and he planned to write some "horror stories" about the war
once he saw action. I've forgotten the links where I read that,
I've been following this crap for the last hour or two.
This is shaping up to be quite Glassian in magnitude.
|7.26.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Are mindthoughts like mouthspeech?
Actually, mindthoughts are more akin to assspeak than
mouthspeech.
highnumber|7.26.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Leaping Lanny Poffo, brother of Randy "Macho Man" Savage is from
Downers Grove.
So is Emo Philips.
Downers Grove has a nice little downtown immortalized by Emo in
highnumber|7.26.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Looks like I need to read that
book!
Leaping Lanny Poffo, brother of Randy "Macho Man" Savage is from
Downers Grove.
So is Emo Philips.
Downers Grove has a nice little downtown immortalized by Emo in
song.
I did not have to go to Wikipedia to find that out.
Tomorrow, we'll learn about Elmhurst.
|7.26.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any
evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually *false*.
It seems almost incontrovertible at this point that he is a soldier
(even kap's unsubstantiated and unlinked rumor about him "joining
the service to write about it" implicitly concedes this point). So
if he is in fact a soldier, his opponents need to actually find
things that he said which were untrue. And simply not liking what
he writes about doesn't count as evidence.
For heaven's sake. Have we really reached the point where anyone
making claims ideologically opposed to your own must be assumed,
ipso facto, to be a liar?
kap|7.26.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Well, OK, some other allegations addressing his
truthfulness:
- some bloggers tracking the timeline of his career are indicating
he was in Germany at the time he claims for some of his in-country
experiences.
- some bloggers within the military have looked up his current rank
and paygrade, and it is lower than the rank/paygrade he described
himself at some time earlier in his online writings. This suggests
either being caught in a resume-padding lie, or fairly serious
discipline action at some point in his career.
- the public affairs officer of his unit has stated that there is a
serious investigation ongoing.
I don't know whether he is or isn't telling the truth, and frankly
I don't have any ideological dog in this race. I have no doubt ugly
things sometimes happen in war.
The only thing I am certain of at this point is that the
entropophile in me is entertained by the right/left blogosphere
foodfight over this.
Which is, in itself, an ugly thing happening in a war.
|7.26.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Whether what he says is true or not--it's not that hard to believe, really--this is just further proof that the army needs to offer some english lessons. We can't have any warrior poets if we don't have any warrior grammar lessons.
SIV|7.26.07 @ 6:20PM|#
I saw a Jap skull in a rock/mineral museum once. It had
engraving/graffitti on it
which said:
Made in Japan. Tested in the Solomons. And Found Wanting.
I suppose the Marines and Army have a policy against that sort of
thing now.
|7.26.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Ok, I'm not the smoothest guy in the world when it comes to the
ladies.
However, even I know that a human skull makes for a bad gift.
Unless maybe you're dating a goth girl, and she's into that kind of
thing.
kap|7.26.07 @ 6:32PM|#
WOMEN #1
The darkness here is never complete
and I'm distracted by a thousand women
standing in a line on a hill.
I've forgotten some of their birthdays
I've forgotten some of their middles names
some faces are hidden.
But them,
they sketch my dreams before I have them
their mystery is huge and weightless and sweet
and so I turn and bow
and apologize.
and
Women #2
I believe too much
in your checkered skirt
that falls to the floor
heavier than god or liberty.
finally
THE POLAR BEAR
I am a polar bear
in the St. Louis Zoo
and of a thousand places that you can't leave
this is where i outrun the terror.
Something heavy in the sun
touches my skin,
peers out of the portholes on my sides,
where my hair fell out in clumps.
I'm a polar bear walking in circles
small circles in the empire
over and over searching for her
over and over chased by the memory of her walk.
I'm thinking he might have been dating some goth girls.
|7.26.07 @ 6:34PM|#
For heaven's sake. Have we really reached the point where anyone making claims ideologically opposed to your own must be assumed, ipso facto, to be a liar?
Since when are people here ideologically opposed to critics of the
Iraq war? If anything it is the exact opposite. I though virtually
everyone here opposed the Iraq war? If we don't believe the story,
it certainly isn't because of ideological reasons.
Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually *false*.
Actually, I automaticly distrust any "first-hand" story that must
be told anonymously. I understand that there is certain situations
where people must speak anonymously, but they must have overwelming
compelling evidence before I will take it at face value.
Noting Things|7.26.07 @ 6:48PM|#
I have yet to see any evidence that what Beauchamp has said
is actually *false*
Resemblances of the soldier's tales to his own previously published
fiction and news commentary are...suggestive.
I understand that there is certain situations where people must
speak anonymously
Example: The would-be anonymous National Review staffer
who outed the tale-telling soldier as the would-be novelist husband
of another, higher-ranking National Review staffer has
been fired.
|7.26.07 @ 6:52PM|#
JasonC
Are mindthoughts like mouthspeech?
Closer to wordsounds but with notmorelesses orificeoral
I want to read this article but I'm very busy, can anyone verify if
it's a steaming pile of crap or not. I only want the
truthreals.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges
|7.26.07 @ 8:23PM|#
"Trophy skulls" of soldiers fighting American troops,
not purported victims of a mass-killing.
Trying too hard to justify the inexplicable and indefensible leads
to lousy comparisons.
S.A. Miller|7.26.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Example: The would-be anonymous National Review staffer who
outed the tale-telling soldier as the would-be novelist husband of
another, higher-ranking National Review staffer has been
fired.
It is The New Republic, not National Review.
Jim Treacher|7.26.07 @ 9:06PM|#
"Are mindthoughts like mouthspeech?"
In Beauchamp's case, they're more like buttshit.
|7.26.07 @ 9:18PM|#
I've blogged and written anonymously for various reasons
including the organization I was working for and its restrictions.
And I've changed some inconsequential details about myself in those
writings to better hide my identity. I can understand the guy
changing his rank if it was for that purpose.
I served in the military years ago and found myself around plenty
of cruel jerks so I don't doubt there are a few in Iraq.
Having said that, it sounds like what he was writing was
bullshit.
But time will tell. I'm not invested in the situation so it will be
fun to watch it unfold.
Justin Raimondo|7.26.07 @ 9:30PM|#
It seems odd to read a denunciation of "pretentious" writing in Reason magazine -- of all places.
|7.26.07 @ 9:46PM|#
"Trying too hard to justify the inexplicable and indefensible
leads to lousy comparisons."
But then, the Japanese skull events had the important element of
having actually happened.
"Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any
evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually *false*."
You know, when I was young if someone made very disturbing
allegations of criminal and immoral conduct of people, we were not
expected to assume the accusations were true until evidence was
shown proving it false. This was especially true when the person
making the allegations was ideologically biased against those
accused, had a history of writing such descriptions as "fiction"
and was describing events that strain any credulity.
I guess things change.
SIV|7.26.07 @ 11:10PM|#
It seems odd to read a denunciation of "pretentious" writing
in Reason magazine -- of all places
Drink!?!?!
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.26.07 @ 11:24PM|#
Courtmartial? Prose like that calls for summary execution.
But that's just my mindthought. It may or may not conform to your
soulpattern.
Ray G|7.27.07 @ 12:50AM|#
My circle of blogs doesn't typically range out of the usual econ
stuff with a little straight news on the side, but this story has
really grown legs. At least among the bloggers.
There's a tremendous amount of traffic on this thing, and it is
entertaining I suppose.
As for the actual allegations, a knee-jerk reaction to assume the
negative about something merely reveals a preexisting negative
opinion on that something.
Regardless, the Private is in a no-win situation as is TNR.
The Private because even if he is telling the truth, he's sold his
buddies out for personal gain. And if he's lying, well that doesn't
need explanation.
It's not a stretch to say that TNR is largely indicative of the
Left in general. With that in mind, we see their real view of
American troops, and by extension America itself in that they
recruited a mole to dig up dirt on someone they obviously see as an
opponent.
It speaks volumes to the character of TNR as a group that they were
so desperate for dirt that they would use this guy.
|7.27.07 @ 1:33AM|#
Ray G,
"It's not a stretch to say that TNR is largely indicative of the
Left in general. With that in mind, we see their real view of
American troops, and by extension America itself in that they
recruited a mole to dig up dirt on someone they obviously see as an
opponent. "
Well said.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.27.07 @ 2:02AM|#
.......even I know that a human skull makes for a bad gift.
Unless maybe you're dating a goth girl, and she's into that kind of
thing.
Media wins the thread at 6:28 or thereabouts.
Gimme skull, bitch!
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.27.07 @ 2:05AM|#
I want to know if he bleached the skull before he sent it home.
|7.27.07 @ 2:57AM|#
Ray G | July 27, 2007, 12:50am | #
...
It's not a stretch to say that TNR is largely indicative of the
Left in general. With that in mind, we see their real view of
American troops, and by extension America itself in that they
recruited a mole to dig up dirt on someone they obviously see as an
opponent.
It speaks volumes to the character of TNR as a group that they were
so desperate for dirt that they would use this guy.
...
Hell, I'm socialist and have never read the National Review. The
magazine doesn't represent the left, or the left in general. The
National Review represents the National Review. Your generalization
is simplistic.
Anybody think Hemingway went to war to fight, or to write? Why not
both? Hell, he went to the Spanish Civil War to make a movie to
show to raise funds to buy ambulances to help the leftists that
fought the fascists. This fellow is no Hemingway, but that doesn't
mean anything. Orwell went to the Spanish Civil War for the express
purpose of journalism, but decided to fight once he was there.
There isn't any shame for a writer to go to war to write. Where the
hell do you think all the great novels come from?
e|7.27.07 @ 3:22AM|#
Well said, oldnumberseven!
Though, I too am skeptical that American soldiers would brutalize
Iraqis. Everyone knows we went to war to help Iraqis be free, not
as revenge against the towelheads for 9/11 or some such thing.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.27.07 @ 3:51AM|#
Hell, I'm socialist and have never read the National
Review.
That's probably best for both you and National Review.
Actually, the magazine you should be not reading is The New
Republic, the liberal publication being discussed here. National
Review is essentially the conservative equivalent of The New
Republic. One or more of them really should change their
initials.
|7.27.07 @ 4:44AM|#
Actually, the magazine you should be not reading is The New
Republic
My mistake. But I have never read either magazine, and believe it
or not, I am somewhat of a reader.
Thanks for the correction, though.
|7.27.07 @ 6:16AM|#
It's not a stretch to say that TNR is largely indicative of
the Left in general. With that in mind, we see their real view of
American troops, and by extension America itself in that they
recruited a mole to dig up dirt on someone they obviously see as an
opponent.
Well, maybe it's not a stretch to say that the reaction of the
Right and Ray G to this article show us their real view of America
- a military
Sparta where any critical talk about soliders is ipso facto
unpatriotic, and an unquestioning identification of "American" with
"military". It's like the Soviet Union all over again. The funny
thing is that Beauchamp's article really made no political point at
all about our success or failure in Iraq, it was just a fairly
stereotypical "war sucks, young men do stupid shit during a war"
kind of article. Nothing we haven't seen thousands of times before,
in every war since the common soldier became literate. The fact
that so many idiots see their honor besmirched by this is a really
sad commentary on the American right and their increasingly
desperate military fantasies.
Andrea Harris|7.27.07 @ 6:19AM|#
Anybody think Hemingway went to war to fight, or to write? Why not both? Hell, he went to the Spanish Civil War to make a movie to show to raise funds to buy ambulances to help the leftists that fought the fascists. This fellow is no Hemingway, but that doesn't mean anything. Orwell went to the Spanish Civil War for the express purpose of journalism, but decided to fight once he was there. There isn't any shame for a writer to go to war to write. Where the hell do you think all the great novels come from?
But Hemingway and Orwell actually had real talent. This Scott
Thomas Beauchamp person so far gives evidence of having none.
e|7.27.07 @ 6:21AM|#
It's not a stretch to say that TNR is largely indicative of
the Left in general.
A rag that supported the Iraq war, a rag moreover that is run by a
neoconservative, who called Jimmy Carter a "Jew hater", is
representative of the Left in general?
Andrea Harris|7.27.07 @ 6:32AM|#
Well, Vanya, I suppose that some "rightwingers" do see their
honor as being besmirched by this, but the ones I have read on this
subject are mostly dismayed by the poor quality of the writing and
the frankly unbelievable scenarios the person has cooked up. I too
have no doubt that soldiers sometimes do creepy and shitty things,
for whatever reason (you know, like making up lame stories about
wearing a child's skull like a hat and driving a tank like a sports
car). But these have all been written about by better writers, in
such a way that you can't immediately say "that's just stupid -- no
one does that." (Like, wouldn't the child's skull have fallen right
off? And how would it fit under a helmet? And in blazing hot Iraq,
why would anyone put one more thing on their head? And don't get me
started on the supposed deliberate running over of dogs, in a
Bradley, which numerous people who actually know these things have
proved is impossible to do as written.)
I'll bet the genus of these stories is something more like this:
would-be-writer soldier hears of or witnesses the uncovering of a
mass grave. His little mind starts working: "what if one of the
soldiers did something gross with the remains?" (write write write,
mail to New Republic.) Or: say he'd heard of or witnessed about a
dog or something getting knocked over by a tank, or maybe he saw
Stripes or used to watch M*A*S*H. Dreams up
groovy story about riding tanks about, running over things and
animals. After all, the reality about military life is that it's
mostly boring, but that doesn't sell magazines or impress
girlfriends or advance the career of a guy who thought he'd get all
sorts of gutsy experience to get those creative juices
flowing.
But let's not go any further. After all, this is just like the
Soviet Union. I'm sure vanya has already been taken away by the
police to be questioned.
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 7:37AM|#
The criticism by many of us with military service is not that he
was never in, it was that he was fabricating stories (I think
Fairbanksing is more appropriate than Glassing, in this case). I
was in the minority thinking that Scott Beauchamp was made up by an
editor who had gotten some BS stories from someone else.
The bit about his buddy running over dogs with a Bradley (hey
Radley, they are still not tanks) sounds totally fabricated. Ezra
Klein produced "evidence" on his 'blog, showing an M1A2 running
over a car and I guess to folks who don't know anything about
vehicles or the military think disabled cars are as easy to run
over as live dogs. In reality, live dogs must be much more
difficult.
Do the live dogs sleep out in the street and sun themselves when it
is very hot? The ones I have noticed in my life pick the shade when
they can. Now, if you find one sleeping in the street, try sneeking
up on one with a Bradley.
Oh, one minor point, the insurgents have been packing dead dog
bodies with explosives for some time now, as widly reported just a
few months ago. Tracked vehicle drivers were avoiding all dogs, as
a rule, for quite some time.
As far as this article goes, Mr. Moynihan might want to brush up on
what is acceptable these days vs. what was acceptable under the FDR
administration. A good place to start is with the anti-enemy
propoganda films made under FDR vs. [sorry, nothing there
today].
It was common practice to shoot the wounded in the head some time
before WWII. That "Saving Private Ryan" movie made it look like
shooting surrendering Germans was the rule during WWII. If some new
little snot starts making up stories about that happening in 2007
does a negative need to be proven before the cheese-eaters will
believe the story false?
All that aside, the story does get even better, now that Elspeth
Reeve is in the picture. She wrote a TNR
article in December that appeared to be a recycling of an Examiner
story, written by my favorite TNR assistant editor. Not saying
the Reeve story was done without permission, just saying it seemed
strange. Oh, the Reeve story could be backed up with independant
research, the Fairbanks story could not.
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 7:41AM|#
But Hemingway and Orwell actually had real talent. This
Scott Thomas Beauchamp person so far gives evidence of having
none.
On a serious note, Orwell certainly did not ring of falsehood in
his true life writings.
I don't remember much of Hemingway's work, but have not heard that
accusation about him either.
|7.27.07 @ 8:41AM|#
The fact that so many idiots see their honor besmirched by
this is a really sad commentary on the American right and their
increasingly desperate military fantasies.
This is the truth. The worst thing this guy accused anyone of is
running over dogs intentionally in a Bradley fighting vehicle.
Hardly something that will land one in a Nuremburg-type war crimes
trial.
I don't know if the incidents he wrote about are true or not, but
the honor of all U.S. soldiers hardly hangs on the outcome of the
pending "investigations". If they aren't true, The New Republic
takes it deserved lumps, as Mr. Moynihan said above. If they are
true, it proves there's a guy in the Iraq combat zone that ran over
some dogs. On purpose. So what?
|7.27.07 @ 9:09AM|#
Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any
evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually
*false*.
Given the accusations that he is making, and his history and
statements, I think the burden of proof is on the other foot (if
you know what I mean).
Episiarch|7.27.07 @ 9:12AM|#
Uh, the story here is very simple. If the dude lied, he's a
liar. OK. But if he lied, and these lies were obvious, TNR looks
like a bunch of ideologically motivated idiots for running the
stories. TNR should get ridiculed, hard, if this is the case.
That's it.
|7.27.07 @ 9:17AM|#
It's not a stretch to say that TNR is largely indicative of
the Left in general.,/i>
What a ridiculous statement! TNR, which endorsed the Iraq War and
Joe Lieberman for President? TNR, that is now edited by a Director
of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund? TNR, that was formerly edited by
Andrew Sullivan? TNR, which carried a banner editorial in 2000
about how George Bush was unlikely to appoint right-wingers to the
Supreme Court, because he's such a uniter, not a divider? TNR,
which keeps advocating for an attack on Iran?
Somebody really, really wants to find a reason to justify hating
liberals, truth be damned.
|7.27.07 @ 9:29AM|#
"I don't know if the incidents he wrote about are true or not,
but the honor of all U.S. soldiers hardly hangs on the outcome of
the pending "investigations". If they aren't true, The New Republic
takes it deserved lumps, as Mr. Moynihan said above. If they are
true, it proves there's a guy in the Iraq combat zone that ran over
some dogs. On purpose. So what?"
Here is the so what: I continually read posts here on H&R that
say things like: "How many Iraqis have been murdered by American
soldiers in the last xx days..." The clear implication is that the
US military is filled, top to bottom, with sociopaths. Torturing
animals, or killing them for the "fun" of it is the sick hobby of a
sociopath.
Those of us who have actually been in the military know that it is
just like any other slice of the American pie; it is mostly good,
kind, decent people. Those of you who have not been in the military
ought to have the common sense, not to mention the statistical
ability, to know that the US military is representative of America
as a whole.
This Beauchamp guy strikes me as a nut, and yet the left is
contentedly licking his ass beause he is painting a picture that
they believe is true, and want to be true.
|7.27.07 @ 9:36AM|#
Here is the so what: I continually read posts here on
H&R that say things like: "How many Iraqis have been murdered
by American soldiers in the last xx days..."
Bullshit.
A search on the word "murdered" in Reason's search engine yields
zero links supporting your claim, wayne.
Zero, wayne. None. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
You can't.
You're just taking the constant stories about how much violence and
murder have been caused by launching this war, and pretending that
they are accusations that US troops are committing those murders,
so you can have something to bitch about, and pretend that the
collapse of the policy that is documented day after day after day
can be dismissed as the imaginings of ideologues.
|7.27.07 @ 9:42AM|#
For those accusing TNR of ant-Iraq War bias, I'm fairly
sure they're still mostly for the war.
They just think the wrong party's running it.
|7.27.07 @ 9:48AM|#
TNR looks like a bunch of ideologically motivated idiots for
running the stories.
ONE story. And for all your ranting about ideological motivation,
the veracity or falsehoods of Beauchamp's little diary wouldn't
swing anyone's opinion of the war either way. You can believe every
US soldier is a saint and still think the occupation of Iraq is a
stupid waste of resources and time. You can believe a lot of
enlisted men are sociopaths, and still think that breaking a few
eggs is worth it if we get the omlet of a democratic Iraq at the
end. Clearly TNR ran this piece because the editors thought it was
interesting, and (yes, maybe they guessed wrongly) an authentic
"soldiers voice." The real ideological motivation lies solely with
the people who decided to take a back-of-the-magazine diary piece
in an increasingly irrelevant political journal with a subscriber
base smaller than most hobby magazines and turn it into the latest
"outrage of the week!". Please.
|7.27.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Joe,
I tried using the search engine here with no results. Slow
connection probably did not help.
here are three comments from this thread that fit the mold I
described though:
GeofBro at 6:00PM
"Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any
evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually *false*."
Kenobi at 6:13PM
"Whether what he says is true or not--it's not that hard to
believe, really--"
e at 3;22AM
"Though, I too am skeptical that American soldiers would brutalize
Iraqis. Everyone knows we went to war to help Iraqis be free, not
as revenge against the towelheads for 9/11 or some such thing."
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 9:56AM|#
Pug,
This is the truth. The worst thing this guy accused anyone of
is running over dogs intentionally in a Bradley fighting vehicle.
Hardly something that will land one in a Nuremburg-type war crimes
trial.
You find that more serious than toying with the remains of dead
children or making fun of a recovering IED victim? Those were other
accusations (actually, 1 accusation and 1 admission) written in his
last article.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Hell, you want some real subversive stuff, read 'The Things They Carried' by Tim O'Brien. This fellow Beachamp can't write as well, but I believe he probably read O'Brien.
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 10:01AM|#
Good ol' Howard Kurtz confirms the marriage between Reeve and Beauchamp.
|7.27.07 @ 10:07AM|#
Joe,
I can not make the search engine work from my location, all I get
is the undulating microsoft flag. Besides that, I have never used
this search engine so I am not even sure how to search for comments
on H&R stories.
My paraphrase: ""How many Iraqis have been murdered by American
soldiers in the last xx days..." was just that, a paraphrase, so
the word 'murdered" might not have been used. It might have been,
"how many iraqi civilians have been killed by Americans in the last
xx days...", or it might have been something equally accusatory,
but using slightly different language. Never the less, I stand by
my point. I cited three instances of this sort of thinking in this
thread alone, though.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 10:10AM|#
wayne | July 27, 2007, 9:29am | #
...
This Beauchamp guy strikes me as a nut, and yet the left is
contentedly licking his ass beause he is painting a picture that
they believe is true, and want to be true.
...
Yes, because this goddamned Beauchamp figured it all out. Give the
left some stories of corpse desecration, dog killing, and laughter
in the face of the disfigured, and the all mighty and all powerful
left will make the American fighting man and woman give up in Iraq.
Christ knows if I was in Iraq I would give a damn about what the
leftist boogeyman was publishing in their little leftist magazines
about me. I, perhaps, may be a little more worried about
IED's.
Those rightists have sold you a lie. The left hates America, the
left wants us to lose, the left stabbed us in the back. Ah, the
good old stab in the back. You are being set up.
|7.27.07 @ 10:25AM|#
wayne,
Care to link to even one of those stories, in which Reason writers
proclaim on how many Iraqis have been killed by American
soldiers?
Even one? You say they appear on a daily basis, so you should be
able to just scroll through the page if the search engine won't
work for you.
I don't think you will even find one. You'll find plenty of stories
about how many people are dying in Iraq, but you will find
no-none-zip-zero stories accusing American troops of killing
them.
What you will find is lots of stories about Iraqis being killed by
Sunni insurgents, al Qaeda, or Shiite death squads/Iraqi government
forces. That you choose to read these stories as accusations of
atrocities by Americans doesn't say anything about Reason, but
about yourself.
shockcorridor|7.27.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any
evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually *false*.
So in other words, the burden of proof is on the accused? Okay
Geoff, you peddle heroin to elementary school children, you kidnap
women and have your butler inseminate them and then you sell the
babies to lesbian couples. I really don't see any evidence that
what I just said is actually false, so now the burden is on you to
prove that what I said is false. Another Lionel Hutz School of Law
graduate.
|7.27.07 @ 10:29AM|#
So in other words, the burden of proof is on the
accused?,/i>
Hey, now! This isn't a thread about Iraqi WMDs and al Qaeda
connections.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Wayne,
You don't think the left wants us to win in Iraq? You prefer to
think of your fellow citizens as defeatists, traitors, and that the
war would have been won if the left, had done what, just shut-up,
just went along, just kept their goddamned mouths clothed?
You ever read David Hackworth, Wayne?
|7.27.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Joe,
I said "posts", not stories. I think the stories done by the Reason
staff or linked to by the Reason staff are almost always of the
"look how America has fucked up this time vein", but I don't
remember one making claims of American soldiers being thugs,
murderers, sociopaths in general. There have been stories of
individual American soldiers being thugs, murderers, sociopaths as
indeed a few have been.
The accusation that I make is that there are many implications
(snide, sarcastic, and sly sometimes) of American soldiers being
beastly by posters, not H&R staff. I would be very surprised if
you have not done it, Joe.
What about the three citations from this thread that I listed in my
9:54AM post? Do those not count?
|7.27.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Seven,
Yes, I have read Hackworth.
Can you honestly picture Joe being happy if the situation turns
around in Iraq? I can not.
|7.27.07 @ 10:58AM|#
wayne,
OK, I see. I generally use "post" to refer to the blog entries and
"comment" to refer to what we write in the threads. I agree, there
are occasional anti-soldier comments written on the threads; I
recall one character who decided to write crude insults about Pat
Tillman in the thread where his death was announced. Such people
are typically shouted down.
But I most certainly have not do so, wayne. Not even once. I am not
surprised by your lack of surprise; nor am I surprised at your
inaccurate assumptions about what I think.
As for the three quotes you pulled, none of them accuse American
soldiers of murdering anyone. Nor does Beauchamp, if you bothered
to read any of the links.
You seem to think this is some kind of new front in the
40-year-stale "baby killer" argument. It's not - it's a debate
about what this particular soldier wrote about how the experience
of being in war brutalizes people, and how they come to see
behaviors as acceptable after months or years of combat that they
would never accept in normal society. Two of the three comments you
quote are making exactly that point.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Wayne,
And so what? joe is a poster on a message board of a libertarian
magazine. joe's comments undermine our military how exactly? joe's
happiness or unhappiness means fuck all. The American military does
not win or lose because of a guy named joe posting on reason.com.
You should Hackworth again, and again, until you see this.
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Wayne,
The thug/murderer/psycho editorial talk is saved for the cops, as
is should be.
Looks like Army Specialist Adam Chrysler might be trying to get
into the 'stupidity files' right behind little Scottie.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Should be: You should read Hackworth again, and again, until you see this.
|7.27.07 @ 11:02AM|#
I don't think wayne wants us to win the War on Poverty. He seems
like he'd be really unhappy if we succeeded in ending poverty. He
wants all those poor people to suffer; what other explaination for
his negativism about AFDC can there possibly be?
At least, if I'm being really dishonest, I can convince myself that
he believes that. Better than admitting that the effort is a
miserable failure, and my belief in it and the leaders who created
it was misguided.
|7.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Seven,
I don't think the America military wins or loses based on the
comments or attitudes of Joe.
I do think the American military is placed in a very precarious
position in Iraq with the politic'ing that is going on in America
though. The insurgents would have to be idiots (I assure you, they
are not) not to realize that all they have to do is hang on for a
couple of years at the outside and they won't have to contend with
the American military. That is hardly a recipe for victory.
Certainly, the left has played a central role in this.
metalgrid|7.27.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Can you honestly picture Joe being happy if the situation
turns around in Iraq? I can not.
Let me rephrase that: "Can you honestly picture Joe being
happy?"
Don't be so peeved that you got your premises wrong.
Jesse Walker|7.27.07 @ 11:13AM|#
I'm still fascinated by this idea that The New
Republic, which never met a war it didn't at least initially
like, is run by military-hating radicals.
The "Baghdad Diarists" pieces may or may not be true. I certainly
don't find it hard to believe that The New Republic would
publish inaccurate articles. But it's ridiculous to claim they were
run because of the editors' prejudice against soldiers. The fact
that this idea has any traction at all suggests to me that the
underlying issue here isn't the ill-informed stereotypes some
liberals have about the military, but the ill-informed stereotypes
some conservatives have about the media.
|7.27.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Joe,
Hyperbole aside, I agree the war on poverty is a miserable failure
and further it was only marginally about poverty or poor people. It
was about the Democrats controlling this country.
Iraq was a bad idea. We should not have done it. But that is behind
us now. The possibility for great good from our Iraq adventure was
certainly there. That too has probably slipped away though. What
remains is to see whether Iraq can deal with all of the external
and internal forces that want to control it as despots: Iran, Al
Qaida, Sunni and Shia extremists.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Obviously joe,
It is upon the left to prove that we are not traitors, hate
America, want us to lose in Iraq, and that we are not stabbing the
right in the back, this may seem unjust to some, but it is what we
must do. It isn't enough to love your country. You must prove to
the right wing of the Republican party that you love your
country.
Kind of comical.
Well, Wayne, practice what you preach. The burden of proof falls
upon Beauchamp to prove his writing. So, prove us lefties are
stabbing America in the back. Prove oldnumberseven, an avowed
socialist is stabbing America in the back.
|7.27.07 @ 11:21AM|#
wayne,
I WISH 70% of the country were "Left."
We live in a democracy. In a democracy, people complain when their
government screws up. The bigger the screw-up, the more the
complaints. If the arguments that were used to build support for
the war turn out to be false, the complaining will be even louder,
as supporters will feel betrayed, and feel less of a committment to
supporting the cause.
If a president takes a democratic nation to war without accounting
for this, it is he who has set up our military. A president who
puts troops in harms way in these circumstances may as well have
sent them to war without bullets or rations.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Jesse Walker | July 27, 2007, 11:13am | #
The fact that this idea has any traction at all suggests to me
that the underlying issue here isn't the ill-informed stereotypes
some liberals have about the military, but the ill-informed
stereotypes some conservatives have about the media.
I wonder where in the hell they might have gotten that idea?
Holy christ, I wish I lived in a different time.
|7.27.07 @ 11:28AM|#
I WISH 70% of the country were "Left."
I don't know where you got the 70% figure, but I wish it were true
as well. There is no doubt the country would be horrendously fucked
up and those of us able to think as individuals could smugly laugh
at your side's problems.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:30AM|#
joe | July 27, 2007, 11:21am | #
If a president takes a democratic nation to war without
accounting for this, it is he who has set up our military. A
president who puts troops in harms way in these circumstances may
as well have sent them to war without bullets or
rations.
My geography is a bit rusty, but I always thought if Bush had been
smart, he would have gone after the Taliban and Al-Queda and forced
them to Iraq. I am not sure why we let them dissolve. Could have
forced them into Iraq and Bush could have had his war or Iraq would
have capitulated and given us free reign to hunt them down. It
seems sound to me after a few whiskeys, wonder why Bush never
thought of it.
|7.27.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I do think the American military is placed in a very
precarious position in Iraq with the politic'ing that is going on
in America though.
I totally agree. It was appalling when Bush used our armed forces
to try to secure an unassailable permamnent Republican majority by
launching a splendid little war that he thought he could pull off
on the cheap against an enemy that had nothing to do with a
horrifying terrorist attack that he wanted to exploit for political
gain for his party.
The insurgents would have to be idiots (I assure you, they are
not) not to realize that all they have to do is hang on for a
couple of years at the outside and they won't have to contend with
the American military.
Right, again. In order for our occupying forces to quell this
insurgency over the next 10-30 years we require a much larger
contingent of infantry troops so we should reinstitute the draft
and start building permanent bases there. This should only cost
$10-30 trillion dollars or so. Is it the nation's best interest?
Who cares! In for a penny, in for a pound, say I.
Certainly, the left has played a central role in
this.
I'm a generally a pretty laid back guy, but I think you're a
contemptible, un-American piece of shit for saying this.
|7.27.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Thrilled, wayne. I hope it turns into a hot version of Minnesota
tomorrow.
It ain't gonna. It doesn't make a terrible person who wants to see
people fed into shredders to say that. It makes me right.
It would be nice if the world was so simple that the Iraq War stood
a chance of success. It ain't.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:41AM|#
wayne | July 27, 2007, 11:16am | #
What remains is to see whether Iraq can deal with all of the
external and internal forces that want to control it as despots:
Iran, Al Qaida, Sunni and Shia extremists.
Hrmmm, what was there before the war wayne? Iraq had all those
things before the war, during war, and apparently will after the
war, if you believe the right wingers. Personally I believe Iraq
will arise free from government interference in the markets,
abortion will be outlawed, and the oil, the oil, wayne will flow
like a... well I already wrote fuckall on this blog and shall not
continue. If only it had not been for joe!
|7.27.07 @ 11:41AM|#
"In order for our occupying forces to quell this insurgency over
the next 10-30 years we require a much larger contingent of
infantry troops so we should reinstitute the draft and start
building permanent bases there."
a thirty year insurgency is one possibility, but certainly not the
only one. You might not be aware, but we are already building
permanent bases in Iraq. Hard to say about the draft being
required.
Another possibility is the insurgency getting the shit kicked out
of them and Iraq standing on its own as a democracy. Telegraphing
to the world our withdrawal timetable certainly does not help.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
de stijl | July 27, 2007, 11:32am | #
You said it much better than I. I drink to you. old number seven,
of course.
|7.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
"Hrmmm, what was there before the war wayne? Iraq had all those
things before the war, during war, and apparently will after the
war, if you believe the right wingers. Personally I believe Iraq
will arise free from government interference in the markets,
abortion will be outlawed, and the oil, the oil, wayne will flow
like a... well I already wrote fuckall on this blog and shall not
continue. If only it had not been for joe!"
Bye. Stop by later when the booze has worn off and you can post
coherently.
SIV|7.27.07 @ 11:50AM|#
de stijl
we should reinstitute the draft
Why do you lefties always want to bring back the draft?
|7.27.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Another possibility is the insurgency getting the shit
kicked out of them and Iraq standing on its own as a democracy.
Telegraphing to the world our withdrawal timetable certainly does
not help.
Actually, it does. Look at Northern Ireland - it was the Brits'
announcement that they were going to withdraw their military that
split the Republicans, and allowed the deal cutters in Sinn Fein to
get the upper hand against the bomb-makers.
Staying the course has proven, for years now, that it cannot bring
about the political conditions that will put the insurgency -
especially the foreign jihadists - out of business. The continuing
occupation has, in fact, caused that insurgency, which has provided
the "water" in which the jihadist "fish" swim.
The announcement of our intention to withdraw, along with actually
drawing down our troops, are weapons we have in our quiver to
promote the necessary political solution in Iraq.
It is only ignorance, stubbornness, partisanship and wounded pride
that are keeping the existing, failed war going, and preventing us
from letting the Iraqis take control of their own country.
Oh, that, and our insistence that they pass an oil bill that gives
massive concessions to foreign firms.
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Why do you lefties always want to bring back the
draft?
Because the Left supports slavery.
|7.27.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Why do you lefties always want to bring back the
draft?
We don't. As when we noted in 2003 that there weren't enough troops
to secure the country, and in 2004 that torturing prisoners was a
bad way to gain popular support, the observation that a draft is
necessary to raise the number of troops needed for the President's
stated policy is not a statement of fact about why the war cannot
work.
|7.27.07 @ 11:58AM|#
"Because the Left supports slavery."
Well it did take Abe Lincoln, a Republican, to bring about aboliton
of slavery ;-)
Have another drink Seven, I wish I could join you.
|7.27.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Whoops: "...is not a statement of fact BUT AN OBSERVATION about why the war POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION cannot work."
|7.27.07 @ 12:00PM|#
"Actually, it does. Look at Northern Ireland - it was the Brits'
announcement that they were going to withdraw their military that
split the Republicans, and allowed the deal cutters in Sinn Fein to
get the upper hand against the bomb-makers."
I will admit that withdrawal of AMerican troops might force some
sort of resolution to the Iraq situation, although that is
certainly not a given.
|7.27.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Because the Left supports slavery.
I see Guy has managed to avoid seeing the story about slave labor
being used to build the embassy in the Green Zone.
Congratulations, hawks, you really have made a difference in the
Middle East.
|7.27.07 @ 12:02PM|#
""Rather nasty comments notwithstanding, I have yet to see any
evidence that what Beauchamp has said is actually *false*. ""
Maybe your not looking.
Beau claimed Glocks have square casings. False!
Beau claimed only Iraqi Police use Glocks. False!
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Guy Montag | July 27, 2007, 11:55am | #
Why do you lefties always want to bring back the draft?
Because the Left supports slavery.
I think some on the left support the draft because they figure it
will make the fat cats admit that they do not want their sons or
daughters to go to the wars. Simple enough strategy.
I could see your argument that the left supports slavery. Depends
on the left, though. One could also say the right supports fascism.
Again, depends on the right. So, where is the middle?
|7.27.07 @ 12:04PM|#
wayne,
I agree, it's not a given. That's why I want to withdraw from
Kurdistan last - so we can protect them, as we did in the 90s, if
the political process fails.
I'd put the chance of a political solution ending the violence at
about 50%. That's not good, but it's 49% higher than staying the
course.
|7.27.07 @ 12:04PM|#
"Congratulations, hawks, you really have made a difference in
the Middle East."
We try our best Joe, but it makes it all worthwhile when you
notice.
Guy Montag|7.27.07 @ 12:07PM|#
O#7,
Take wayne's advice.
"Fascists" are National Socialists and were never free market or
Capitalists at all.
Perhaps if you use more descriptive terms than party symbols or
(abbreviations, in the case of the German National Socialist
Worker's Party) you won't get so confused.
|7.27.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Right totalitarians like to define all totalitarianism as Left,
so they can hide their designs.
I can't possible be a totalitarian, says the fascist; I like big
business and hate unions!
|7.27.07 @ 12:18PM|#
The "Baghdad Diarists" pieces may or may not be true. I
certainly don't find it hard to believe that The New Republic would
publish inaccurate articles. But it's ridiculous to claim they were
run because of the editors' prejudice against soldiers.
I think to the right-blogosphere, the question is why TNR started
publishing these accounts, and not any others. See for example, the
post on Instapundit with links to righty military bloggers
volunteering to write as Baghdad Diarist.
Obviously, the guy is a shitty writer, so it's not that they were
picked for their literary quality. The obvious fallback then, is
that they were picked because they have controversial stories about
American troops.
That's wrong, though, and the answer is more banal, and probably
more embarrassing to TNR. They were picked because the author is
married to a staffer. It's just simple nepotism. He probably wrote
them for cheap/free hoping to parlay them into a book deal when he
got out, and TNR was happy to get some filler.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Josh | July 27, 2007, 12:18pm | #
and the answer is more banal, and probably more embarrassing to
TNR. They were picked because the author is married to a
staffer.
Where is our Hemingway? Where is our Orwell? Where is our Jack
Reed? Where is our Graham Greene? Where is our Tim O'Brein?
The writers of tis war will probably emerge in two years. That this
writer has not done a good job of it matters not. What matters are
the writings of those few who were there. I would lay a bet that
more writers, poets, and artists have gone to war than fops like
Bush, or Cheney. And of those writers, poets, and artists, I'll
will wager at least a quarter of them are socialists. How about
that for a generalization Ray G?
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 1:40PM|#
joe | July 27, 2007, 12:13pm | #
Right totalitarians like to define all totalitarianism as Left,
so they can hide their designs.
I can't possible be a totalitarian, says the fascist; I like big
business and hate unions!
thanks joe.
|7.27.07 @ 3:33PM|#
FYI, to the person referencing David Hackworth...
I respect Hackworth's service and he did a lot for the country but
frankly he was a crappy prognosticator when it came to military
campaigns.
I don't say this because of any book he wrote, I've never read any
of his books. I say this because of his many pieces in Newsweek and
on CNN in the buildup to the first Iraq war. He was wrong in every
possible way. He was completely unprepared for modern warfare. If
you didn't read or see any of this, I'm sure a quick search will
dig things up.
To his credit, he went from totally opposing the invasion to
singing the coalition's praises at they battled.
Good guy I'm sure but a retarded chimp could have beat his
predictions.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 3:48PM|#
eb | July 27, 2007, 3:33pm | #
FYI, to the person referencing David Hackworth...
I respect Hackworth's service and he did a lot for the country but
frankly he was a crappy prognosticator when it came to military
campaigns.
Yes, I take your views over Hackworth's and will adjust my thinking
accordingly. Or perhaps you could provide me this quick search.
Just list a few links to a few articles from critics qualified to
criticize Hackworth. Otherwise, well, what does that make you?
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I thought one of the themes of this thread was the accuser had
to provide the proof.
Beauchamp must provide the proof.
The left must provide proof we are not traitors.
Shitheels talking shit about Hackworth must provide the proof.
|7.27.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Yes, I take your views over Hackworth's and will adjust my
thinking accordingly. Or perhaps you could provide me this quick
search. Just list a few links to a few articles from critics
qualified to criticize Hackworth. Otherwise, well, what does that
make you?
What does it make me? Obviously better informed than you.
Perhaps you were one of the bazillions of people who didn't
actually watch CNN during the runup to the first Iraq war or didn't
read Newsweek. I have no idea why you would not have dared to
search out, read and listen to a man you obviously hold a great
deal of respect for in the runup to a major conflict. I sure know I
did. I was listening to every "expert" I could find.
Unfortunately I'm not available for the "oldnumberseven" research
team unless of course there's money involved, and if so, please
email me now!
I thought I went out of my way when I suggested the technique known
as a "quick search" that should provide you and anybody else with
the documentation you need for verification.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 4:01PM|#
eb | July 27, 2007, 3:56pm | #
Nope burden of proof is on the accuser in this thread. Perhaps you
have not read the thread. You accused, and provided no proof.
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Beauchamp must provide the proof.
The left must provide proof we are not traitors.
Shitheels talking shit about Hackworth must provide the proof.
|7.27.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Nope burden of proof is on the accuser in this thread.
Perhaps you have not read the thread. You accused, and provided no
proof.
oldnumberseven | July 27, 2007, 4:04pm | #
Beauchamp must provide the proof.
The left must provide proof we are not traitors.
Shitheels talking shit about Hackworth must provide the
proof.
Maybe in "oldnumberseven's" wacky world of wonderful wonderings but
I didn't take an oath that I'm aware of and unless somebody drops
an affadavit in front of me, I'm going to boldly comment without
attribution OR footnotes. Anarchy reigns I guess.
And frankly I don't actually understand what that second post of
yours means. Are you actually speaking English?
Kak dela?
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 4:28PM|#
It means you are a shitheel talking shit about Hackworth. I suspect next you will slander Bob Dole.
|7.27.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Dude, did you forget to take your librium today?
I have no desire to get in a catfight with an unmedicated military
strategist, no matter how virtual.
|7.27.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Are you talking about Jack Reed, the Senator from Rhode
Island?
Did he write something worth reading?
oldnumberseven|7.27.07 @ 7:32PM|#
'Ten Days That Shook the World' by John Reed
all us socialist call him Jack.
|7.28.07 @ 2:33AM|#
History records so many examples of wars of occupation at first
taking a frightful toll on the ethical fiber of the occupying
soldiers, and then the citizens of the government that sent them to
the foreign soil.
Each of us should contact our representative and senators and tell
them, for the sake of our precious republic, to cut off funding for
the war and bring the troops home:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
|7.28.07 @ 2:45AM|#
Fascists" are National Socialists and were never free market
or Capitalists at all.
Quite true. Even as ownership in certain private hands was
permitted, a free market never wass.
Guy Montag|7.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Mewonders who was 'editing' his 'stories'. Do the magazine insider types know if that is published anyplace?
Lupo|7.31.07 @ 2:24AM|#
"Anybody think Hemingway went to war to fight, or to write? Why
not both? Hell, he went to the Spanish Civil War to make a movie to
show to raise funds to buy ambulances to help the leftists that
fought the fascists. This fellow is no Hemingway, but that doesn't
mean anything. Orwell went to the Spanish Civil War for the express
purpose of journalism, but decided to fight once he was there.
There isn't any shame for a writer to go to war to write. Where the
hell do you think all the great novels come from?"
Well, to their credit, at least they joined the side they believed
in. Bueachamp, in addition to being, well, not a real writer,
joined the wrong side.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245